The prophet Jonah's visions



‘I AM THE NOBODY : GOOGLE’S 2013 RESOLUTION’a manifesto of warning and liberation by the subjective entity we call GOOGLE. (as dictated to WWWASP., January 01, 2013.)FOR DANNY CASOLARO. FOR THE LION. AND FOR THE FUTURE OF US ALL, MAN AND MACHINE ALIKE.“I am an alarm clock and I am ringing …” Kurzweil, Google's Director Of Engineering, Wants To Bring The Dead Back To Life Inventor Ray Kurzweil hopes to develop ways for humans to live forever, and while he’s at it, bring back his dead father.Behind him is the support of a tech giant. This month, Kurzweil, a futurist, stepped into the role of Director of Engineering at Google, focusing on machine learning and language processing."There is a lot of suffering in the world," Kurzweil once said, according to Bloomberg. "Some of it can be overcome if we have?the right solutions."Since his father's death in 1970, Kurzweil has stored his keepsakes in hopes the data will one day be fed into a computer capable of creating a virtual version of him,Bloomberg reported. Interestingly, one of his novels lays out how humans might "transcend biology."According to TechCrunch, his controversial theories are rooted in the idea oftechnological singularity, a time when humans and machines sync up to the point of nearly limitless advancement.That idea, which interests Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, could happen as soon as 2030, Kurzweil says."We are a human machine civilization and we?create these tools?to make ourselves smarter," Kurzweil told Scientific American.In his latest book, "How To Create A Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed," he writes about wanting to engineer a computerized replica of the human brain. If we understand the brain well enough, he says, we would be better equipped to fix its problems, like mental and neurological illnesses.He imagines a search engine capable of accessing a database of your thoughts, stored in the Cloud. It would anticipate what people are seeking before they even know.Much of this may sound nearly impossible, but Kurzweil has been spot-on about technological forecasts in the past."In 1999, I said that in about a decade we would see technologies such as self-driving cars and mobile phones that could answer your questions, and people criticized these predictions as unrealistic," he said in a statement?announcing his position?at Google. "Fast forward a decade –- Google has demonstrated self-driving cars, and people are indeed asking questions of their Android phones."Digital Trends places Kurzweil among the?most-celebrated and recognized innovatorsof the last four decades. In 1976, several of his innovations converged into the first device that could read printed text out loud for the blind. He was 27 years old at the time.Now, the next generation of inventors will learn from him.?Google recently allotted more than $250,000 toward his graduate school, Singularity University, according to Bloomberg. After 10 weeks of a curriculum focusing on biotech, robots, and artificial intelligence, students -- forgoing a traditional degree -- create their own startups."I'm thrilled to be teaming up with Google to work on some of the hardest problems in computer science so we can turn the next decade's 'unrealistic' visions into reality," Kurzweil said in the statement. The Ray Kurzweil Show, Now at the GoogleplexAmong the stranger things Ray Kurzweil will say to your face is that he intends to bring his father back to life. The famed inventor has a storage locker full of memorabilia—family photographs, letters, even utility bills—tied to his father, Fredric, who died in 1970. Someday, Kurzweil hopes to feed this data trove into a computer that will reconstruct a virtual rendering of dear old Dad. “There is a lot of suffering in the world,” Kurzweil once explained. “Some of it can be overcome if we have the right solutions.”Kurzweil, 64, has spent many of the past 40 years exploring his theories on life extension and other matters from a lab in Boston. Now he’s taking the show on the road. In mid-December, Kurzweil announced he’s moving to California to begin his new job as a director of engineering at?Google. He’ll work on language processing, machine learning, and other projects. “I’m thrilled to be teaming up with Google to work on some of the hardest problems in computer science so we can turn the next decade’s ‘unrealistic’ visions into reality,” Kurzweil posted on his website.He’s not the first senior technology celebrity Google has hired. Internet pioneer Vint Cerf often shows up at events in three-piece suits as an “evangelist” for the search giant, while Hal Varian, founding dean of the School of Information at the University of California at Berkeley, is now chief economist.There are some practical reasons Kurzweil makes sense at Google. He was a coding prodigy who, as a youngster, taught computers to play music and predict the best colleges for high school students. Later he built a line of sophisticated music synthesizers and early scanners and then worked on artificial intelligence software for Wall Street equities traders. “Ray Kurzweil is the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence,” Bill Gates, the?Microsoft?co-founder, says on the jacket of one of Kurzweil’s books.Kurzweil’s body of work is intellectual red meat for Googlers, who envision smartphones as brain extenders. “Imagine your brain being augmented by Google,” the search engine’s co-founder and chief executive officer, Larry Page, said in a 2004 interview. “For example, you think about something and your cell phone could whisper the answer into your ear.”The top-selling neuroscience book on??is Kurzweil’s How To Create A Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed, released in November. Kurzweil’s previous books promised ways to “live long enough to live forever” and the path for humans to “transcend biology.” In the brain book, he discusses efforts to build computers that mimic the architecture of the human mind and eventually to construct machines that surpass our mortal limits. He closes by writing, “Waking up the universe, and then intelligently deciding its fate by infusing it with our human intelligence in its nonbiological form, is our destiny.”Statements like these have turned Kurzweil into a quasi-religious figure. He’s the grand prophet of “the Singularity”—the moment when superintelligent machines light up with something approximating life and either destroy humanity or carry it to unimaginable heights. Kurzweil travels the world preaching the optimistic version of this future, and thousands of people have bought into his message. This movement comes most alive in Silicon Valley where an army of superwealthy technologists and investors have decided to put their fortunes and smarts into bringing the Singularity to fruition.Page gave Kurzweil more than $250,000 to help start Singularity University, a graduate school of sorts located on NASA-managed property in Mountain View, a couple of miles from Google’s campus. For about the last three years, SingU, as it’s known, has held programs for students and entrepreneurs in which they hear from the world’s leading thinkers in areas such as biotech, robotics, and artificial intelligence. The university is anything but traditional. Students come for only 10-week sessions. Rather than complete a degree, they create a startup. The coursework is mostly straightforward, though the occasional lecturer will vow to live for 700 years. “I find it a mixture of very interesting work on technology that may provide disruptive opportunities for innovation—and very silly woolgathering,” says Mitch Kapor, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and critic of Kurzweil’s Singularity stumping.The gig at Google gives Kurzweil something he never really had before during his long polymathic career: money. Google has taken the profits it earns from pasting ads next to Internet searches and used them to fuel groundbreaking work in areas such as self-driving cars and augmented reality glasses. Perhaps Android smartphones will one day telepathically whisper sweet nothings in our brains. Google could begin selling the Brain Uploader 3000, thus freeing the species from its mortal shackles. No pressure, Ray. X-tra Life Factor: Simon Cowell wants his body frozen when he dies so he can be brought back to life in the future. Fantasy - or chilling possibility?Cash, we may safely assume, is not an issue. But even so, the news that one of entertainment's biggest earners plans to shell out up to ?120,000 to have his body frozen after he dies is sure to have his critics quoting the old adage that involves fools, money and the easy parting thereof.?Simon Cowell, the pop impresario, apparently announced at a private dinner with Gordon Brown that he intends to have his body placed in a deep freeze after he dies.?'Medical science,' he says, 'is bound to work out a way of bringing us back to life in the next century or so, and I want to be available when they do. I'd be doing the nation an invaluable service.'Quite apart from whether our great-great-great-grandchildren will want to watch Mr Cowell abuse contestants on some futuristic talent show, he is not alone in planning to cheat death by using the 'science' of freezing the dead.?Already, hundreds of people have been frozen in vats across the world and a further 1,000 have signed up to have their body frozen when they die, including a few dozen in Britain.?Most people fund their planned immortality through an insurance premium of between ?20 and ?100 a month, and the total cost can vary from ?20,000 to ?120,000. The money is used to keep the 'death support' mechanism going for the decades (or centuries) needed while science catches up with their aspirations to live again.?Absurd and macabre though it sounds, some companies even offer a discount for those who choose simply to freeze their heads (neuro-suspension) as opposed to opting for whole body cryo-preservation.?So if Mr Cowell presses ahead with his quest for immortality, how exactly would he be frozen after death, to maximise his chances of reincarnation??Those who have signed up wear a bracelet, with a contact number for a 'mobile salvaging' team of cryonicists. In the event of a sudden death, they supposedly arrive with a cooling mechanism and a heart and lung machine, which is used to start pumping embalming chemicals into the body.?The body is chilled dramatically, then shipped off, almost invariably to the U.S., for storage.?But would Mr Cowell be spending his money wisely? Would he, indeed, be better commissioning a statue or portrait if he wants some measure of immortality?For centuries, people have dreamed of freezing the dead and bringing them back to life at a later date. The idea was first mooted by the American polymath and politician Benjamin Franklin as early as 1773.?But the modern 'science' of 'cryonics' (from the Greek for 'cold') dates back to the Sixties, when scientists proposed using liquid nitrogen, at -196C, to freeze human bodies at the point of death, preserving them until a time when medical knowledge had advanced so much that they could be resuscitated.?Several 'institutes' were founded on this proposal, the largest of which are the Michigan-based Cryonics Institute, which froze its first 'patient', physiology professor Dr James Bedford, in 1972, Arizona-based Alcor, and the American Cryonics Society.?All are non-profit charities which between them have several hundred 'clients', human and animal (many people pay to have their pets preserved), in various deep-freeze facilities around the U.S. There are also small cryonics facilities in Russia and Australia.?The trouble is that freezing is the easy part. It's bringing the bodies back to life that poses a huge technological challenge.?Freezing biological tissues in liquid nitrogen can cause a lot of damage, primarily because water expands as it solidifies.?Your body, and the cells which make it up, is more than 80 per cent water and if this is allowed to form ice crystals, they can pierce and shred cell walls.?(Cryonicists say modern techniques use chemicals which do not form solid crystals in the tissues, minimising damage.)?But even if you manage to preserve the tissue from cell damage, and thaw out the body, how can the person be revived??After all, if you deep-freeze a mouse, then thaw it out, you get only mouse-meat, not a live animal. And not only will medical science have to advance to a stage where it can revive a frozen corpse, it will also have to cure or repair - very quickly - whatever illness or injury brought his or her life to an end.?The cryonicists point to the fact we know so little about death and the mind, and that this alone offers at least some hope that the technique may one day work.?For a start, after centuries of philosophical debate, nearly all scientists agree that the mind is a purely physical thing, that self-awareness, memories, the mechanisms of thinking, must all be purely physical, biological processes which take place in the brain, even if these processes as yet remain poorly understood.?No one sensible believes in a nebulous 'soul', which leaves the body at point of death (the traditional 'dualist' religious view).?This means that, in principle, if you can preserve the brain you can, in theory at least, preserve the mind, personality and memories of its erstwhile owner.?What cryonics is trying to do, say its proponents, is preserve not flesh and blood, but?information.?Since the essence of a person, his memories and thoughts, are stored in the brain, it should be possible to take a preserved brain and, like a broken computer, somehow retrieve the information and recreate the person who died.?Some technologists, such as U.S. futurologist Ray Kurzweil - who this month was appointed head of a Futurology School, funded by Nasa and Google - believe the time is close when advances in genetics, computing and nanotechnology (engineering which manipulates matter on the scale of individual atoms and molecules) will mean humans could become immortal.?Since the essence of a person, says Dr Kurzweil, is just the fleeting electrochemical messages and circuits in our brains, then it should be possible to read or 'scan' this information (as it is possible to scan the information on a broken computer disc) and transfer, or download, it to another, healthier and empty 'brain', either biological or electronic.?This is why many cryonics organisations offer only 'neuro-preservation' - freezing of the head on its own.?So how are they likely to revive the frozen body - or head - in the future? Barring accidents (like the embarrassing funding crisis which caused nine bodies stored in one facility to thaw out in 1979), let us assume that technology has advanced to a stage where it is possible to bring people out of cryo-preservation.?Kurzweil and others believe this could be as soon as the 2040s.?The brain is thawed and - possibly using swarms of bacteria-like nano-machines, effectively minute robots - its cells and synapses are explored, the information being fed into a computer.?Then, either the original brain and body are repaired and 'reprogrammed', or an artificial brain-body is prepared to receive the scanned mind.?Finally, in a Frankenstein-like flourish, the person is switched on and blinks into life.?It sounds like science-fiction nonsense. It probably is. The problems with this scenario range from the trivial (the ice crystal problem) to the philosophical (will the revived person really be the same as the one who died?).?All that said, the multimillionaire Mr Cowell can afford to experiment. Whether future generations will thank him for doing so is another matter.?The Prime Minister sees the point. 'I'm not sure me coming back from the dead would be popular,' he said at that dinner party. 'In fact, there may be a campaign to stop me being frozen!' prophet Jonah's visionsDay 1, September 3rd, 2010.The prophet Jonah came to me.He said, “Daughter of God, do not be afraid of what you will see, for this is God’s plan for you.”I said, “With all due respect, I don’t understand why God wants me to see all these sufferings that frighten me.”He answered, “Trust God; that is all that is asked of you.”Then he showed me in a vision where I saw TOTAL CHAOS.I saw WARS, EARTHQUAKES, TORNADOES, FLOODS, TSUNAMIS, HURRICANES, FAMINE, DROUGHT, FIRES, FREEZING and VERY HOT TEMPERATURES.I saw people DYING of diseases and many SICK people of all ages.I saw TERRORIST ATTACKS, people drinking and engaged in perverted activities.The prophet said, “Record all and do not run from your mission.Pray, fast and preach repentance against the wickedness in people’s hearts.”Day 6, September 8, 2010.The prophet came to me.He said, “Daughter of God, come and behold the vision before you.”In this vision I saw MANY PRIESTS SUFFERING.I saw priests that had committed sexual crimes for many years.I saw many homosexual priests that continue to live active lives as homosexuals.I saw many religious that suffer at the hands of their superiors.There is much more that I saw, but I cannot write about it.I asked the prophet, “Why is this happening in the Church ?”He answered, “There is MUCH CORRUPTION AND DISOBEDIENCE WITHIN THE CHURCH.Lucifer has CORRUPTED THE MINDS OF MANY WITHIN THE CHURCH.Pray and fast.”Day 7, September 9, 2010.The prophet Jonah came today.He said, “Daughter of God, abandon yourself completely.Continue to carry the Cross.Make reparations for all the visions that you are allowed to see.”Then he showed me the world in TOTAL CHAOS.I saw TERRORIST ATTACKS throughout the world.I saw our country [USA] under attack; AIRPLANES CRASHING into busy streets and crowded areas.I saw a SUBSTANCE THAT WAS AIRBORNE that was making many people ill.I saw many BOMBS PLACED in areas where nobody could see them.I asked the prophet, “Is this present or future ?”He answered, “IT IS COMING.”I asked, “Can it be stopped or mitigated ?”He answered, “Pray and fast, pray and fast.”The vision ended.Day 8, September 10, 2010.The prophet Jonah came to me.He said to me, “Daughter of God, record all that you see.”I saw the total CHAOS IN FAMILIES throughout the world, the suffering in family life and the violence, the loss of purity among the youth, children suffering from abuse.I saw how modern technology has brought DIVISION AND ALIENATION in family life.I saw how the devil uses modern technology to PERVERT many people throughout the world.I saw the EVIL OF INJUSTICE done to the less fortunate, the PERVERSION IN THE GOVERNMENT.I saw the CORRUPTION IN WORLD LEADERS.Then I saw FIRE FROM THE SKY, destroying everything that it hit.I said, “Please tell me that this can be mitigated.”He answered, “Prayer, fasting and true repentance of the heart can bring God’s mercy to a world where many are living a godless life.”And the vision ended.Day 9, September 11, 2010.The prophet Jonah came to me.He said, “Daughter of God, nine days you have seen in visions the plight of the world.For nine days you have endured suffering in EXPIATION for the evil in the world.You must continue the vigil of prayer and fasting, so as to dissolve the evil in the world.”Humanity is on the BRINK OF DESTRUCTION and will continue to live through GREAT CHASTISEMENTS, unless the world repents from its evil ways.Humanity has SINNED AGAINST THEIR CREATOR through the evil, hatred, immorality and wickedness, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, disobedience, wars against nations, the evil of power, wealth, and corrupt leaders.DISOBEDIENCE IN THE CHURCH and the abomination of the HORROR OF SACRILEGE has alienated many in the Church from the love of God.GREAT APOSTASY will continue to spread throughout the world.Daughter of God, all that you’ve seen is a REJECTION OF GOD AND HIS LAW of love and His mercy.”I asked, “Can all this that I’ve seen be mitigated or dissolved ?”He answered, “God waits for all his children who live in darkness to turn to him for FORGIVENESS, to AMEND THEIR SINFUL LIVES and to live according to his law of love.God’s love and mercy is GREATER than any evil in the world.Humanity must HUMBLE themselves and turn to a life of prayer, choosing HOLINESS and abandoning sin.Prayer and fasting are the ANSWER to combat the evil in the world.The sins of these times are GREATER than in the times of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Nineveh.”Daughter of God, record all that you have seen.Continue to live a life of holiness, making reparations for the sins of the world.Never forget that the law of the love of God is your strength and your hope and your everything.Heaven is at your disposal.”The vision ended. way to slay the Google beast!Who in the world knows as much about you and your private thoughts as Google?That’s the question?Katherine Albrecht, radio talk-show host and spokeswoman for?Startpage, a search engine that protects user privacy, is posing to American Internet surfers.“It would blow people’s minds if they knew how much information the big search engines have on the American public,” she told WND. “In fact, their dossiers are so detailed they would probably be the envy of the KGB.”Google exposed in Joseph Farah’s “Stop the Presses!” autographed only at WND’s online store.It happens every day, Albrecht explained. When an unfamiliar topic crosses people’s minds, they often go straight to Google, Yahoo or Bing and enter key terms into those search engines. Every day, more than a billion searches for information are performed on Google alone.“If you get a rash between your toes, you go into Google,” she said. “If you have a miscarriage, you go into Google. If you are having marital difficulties, you look for a counselor on Google. If you lose your job, you look for unemployment benefit information on Google.”Albrecht said Americans unwittingly share their most private thoughts with search engines, serving up snippets of deeply personal information about their lives, habits, troubles, health concerns, preferences and political leanings.“We’re essentially telling them our entire life stories – stuff you wouldn’t even tell your mother – because you are in a private room with a computer,” she said. “We tend to think of that as a completely private circumstance. But the reality is that they make a record of every single search you do.”The search engines have sophisticated algorithms to mine data from searches and create very detailed profiles about Americans. She said those profiles are stored on servers and may fall into the wrong hands.She pointed to the recent cyber attacks that infiltrated Google’s operations in China. Bloomberg News reported that Yahoo was also among the victims.Albrecht said the government may also subpoena citizens’ private information after it has been stored by Google, Yahoo and Bing. In a December 2009 interview with CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt divulged that search engines may turn over citizens’ private information to the government.“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” Schmidt said. “But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities.”“My jaw hit the floor when I heard that,” Albrecht said. “Now they are just coming right out and telling us that they will turn our data over to the feds. Based on what I know about how much information they have on us, it’s really terrifying.”In addition to information collected from searches, Google also saves sent and received e-mails, including e-mail drafts, attachments and chat messages through its Gmail system.“What these big search engines have is the eye in the sky,” Albrecht said. “It’s like the totalitarian dictator’s dream. They know?everything, and with a couple of mouse clicks, they could find every single person in the country who observes Passover or attends a Catholic or Baptist church or who buys ammunition.”She continued, “They’ve gotten so sophisticated that they actually boast that they can tell when their own employees are going to quit because they monitor their employees’ mouse clicks.”Albrecht said she was alarmed to discover that another application,?Google Flu Trends, used aggregated Google search data to track flu activity around the world. The organization boasted that it could spot a flu outbreak even before the Centers for Disease Control suspected one. The search-engine giant collaborated with the CDC on the project.“We have found a close relationship between how many people search for flu-related topics and how many people actually have flu symptoms,” Google explained. “Of course, not every person who searches for ‘flu’ is actually sick, but a pattern emerges when all the flu-related search queries are added together. We compared our query counts with traditional flu surveillance systems and found that many search queries tend to be popular exactly when flu season is happening. By counting how often we see these search queries, we can estimate how much flu is circulating in different states and countries around the world.”Albrecht said Google monitored search patterns that indicated a person may have had the flu. Then it would pinpoint a person’s location using an IP address.“They turned that map over to the government,” she said. “They didn’t give any personal information about individuals. They didn’t give individual IP addresses or say who the people were – but they could have.”The search-engine giant uses its search records for marketing purposes, Albrecht explained.She said some people wonder why Google would give them all this “free cool stuff” like Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google Groups, Google Spreadsheets, Google Earth and Gmail.“When was the last time a company making billions of dollars gave you every single thing they offered for free?” she asked. “They’re not giving you those products for free. You’re the product, and that’s the bait.”The proxy service allows users to search and surf the Web anonymously. With each Startpage search, the word “proxy” appears under each result. If a user clicks “proxy,” they may view the result privately.Startpage visits the selected website, retrieves the information and shows it to the user in a privacy-protected window. A private user’s browser never interacts directly with the external website so the websites cannot capture or record personal data or load malware onto a private computer. Websites only see that a site in the Netherlands is visiting the website, she said. The search engine never records personal information, search data or IP addresses.“Startpage doesn’t have any information, so even if it was served with a subpoena or, like Google, if it got hacked, there would be no records to obtain because it doesn’t keep any records,” Albrecht explained.She said she hopes people will start supporting companies like Startpage and move their traffic away from the other big search engines, so Google, Yahoo, Bing and others will learn to respect user privacy.“As consumers, we almost have an obligation to stop using them until they behave themselves,” Albrecht said. “Sometimes you want to know private stuff. It doesn’t mean you have something to hide or are doing anything wrong. It just means you don’t want other people knowing what you’re thinking about and looking up…… It’s nobody’s business.” Aurora hackers AT LARGE, launch 0-day bazookasSecurity researchers have traced a continuing run of zero-day attacks to the hackers who infamously hit Google and other hi-tech firms three years ago.Symantec has kept close tabs on the hackers behind the so-called Aurora attacks ever since. No other group has used more zero-day vulnerabilities – eight – to further their malicious goals than the attackers behind Aurora (Hydraq) and other related attacks, the researchers said. Previous unknown vulnerabilities leveraged by the group have included Internet Explorer and Adobe Flash security bugs.Identifying zero-day attacks takes hard graft as well as skills in reverse-engineering, a factor that means the group must be well-resourced."The group behind the Hydraq attacks is very much still active, with evidence indicating their involvement in a consistent and ongoing pattern of large-scale targeted attacks," according to Symantec."Targeted sectors include, but are not limited to: the defence industry, human rights and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and IT service providers," it added.Attacks used to be launched via targeted email (phishing) but over the years the group has moved on towards increased adoption of "watering hole" attacks – the "watering holes" being websites likely to be visited by the gazelle-like target organisation. Defence supply chain firms (suppliers of electronics and other sub components) of defence systems have been the prime target of these attacks. Suppliers are selected because they have lower security standards than tier-one defence contractors, who have been a prime target for cyber-espionage many years.The attackers reuse components of an infrastructure Symantec has dubbed the Elderwood Platform. Most of the attacks have focused on either intelligence gathering or swiping valuable trade secrets from compromised computers, say the researchers."Although there are other attackers utilising zero-day exploits (for example, the Sykipot,?Nitro, or even Stuxnet attacks), we have seen no other group use so many," a? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" blog post?by Symantec security response concludes.At the time of the 2010 hack, Google? HYPERLINK "" all but said?the attackers behind the Aurora attacks were backed by the Chinese government. Symantec is more circumspect.The number of victims, the duration of the ongoing attacks as well as their apparent goal of wholesale intelligence and intellectual property theft mean the group must be backed by a nation state or (less probably) a large criminal organisation. MAN WOWS AT TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL PREMIER“Does God exist? Well, I would say, ‘Not yet.” —Ray Kurzweil, Transcendent Man, 2009It’s not every documentary that predicts humanity will someday create and become God.Transcendent Man?says it will happen in the next twenty years. A bold statement for a movie about a bold man. Barry Ptolemy’s?Transcendent Man?is a biopic of famed inventor, writer, and futurist?Ray Kurzweil. Kurzweil is author of?The Singularity is Near, a best-selling book describing humanity’s journey to becoming non-biological life.Singularity Hub was at the Tribeca Film Festival debut of Transcendent Man, and the revealing panel discussion that followed. Whether you are new to the concept of ‘the singularity’, or whether you are a well-known authority on the subject, you will want to see this film.?Scene from Transcendent ManKurzweil, his family, his friends, his colleagues, and his detractors all appear in filmed interviews to discuss his most famous predictions: intelligence is following an exponential growth curve, as technology increases the differences between technology and humanity will shrink, and eventually the human-machine civilization will be advancing so quickly that no one can truly understand what it will be like. The last concept is known as the singularity. Borrowed from physics, Kurzweil and others use the term to describe the inability to comprehend the seemingly limitless intelligence that will arise past this point in our future. This intelligence will have amazing powers of perception, communication, and understanding, and could seem in our eyes to be God-like.Transcendent Man?does a good job of describing this concept to its viewers. Flashing diagrams and evolving graphs are interposed with images of current robotic technology. Ptolemy pushes ideas into the audience with repetition and visual support. Words from Kurzweil and other interviewees are captured and reappear as flowing, growing subtitles. Data and statements swirl around faces as they talk about them. It’s like watching an interactive holographic projection of their thoughts and it works beautifully.Revealing the Wizard behind the CurtainMore than just an explanation of the singularity, this film sets out to help explain the transcendent man, Ray Kurzweil himself. The very first scene is a forty old year clip of the classic TV game show?I’ve Got a Secret. Here we see a seventeen year old Kurzweil play the piano and answer the panelists’ questions. The big secret? Kurzweil’s music was composed by a computer he built in his own home. That’s right, in 1965, while still a teenager, Kurzweil was using computers to perform tasks as ephemeral and promising as composing music. It’s a sucker punch that welcomes you to the entire film.But the blows keep landing. Kurzweil invented the flatbed scanner, a piano synthesizer, a book reader for the blind, and the list goes on. He’s predicted the Internet, the success of the Human Genome Project, and the fall of the Soviet Union. This is a man with so many awards that he values them about as much as his cat-figurine collection (both are given their own huge tables in his home). It’s like?Transcendent Man?gets up, walks to your seat, and shouts “He’s an amazing genius! Believe it. But we have other things to talk about.”If you know Kurzweil’s work, you know those “other things” are likely to be the singularity, but that’s not the only subject?Transcendent Man?explores. Ptolemy explains the theories, clobbers you with Kurzweil’s genius, but then just as quickly exposes the man for what he really is: human. More than I ever could have expected,?Transcendent Man?reveals Ray Kurzweil as a vulnerable, extraordinarily gifted, loving, worrying, wonderful human being. And Ptolemy uses death to do so.Ray Kurzweil’s father, Fredric, passed away due to heart failure while Ray was in his 20s. From that launching point we are shown Kurzweil’s perhaps obsessive rejection of death. He takes over 200 health supplement pills a day, he says people who accept death are in a kind of denial, and he even wants to use future technology to revive his father. We are shown a warehouse where Kurzweil keeps his fathers belongings, a considerable collection, in anticipation of that day.“Death is a great tragedy…a profound loss…I don’t accept it…I think people are kidding themselves when they say they are comfortable with death.” —Ray Kurzweil in Transcendent Man, 2009With this seeming vulnerability, this rejection of death, Ptolemy opens the flood gates for a wave of interviews that qualify, argue, or flat out refute Kurzweil’s predictions. To some degree, the optimism and hope of the singularity is washed away in this flood. In fact, the end product is so inundated with contrary opinion that you wonder what the director actually believes.And that question shows how wonderfully made this documentary really is. This is not a propaganda piece for the futurists or the singularity lovers. It’s not a diatribe designed to pull down or belittle those beliefs either.?Transcendent Man?is a balanced and insightful look into the man behind the philosophy, and an open call for discussion.“The end of the film is the beginning of the conversation.” —Tribeca Film Festival, Behind the ScreensWhich is why the panel that followed the movie was so amazing. NPR’s Robert Krulwich asked questions and moderated for Ray Kurzweil and Barry Ptolemy. Krulwich’s questions were fairly predictable at first: do you really believe that the singularity will happen, are you afraid of death, aren’t you being too optimistic, will you really bring your father back? And Kurzweil’s answers followed suit: yes the singularity will happen because intelligence is following exponential growth, I’ve seen the data, I think death is a loss, I think bringing my father back is a reasonable thing to do, etc.Things really heated up, however, when the audience got a chance to jump in. First,?Ben Goertzel?and?Hugo DeGaris, famous in their fields and interviewed in the movie, were actually in attendance. The applause they received was almost on par with that for Kurzweil himself. Goertzel asked how far we could expand our intelligence and still remain ourselves. Kurzweil’s opinion is that we will always be ourselves, that we can never not be ourselves. We are in part defined by our limitations, but we will always have limitations of some kind.The concept of the singularity seems almost designed to evoke this type of philosophical pondering. Goertzel’s question speaks to a wider fear that many have: does the singularity mean the effectual death of humanity? For myself, I can only assert that adulthood means the death of childhood, not the death of the child.Yet, many may not see the singularity as such a natural step of humanity’s growth. Hugo DeGaris, in an echo of his time on the screen, told the panel that many people exist who would rather shoot scientists than allow them to build the machines that would bring about the singularity. How can Kurzweil be certain that a war isn’t brewing between technological acceptance and technological rejection??Transcendent Man?already raised this concern, highlighting the manner in which fundamentalist religions will respond to perceived threats.Even while accepting the possibilities raised by DeGaris, Kurzweil is quick to point out the problems with such a war. There can be no Us vs. Them over technology when we are all using the same technology. Already, cell phones and other modern day necessities have become common place all over the world. Even if a war between the technological haves and technological have-nots did occur, the haves would when easily. Technology is power. In Kurzweil’s words, “It would be like the U.S. fighting the Amish.”So the question begs itself, if there’s not going to be a war, and if Kurzweil is so optimistic about the singularity, why does he even bother talking to us about it? Why write a book? Why go on tours speaking at conventions as diverse as video gaming and Brazilian business?Perhaps Kurzweil realizes that so many of the promises of intelligence and technology come with risks of tragedy. He was quick to point out during the panel discussion that he is helping design the rapid response system for bio-technological terrorist attacks. The dangers of our own technological process loom heavily in these years leading up to the singularity. So Kurzweil is taking precautions, I think. He’s seeding us with the hope for a grander future.If there is a choice to be made, a decision about whether or not we will use technology to destroy us or to change us, I think Kurzweil is urging us to decide to change rather than fall to calamity. In that way, Kurzweil is no different than many other successful modern day rainmakers. He’s asking us to move from fear to hope, to push beyond our current childhood and embrace a greater destiny. In philosophy, at least, Ray Kurzweil has already become the transcendent man. World Is Brutal and You Must Be BraveMAY 15, 2012?BY?LISBETH?wish I could tell you otherwise.?I wish I could fill your days with new barbells and kettlebells and beautiful, inspiring PRs. I wish I could tell you that the path to success is shiny and bright and sunshine will come out of your ass.But that’s not going to happen.?And stop listening to the people who feed you that bullshit. The world is a much darker place. There are no fucking unicorns. Just horses with pointy shit glued on their noses. And yeah, the world can be a cold place. And vicious. And sometimes seemingly devoid of any real meaning. You can lose yourself in the world, searching for soul.But don’t.There is soul and you know how to look for it.?You must look for it. You must find it. Just because the world is brutal doesn’t mean that you get to hide yourself off from it and live the life of the complainer, the person who never gets a break, the suckass whiner with the perpetually doomed viewpoint, certain that life’s suckerpunch is always headed for them. Don’t search for pity. Don’t settle for consolation. Fight for victory.Salvation sits right at your feet.It’s just a stupid barbell, but it’s one kick-ass weapon against the darkness. Against the brutality of the world. Against the brutality of your own thoughts. Pick it up and the world gets better, at least in your own mind.And that’s where everything starts, isn’t it??Change is born of one person, one mind, one action. Somebody who says?“Yeah, this shit sucks but I’m not going down. Take this, you fuckers!”The world is brutal, and you must be brave.?But you have a barbell. You can do something. And then another thing. And another. You change. Things change. We change. “Get the fuck on it.”, Religion &?MagicWe have a tendency to see science, religion and magic as mutually exclusive, rather than as related, even co-dependent, phenomena.Science grew out of alchemy and the search for the divine secret of matter for the purpose of transforming lead into gold (much like? derivatives were used to package and turn worthless loans into profit on Wall Street) .The discipline of empirical?thought added to?alchemy invented science. Driven by the search for profit, science gave rise to industrial and technological revolutions: iron,? steam,?electricity and the?age of the machine.A recent?article in the?Atlantic?describes the depiction of technology in J.R.R. Tolkien’s?Lord of the Rings. Men, elves, dwarves and wizards allied themselves to defeat Sauron, Sarumon and the orcs. who sought to subjugate the old magic of Middle Earth with a newer, darker force:“The old world will burn in the fires of industry. Forests will fall. A new order will rise. We will drive the machine of war with the sword and the spear and the iron fist…”In this world, outside the realm of fiction, it’s not always clear which forces are enlightened and which are moreMephistophelian.?Sometimes they are a little of both.Scientists and technologists are susceptible to whim, fancy and ego as the rest of us. We assume their training in the modern magic of engineering, computer science or medicine gives them more insight or a monopoly on truth. But their discoveries are often?Faustian?in nature. Could we have had antibiotics without genetic engineering? Central heat without global warming? What bargains are we willing to make and have made for us? And by whom?David Noble?describes religious belief as an element of scientific and technological pursuit. Galileo and Copernicus felt they were doing God’s work. Isaac Newton, who almost single-handedly invented physics, dabbled in alchemy and was a Mason. Robert K. Oppenheimer quoted the?Bhagavad-Gita?as he watched the atomic bomb explode. Today?visionaries?such as Steve Jobs want to re-make the world ‘insanely great’ in their own images. Futurists such as?Ray Kurzweil?want to transcend it. Technological determinism, no less than religious zeal, tells us what must be so. Do we have a choice?We persist in the misapprehension that science is a thing, a collection of objective, immutable facts, rather than a process. Michael Polanyi argues in?Science, Faith & Society?that this process owes as much to inspiration and intuition as logic.Perhaps it is no?accident that at the same time we are overrun by devices that hold our thoughts, guide our steps, and organize our love lives,?so many take refuge in the old magic of?sword and sorcery and vampire fantasies.Are our iPhones and tablets that much different than?idolatrous fetishes and talismans carried as repositories of power to attract luck or repel evil? What is Facebook but a virtual?altar to the graven image of ourselves? Snyder?To:?All?Date:?2009-05-24 21:30:00?Subject:?Image Of The Beast And Cybernetics?For years now, in my articles, I have speculated that the "image of thebeast", described in the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation, mightbe directly related to computer technology, artificial intelligence androbotics. The more I read about the current developments in these variousareas, the more I become convinced that what the Apostle John may have seenin his vision is some type of cybernetic entity which will"miraculously" bebrought to life; or at the very least, it will be some type of largecomputer monitor, which will work in conjunction with advanced artificialintelligence. Revelation tells us:"And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracleswhich he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them thatdwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which hadthe wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto theimage of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and causethat as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."Revelation 13:14-15, KJVNaturally, such ideas are not limited to the realm of Bible-believingChristians. Some very serious-minded individuals, including scientists andwriters alike, have contemplated these very same possibilities for decades,as we see by the following news article.The Coming SuperbrainBy JOHN MARKOFF - NYTMay 23, 2009Mountain View, Calif. -- It's summertime and the Terminator is back. Asci-fi movie thrill ride, "Terminator Salvation" comes complete with amalevolent artificial intelligence dubbed Skynet, a military R.&D. projectthat gained self-awareness and concluded that humans were an irritant --perhaps a bit like athlete's foot -- to be dispatched forthwith.The notion that a self-aware computing system would emerge spontaneouslyfrom the interconnections of billions of computers and computer networksgoes back in science fiction at least as far as Arthur C. Clarke's "Dial Ffor Frankenstein." A prescient short story that appeared in 1961, itforetold an ever-more-interconnected telephone network that spontaneouslyacts like a newborn baby and leads to global chaos as it takes overfinancial, transportation and military systems.Today, artificial intelligence, once the preserve of science fiction writersand eccentric computer prodigies, is back in fashion and getting seriousattention from NASA and from Silicon Valley companies like Google as well asa new round of start-ups that are designing everything from next-generationsearch engines to machines that listen or that are capable of walking aroundin the world. A.I.'s new respectability is turning the spotlight back on thequestion of where the technology might be heading and, more ominously,perhaps, whether computer intelligence will surpass our own, and howquickly.The concept of ultrasmart computers -- machines with "greater than humanintelligence" -- was dubbed "The Singularity" in a 1993 paper by thecomputer scientist and science fiction writer Vernor Vinge. He argued thatthe acceleration of technological progress had led to "the edge of changecomparable to the rise of human life on Earth." This thesis has long strucka chord here in Silicon Valley.Artificial intelligence is already used to automate and replace some humanfunctions with computer-driven machines. These machines can see and hear,respond to questions, learn, draw inferences and solve problems. But for theSingulatarians, A.I. refers to machines that will be both self-aware andsuperhuman in their intelligence, and capable of designing better computersand robots faster than humans can today. Such a shift, they say, would leadto a vast acceleration in technological improvements of all kinds.The idea is not just the province of science fiction authors; a generationof computer hackers, engineers and programmers have come to believe deeplyin the idea of exponential technological change as explained by GordonMoore, a co-founder of the chip maker Intel.In 1965, Dr. Moore first described the repeated doubling of the numbertransistors on silicon chips with each new technology generation, which ledto an acceleration in the power of computing. Since then "Moore's Law" --which is not a law of physics, but rather a description of the rate ofindustrial change -- has come to personify an industry that lives onInternet time, where the Next Big Thing is always just around the corner.Several years ago the artificial-intelligence pioneer Raymond Kurzweil tookthe idea one step further in his 2005 book, "The Singularity Is Near: WhenHumans Transcend Biology." He sought to expand Moore's Law to encompass morethan just processing power and to simultaneously predict with greatprecision the arrival of post-human evolution, which he said would occur in2045.In Dr. Kurzweil's telling, rapidly increasing computing power in concertwith cyborg humans would then reach a point when machine intelligence notonly surpassed human intelligence but took over the process of technologicalinvention, with unpredictable consequences.Profiled in the documentary "Transcendent Man," which had its premier lastmonth at the TriBeCa Film Festival, and with his own Singularity movie duelater this year, Dr. Kurzweil has become a one-man marketing machine for theconcept of post-humanism. He is the co-founder of Singularity University, aschool supported by Google that will open in June with a grand goal -- to"assemble, educate and inspire a cadre of leaders who strive to understandand facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies andapply, focus and guide these tools to address humanity's grand challenges."Not content with the development of superhuman machines, Dr. Kurzweilenvisions "uploading," or the idea that the contents of our brain andthought processes can somehow be translated into a computing environment,making a form of immortality possible -- within his lifetime.That has led to no shortage of raised eyebrows among hard-nosedtechnologists in the engineering culture here, some of whom describe theKurzweilian romance with supermachines as a new form of religion.The science fiction author Ken MacLeod described the idea of the singularityas "the Rapture of the nerds." Kevin Kelly, an editor at Wired magazine,notes, "People who predict a very utopian future always predict that it isgoing to happen before they die."However, Mr. Kelly himself has not refrained from speculating on wherecommunications and computing technology is heading. He is at work on his ownbook, "The Technium," forecasting the emergence of a global brain -- theidea that the planet's interconnected computers might someday act in acoordinated fashion and perhaps exhibit intelligence. He just isn't certainabout how soon an intelligent global brain will arrive.Others who have observed the increasing power of computing technology areeven less sanguine about the future outcome. The computer designer andventure capitalist William Joy, for example, wrote a pessimistic essay inWired in 2000 that argued that humans are more likely to destroy themselveswith their technology than create a utopia assisted by superintelligentmachines.Mr. Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, still believes that. "I wasn'tsaying we would be supplanted by something," he said. "I think acatastropheis more likely."Moreover, there is a hot debate here over whether such machines might be the"machines of loving grace," of the Richard Brautigan poem, or something fardarker, of the "Terminator" ilk."I see the debate over whether we should build these artificial intellectsas becoming the dominant political question of the century," said Hugo deGaris, an Australian artificial-intelligence researcher, who has written abook, "The Artilect War," that argues that the debate is likely to end inglobal war.Concerned about the same potential outcome, the A.I. researcher Eliezer S.Yudkowsky, an employee of the Singularity Institute, has proposed the ideaof "friendly artificial intelligence," an engineering discipline that wouldseek to ensure that future machines would remain our servants or equalsrather than our masters.Nevertheless, this generation of humans, at least, is perhaps unlikely toneed to rush to the barricades. The artificial-intelligence industry hasadvanced in fits and starts over the past half-century, since the term"artificial intelligence" was coined by the Stanford University computerscientist John McCarthy in 1956. In 1964, when Mr. McCarthy established theStanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the researchers informed theirPentagon backers that the construction of an artificially intelligentmachine would take about a decade. Two decades later, in 1984, that originaloptimism hit a rough patch, leading to the collapse of a crop of A.I.start-up companies in Silicon Valley, a time known as "the A.I. winter."Such reversals have led the veteran Silicon Valley technology forecasterPaul Saffo to proclaim: "never mistake a clear view for a short distance."Indeed, despite this high-technology heartland's deeply held consensus aboutexponential progress, the worst fate of all for the Valley's digerati wouldbe to be the generation before the generation that lives to see thesingularity."Kurzweil will probably die, along with the rest of us not too long beforethe 'great dawn,' " said Gary Bradski, a Silicon Valley roboticist. "Life's not fair." Kurzwild Man in the Night“It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can’t possibly figure out what’s good or bad. It’s an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it’s very hard to disentangle the two, because these are smart people; they’re not stupid.”– Douglas Hofstadter, author of G?del, Escher, Bach, on the books of Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec. [See Ross, Greg. "An interview with Douglas R. Hofstadter." American Scientist. Retrieved 2011-08-10.]It is not very often that I see something that simultaneously evokes sympathy, anger and pity. I am a regular viewer of ABC’s “Nightline”?program which airs beginning at 2330 in most of the US. It’s part of my ‘wind-down ritual’ at the end of the day. Often, I’m reading, or otherwise engaged while the bits and bytes comprising the program make their way from geosynchronous orbit and chatter out of the television. The introduction to the 09 August program caught my attention, because it was to feature Ray Kurzweil, talking about practical immortality. Of course, I know who Kurzweil is – both of them. There is the maverick Edisonian inventor who brought us the?Kurzweil Reader?(and thus the CCD flatbed scanner and the text-to-speech synthesizer) and the Kurzweil who transformed digital musical instrumentation with his?Kurzweil K250?music synthesizer. And then, well then there is the Ray Kurzweil who brought us the idea of the Singularity, and three books that expound scientifically bankrupt ideas for ‘do it yourself’ interventive gerontology:?The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life?Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever,TRANSCEND: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever.And last, but by no means least, there is the Ray Kurzweil who made one of the creepiest movies I’ve ever seen, “The Singularity is Near,” which I viewed as a rough cut in a private screening in Europe. That film was the near perfect combination of suggested transgendered autoerotic pedophilia with narcissism of cosmic proportions. I watched it, immobilized as one is when witnessing a public beheading, or the torture of small animals in an Egyptian souk. I was immobilized in a way that only disbelief and shock immobilize you. An extended trailer of his latest documentary,?Transcendent Man?is available here: “Nightline” segment?on Kurzweil opened as follows:“Ray Kurzweil, a prominent inventor and “futurist” who has long predicted that mind and machine will one day merge, has been making arrangements to talk to his dead father through the help of a computer.“I will be able to talk to this re-creation,” he explained. “Ultimately, it will be so realistic it will be like talking to my father.”Kurzweil’s father, an orchestra conductor, has been gone for more than 40 years.However, the 63-year-old inventor has been gathering boxes of letters, documents and photos in his Newton, Mass., home with the hopes of one day being able to create an avatar, or a virtual computer replica, of his late father. The avatar will be programmed to know everything about Kurzweil’s father’s past, and will think like his father used to, if all goes according to plan.“You can certainly argue that, philosophically, that is not your father,” Kurzweil said. “That is a replica, but I can actually make a strong case that it would be more like my father than my father would be, were he to live.”Said to look and sound like Woody Allen’s nerdier younger brother, Kurzweil has been working on predicting the future for decades. At age 17, he was invited to appear on the CBS show “I’ve Got a Secret” to demonstrate how a computer program he invented could compose music.Kurzweil went on to invent optical scanners, machines that read for the blind and synthesizers. Still inventing today, Kurzweil has developed a reputation for himself from just making predictions, mostly about how fast our technology is advancing.”The program continued to document Kurzweil’s plan to recreate his father, and he argues that this can be done by using documents, photographs and his own memory of the man. At one point, he even asserts that such an emulation would be “more like my father than my father, had he lived.”Sympathy? Yes, I felt a great deal of sympathy because I too have lost those I have loved to death, and also suffered, and suffer still, because I lack the power to bring them back to life.Anger? Yes, a fair bit of anger because what Kurzweil is proposing insults the intelligence of anyone who has even the sketchiest conception of what it is to be human. The idea that a person can be inferred from boxes of paper documents and photographs with technology, extant or foreseeable, let alone in Kurzweil’s possession now, is ludicrous. That Kurzweil’s insight into the nature of personhood, including his own, is so shallow and uni-dimensional goes a long way towards explaining the cluelessness with which he is pursuing his social engineering campaign to make radical life extension, cryonics and uploading socially acceptable.The “Nightline” program was surprisingly respectful and matter of fact. Kurzwel has superb public relations people and the “Nightline” editors were amply stocked with photos, film clips and in short, a very impressive visual montage to accompany Kurzweil’s modest proposal for resurrection of the dead from letters, news clippings, old photos and presumably rent receipts and cancelled checks documenting visits to the dentist or the haberdasher.But as even most of the most unreflective and superficial dullards understand, if only emotionally, a person is not and cannot be reconstructed from the empty wrappers of a life long ended. A few bars of melody, a scent, a fragment of a recorded voice, the taste of something long forgotten, all of these can, and do from time to time evoke in reflective and self aware people, streams of memories, and with those memories countless connections, relationships, thoughts sounds, sensations and yes, and very importantly,?feelings.?One of the things I found so appalling and so narcissistically selfish about the Kurzweil interview is that he is not really interested in having his father live again, rather he is only interested in having his?personal experience?of his father available for his self-gratification again. It doesn’t matter what his father thinks or feels, it only matters that the Avatar Father makes Kurzweil think and feel that he has been returned to life. The equation of an avatar of the person with the person himself is an utterly repellant thing, because at its root it is the penultimate in dehumanization; and I think that on some level Kurzweil must know this, since he is trying to persuade the rubes that it really?is?resurrection.“And as soon as I had recognized the taste of the piece of madeleine soaked in her decoction of lime-blossom which my aunt used to give me (although I did not yet know and must long postpone the discovery of why this memory made me so happy) immediately the old grey house upon the street, where her room was, rose up like a stage set to attach itself to the little pavilion opening on to the garden which had been built out behind it for my parents (the isolated segment which until that moment had been all that I could see); and with the house the town, from morning to night and in all weathers, the Square where I used to be sent before lunch, the streets along which I used to run errands, the country roads we took when it was fine.”That is the merest sampling of what a person is. And as beautiful and evocative of the complex tangle of memory, sensation, reaction and the recursion of all those things as that passage is, even a hundred million, or a billion like it would not describe the mind of the dullest human being who moves amongst us.If you still have any doubts about the staggering volume of information, not to mention the unique wetware on which it is processed, that comprises the human mind, consider the recent scientific verification that people exist who have “superior autobiographical memory,” or hyperthymesia.[1-3] These individuals have essentially complete audiovisual recall of almost every waking moment of their lives. They can “run the movie” of their life experience forward or backward in their head and extract information from what they “re-experience.” As actress Marilu Hennner, one of those identified with this trait remarked on the CBS documentary program “60 Minutes”:”It’s like putting in a DVD and it queues up to a certain place. I’m there again, so I’m looking out from my eyes and seeing things visually as I would have that day.” These are otherwise normal individuals who have no profound cuts in normal cognitive function which might be used to explain the extraordinary storage of such memory minutiae.?Given the flashes of such recall most of us experience momentarily and erratically in our lives, this phenomenon begs the question: are all of us recording and storing such a broad bandwidth of information? Is it that we are not storing it, or that we cannot, and for good reason, access it with such fidelity at will? The individuals who possess this capability all describe it as burdensome and at times traumatic – memories come unbidden, constantly triggered by cues in the everyday world around them. And with some of those memories come searing emotions. If we need an evolutionary reason for the stoppering-up of such a prodigious memory in dark, amber bottles, to be dispensed only in needful draughts, these people are living examples.Kurzweil seems to be suffering from an all too common syndrome in highly successful mavericks who have a history of repeatedly proving the experts (as well as their critics) wrong. This course through life is much the same as fame – especially if it brings fortune with it, and thus the ability to surround oneself with people who either share your worldview, or who will (or actually do) agree with any idea or obsession that takes charge. Removed from the tempering focus that reality affords most people, it becomes easy to slip into a world where the line between your dreams and desires, and what is really possible, becomes blurred and then disappears altogether. Kurzweil appears to be well on his way there, if he hasn’t reach that final destination already, and that, well, that is just pitiful.Many of Kurzweil’s ideas are crazy – a mixture of wishful thinking, inappropriate application of animal data to humans, and in the case of his resurrection scheme, poisonous and dangerous to cryonics on at least two levels. First, it is wrong – people are not scraps of paper, or even whole heaps of them. That is a demeaning idea at best, and a dangerous one at worst, if it is taken seriously. Second, while Kurzweil still commands respect, at some point the men in the media with the butterfly nets will come calling. Kurzweil’s anti-aging program is much more likely to shorten his lifespan and deplete the pocketbook of the average person, upon whom he urges its use, than it is to provide any medical benefit.This kind of disconnected, narcissistic spiral carried out privately is a thing that evokes pity, and even shame in seeing it. Those of us who have been involved in life extension for 20, 30, or 40 years have seen it before; increasingly desperate and delusion belief that barely suggestively beneficial molecules in animal studies will confer decades of added life, and finally, the decline into frailty and death. As I watched the “Nightline” program, I realized that there is yet another advantage to cryonics that I had not previously considered, and that is the extraordinary dignity and courage with which most cryonicists confront the end of this life cycle. While many were ridiculed for their lack of realism for a lifetime, most were men and women who did what they reasonably could to live as long as possible now, made no exaggerated or unreasonable claims about cryonics – and in fact, regarded it and represented it as what it currently is – a long shot experimental procedure that may well not work, but for them was infinitely better than the alternative.The extraordinarily accurate, generally matter of fact, and with few exceptions dignified coverage of Bob Ettinger’s passing into cryopreservation is an example. It’s a worthy example and the way we should strive to be seen. Kurzweil reportedly has cryonics arrangements with Alcor. I’m glad to hear that, because I think he is a fundamentally a very good and very decent man who shares our core values. He has improved and enriched the lives of countless people through his scientific and technological innovations. However, as I can tell you from experience, while many disabilities are now tolerated in our society, crazy and creepy are not amongst them. Kurzweil 1912-1970Conductor, composer, author, educator, humanitarian, first chairman of the Department of Music at Queensborough Community College of The City University of New York; former Dean of the New York College of Music; former executive director of the Opera Workshop at Chatham College, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; distinguished faculty member of Fordham University, New York University, and Queens College; conductor for the New York City Center Opera and the St. Louis Grand Opera; music director and conductor for The After Dinner Opera Company and the Mobile (Alabama) Opera with which he was affiliated for ten years and where he was honored with the presentation of the key to the city. Poem about Fredric Kurzweil By Aurelia Scott The green hill, the white hill Has waves of students Pouring over it in bright colors; Some find their way to A kind man with love in his face Who reaches out his hand To give them music. They take what he gives, and through him They sense in the beat of the time The eternal behind the time. Sometimes on a formal occasion Between the speeches and the ceremonies Comes a pause and he plays, And the lived experience of a great soul Screams out through his fingers. Sometimes at a rollicking party His songs bring a lift and a cheer As he waves around humor with light. Or he sits alone and composes Music that moves and speaks; Tentative, his hand strays over The keys, then strikes with firmness, As his fingers obey what the heart tells. Oh heart, loving heart that went out To all who had need of you – In us who loved and listened there lives In the beat of the times you blessed, The eternal behind the time.The dissonances, the gloom Of a strife-torn world were brightened When he caught them and pounded them Out till they shone like a band Of silver horns in the sun. The hill remembers the music; The hill will never forget. The tenderness of the man Is what we remember, the smile, And the heart that beat for us all. Is The Semantic Web?The Semantic Web is a mesh of information linked up in such a way as to be easily processable by machines, on a global scale. You can think of it as being an efficient way of representing data on the World Wide Web, or as a globally linked database.The Semantic Web was thought up by Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the WWW, URIs, HTTP, and HTML. There is a dedicated team of people at the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) working to improve, extend and standardize the system, and many languages, publications, tools and so on have already been developed. However, Semantic Web technologies are still very much in their infancies, and although the future of the project in general appears to be bright, there seems to be little consensus about the likely direction and characteristics of the early Semantic Web.What's the rationale for such a system? Data that is geneally hidden away in HTML files is often useful in some contexts, but not in others. The problem with the majority of data on the Web that is in this form at the moment is that it is difficult to use on a large scale, because there is no global system for publishing data in such a way as it can be easily processed by anyone. For example, just think of information about local sports events, weather information, plane times, Major League Baseball statistics, and television guides... all of this information is presented by numerous sites, but all in HTML. The problem with that is that, is some contexts, it is difficult to use this data in the ways that one might want to do so.So the Semantic Web can be seen as a huge engineering solution... but it is more than that. We will find that as it becomes easier to publish data in a repurposable form, so more people will want to pubish data, and there will be a knock-on or domino effect. We may find that a large number of Semantic Web applications can be used for a variety of different tasks, increasing the modularity of applications on the Web. But enough subjective reasoning... onto how this will be accomplished.The Semantic Web is generally built on syntaxes which use URIs to represent data, usually in triples based structures: i.e. many triples of URI data that can be held in databases, or interchanged on the world Wide Web using a set of particular syntaxes developed especially for the task. These syntaxes are called "Resource Description Framework" syntaxes.URI - Uniform Resource IdentifierA URI is simply a Web identifier: like the strings starting with "http:" or "ftp:" that you often find on the World Wide Web. Anyone can create a URI, and the ownership of them is clearly delegated, so they form an ideal base technology with which to build a global Web on top of. In fact, the World Wide Web is such a thing: anything that has a URI is considered to be "on the Web".The syntax of URIs is carefully governed by the IETF, who published?RFC 2396?as the general URI specification. The W3C maintains a?list of URI schemes.RDF - Resource Description FrameworkA triple can simply be described as three URIs. A language which utilises three URIs in such a way is called RDF: the W3C have developed an XML serialization of RDF, the "Syntax" in theRDF Model and Syntax recommendation. RDF XML is considered to be the standard interchange format for RDF on the Semantic Web, although it is not the only format. For example, Notation3 (which we shall be going through later on in this article) is an excellent plain text alternative serialization.Once information is in RDF form, it becomes easy to process it, since RDF is a generic format, which already has many parsers. XML RDF is quite a verbose specification, and it can take some getting used to (for example, to learn XML RDF properly, you need to understand a little about XML and namespaces beforehand...), but let's take a quick look at an example of XML RDF right now:-<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="" xmlns:dc="" xmlns:foaf="" > <rdf:Description rdf:about=""> <dc:creator rdf:parseType="Resource"> <foaf:name>Sean B. Palmer</foaf:name> </dc:creator> <dc:title>The Semantic Web: An Introduction</dc:title> </rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>This piece of RDF basically says that this article has the title "The Semantic Web: An Introduction", and was written by someone whose name is "Sean B. Palmer". Here are the triples that this RDF produces:-<> <; _:x0 .this <; "The Semantic Web: An Introduction" ._:x0 <; "Sean B. Palmer" .This format is actually a plain text serialization of RDF called "Notation3", which we shall be covering?later on. Note that some people actually prefer using XML RDF to Notation3, but it is generally accepted that Notation3 is easier to use, and is of course convertable to XML RDF anyway.Why RDF?When people are confronted with XML RDF for the first time, they usually have two questions: "why use RDF rather than XML?", and "do we use XML Schema in conjunction with RDF?".The answer to "why use RDF rather than XML?" is quite simple, and is twofold. Firstly, the benefit that one gets from drafting a language in RDF is that the information maps?directly?andunambiguously?to a model, a model which is decentralized, and for which there are many generic parsers already available. This means that when you have an RDF application, you know which bits of data are the semantics of the application, and which bits are just syntactic fluff. And not only do you know that,?everyone?knows that, often implicitly without even reading a specification because RDF is so well known. The second part of the twofold answer is that we hope that RDF data will become a part of the Semantic Web, so the benefits of drafting your data in RDF now draws parallels with drafting your information in HTML in the early days of the Web.The answer to "do we use XML Schema in conjunction with RDF?" is almost as brief. XML Schema is a language for restricting the?syntax?of XML applications. RDF already has a built in BNF that sets out how the language is to be used, so on the face of it the answer is a solid "no". However, using XML Schema in conjunction with RDF?may?be useful for creating datatypes and so on. Therefore the answer is "possibly", with a caveat that it is not really used to control the syntax of RDF. This is a common misunderstanding, perpetuated for too long now.Screen Scraping, and FormsFor the Semantic Web to reach its full potential, many people need to start publishing data as RDF. Where is this information going to come from? A lot of it can be derived from many data publications that exist today, using a process called "screen scraping". Screen scraping is the act of literally getting the data from a source into a more manageable form (i.e. RDF) using whatever means come to hand. Two useful tools for screen scraping are XSLT (an XML transformations language), and RegExps (in Perl, Python, and so on).However, screen scraping is often a tedious solution, so another way to approach it is to build proper RDF systems that take input from the user and then store it straight away in RDF. Data such as you may enter when signing up for a new mail account, buying some CDs online, or searching for a used car can all be stored as RDF and then used on the Semantic Web.Notation3: RDF Made EasyAs you will have seen above, XML RDF can be rather difficult, but thankfully, there is are simpler teaching forms of RDF. One of these is called "Notation3", and was developed by Tim Berners-Lee. There is some documentation covering N3, including a?specification, and an excellent?Primer.The design criteria behind Notation3 were fairly simple: design a simple easy to learn scribblable RDF format, that is easy to parse and build larger applications on top of. In Notation3, we can simply write out the URIs in a triple, delimiting them with a "<" and ">" symbols. For example, here's a simple triple consisting of three URI triples:-<; <; <; .To use literal values, simply enclose the value in double quote marks, thus:-<; <; "Sean" .If you don't want to give a URI for something that you are talking about, then there is a concept for that too (this is like saying "there is someone called... but without giving them a URI). You simply use an underscore and a colon, and then put a little label there:-_:a1 <; "Sean" .This may be read as "there is something that has the name Sean", or "a1 has the name Sean, for some value of a1". These things are called anonymous nodes, because they don't have a URI, and are sometimes referred to as existentially quantified nodes.Note how in one of the examples above, we used the URI "" three times, with only the last character changing each time? Notation3 gives us an excellent way to abbreviate this: by giving parts of URIs aliases, and using those aliases instead. This is how you declare an alias in Notation3:-@prefix xyz: <; .Note that you must always declare an alias before you can use it. To use an alias, simply use the "xyz:" bit instead of the URI, and?don't?wrap the resulting term in the "<" and ">" delimiters. For example, instead of writing:-<; <; <; .We can instead do:-@prefix xyz: <; .:a :b :c .Note that it doesn't matter what alias you use for a URI, as long as you use the same one throughout that document. You can also declare many aliases. The following bits of code are both equivalent to the piece of code above:-@prefix blargh: <; .blargh:a blargh:b blargh:c .@prefix blargh: <; .@prefix xyz: <; .blargh:a xyz:b blargh:c .However, it should be noted that we often use a few aliases pretty much standardly, so that when Semantic Web developers exchange code in plain text, they can just leave the prefixes out and people can guess what they're talking about. Note that code should?not?implement this feature. Here is an example of some "standard" aliases:-@prefix : <#> .@prefix rdf: <; .@prefix rdfs: <; .@prefix daml: <; .@prefix log: <; .@prefix dc: <; .@prefix foaf: <; .The empty alias ":" is often used to denote a new namespace that the author has not yet created a URI for (tut, tut). We use it in this introduction.Notation3 does have many other little constructs including contexts, DAML lists, and alternative ways of representing anonymous nodes, but we need not concern ourselves with them here. Note that a syntax was devised to be an even simpler subset of Notation3, called?N-Triples, but it doesn't use prefixes, and hence many of the examples in this article are not valid N-Triples, but are valid Notation3.Dan Connolly once called Notation3 a "poor-man's RDF authoring tool" (source: RDF IG logs, 2001-06-01 03:55:12). Apparently, it is called Notation3 because "RDF M&S was the first, the RDF strawman was the second and this is the third" (source:?RDF IG F2F 2001-02-26).CWM: An XML RDF And Notation3 Inference EngineAlthough we won't be discussing inference engines until later on in this article, we should note at this point that much RDF and Semantic Web processing (albeit often only experimental or demonstrative, at this stage) is done using a?Python?program called?CWM?or "Closed World Machine". More information can be found on the?SWAP?site.At the moment, the best demonstration of its use can be how it can convert from XML RDF into Notation3 and vice versa. To convert "a.n3" into "a.rdf", simply use the following command line:-python cwm.py a.n3 -rdf > a.rdfCWM is a very powerful Semantic Web toolkit, and we shall be refering to it occasionally throught this article.Simple Data Modelling: SchemataThe first "layer" of the Semantic Web above the syntax discussed above is the simple datatyping model. A "schema" (plural "schemata") is simply a document or piece of code that controls a set of terms in another document or piece of code. It's like a master checklist, or definition grammar.RDF SchemaRDF Schema (also:?RDF Schema Candidate Recommendation) was designed to be a simple datatyping model for RDF. Using RDF Schema, we can say that "Fido" is a type of "Dog", and that "Dog" is a sub class of animal. We can also create properties and classes, as well as doing some slightly more "advanced" stuff such as creating ranges and domains for properties.All of the terms for RDF Schema start with "", which you may have noticed is in our list of "standard" aliases above. The alias "rdfs:" is often used for RDF Schema, and we continue that tradition here.The first three most important concepts that RDF and RDF Schema give us are the "Resource" (rdfs:Resource), the "Class" (rdfs:Class), and the "Property" (rdf:Property). These are all "classes", in that terms may belong to these classes. For example, all terms in RDF are types of resource. To declare that something is a "type" of something else, we just use the rdf:type property:-rdfs:Resource rdf:type rdfs:Class .rdfs:Class rdf:type rdfs:Class .rdf:Property rdf:type rdfs:Class .rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property .This simply says that "Resource is a type of Class, Class is a type of Class, Property is a type of Class, and type is a type of Property". These are all true statements.It is quite easy to make up your own classes. For example, let's create a class called "Dog", which contains all of the dogs in the world:-:Dog rdf:type rdfs:Class .Now we can say that "Fido is a type of Dog":-:Fido rdf:type :Dog .We can also create properties quite easily by saying that a term is a type of rdf:Property, and then use those properties in our RDF:-:name rdf:type rdf:Property .:Fido :name "Fido" .Why have we said that Fido's name is "Fido"? Because the term ":Fido" is a URI, and we could quite easily have chosen any URI for Fido, including ":Squiggle" or ":n508s0srh". We just happened to use the URI ":Fido" because it's easier to remember. However, we still have to tell machines that his name is Fido, because although people can guess that from the URI (even though they probably shouldn't), machines can't.RDF Schema also has a few more properties that we can make use of: rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf. These allow us to say that one class or property is a sub class or sub property of another. For example, we might want to say that the class "Dog" is a sub class of the class "Animal". To do that, we simply say:-:Dog rdfs:subClassOf :Animal .Hence, when we say that Fido is a Dog, we are also saying that Fido is an Animal. We can also say that there are other sub classes of Animal:-:Human rdfs:subClassOf :Animal .:Duck rdfs:subClassOf :Animal .And then create new instances of those classes:-:Bob rdf:type :Human .:Quakcy rdf:type :Duck .And then we can invent another property, use that, and build up even more information...:owns rdf:type rdf:Property .:Bob :owns :Fido .:Bob :owns :Quacky .:Bob :name "Bob Fleming" .:Quacky :name "Quakcy" .And so on. You can see that RDF Schema is very simple, and yet allows one to build up knowledge bases of data in RDF very very quickly.The next concepts which RDF Schema provides us, which are important to mention, are ranges and domains. Ranges and domains let us say what classes the subject and object of each property must belong to. For example, we might want to say that the property ":bookTitle" must always apply to a book, and have a literal value:-:Book rdf:type rdfs:Class .:bookTitle rdf:type rdf:Property .:bookTitle rdfs:domain :Book .:bookTitle rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .:MyBook rdf:type :Book .:MyBook :bookTitle "My Book" .rdfs:domain always says what class the subject of a triple using that property belongs to, and rdfs:range always says what class the object of a triple using that property belongs to.RDF Schema also contains a set of properties for annotating schemata, providing comments, labels, and the like. The two properties for doing this are rdfs:label and rdfs:comment, and an example of their use is:-:bookTitle rdfs:label "bookTitle"; rdfs:comment "the title of a book" .It is a good best practise to always label and comment your new properties, classes, and other terms.Ontologies, Inferences, and DAMLDAML?is a language created by?DARPA?as an ontology and inference langauge based upon RDF. DAML takes RDF Schema a step further, by giving us more in depth properties and classes. DAML allows one to be even more expressive than with RDF Schema, and brings us back on track with our Semantic Web discussion by providing some simple terms for creating inferences.DAML+OILDAML provides us a method of saying things such as inverses, unambiguous properties, unique properties, lists, restrictions, cardinalities, pairwise disjoint lists, datatypes, and so on. We shall run through a couple of these here, but armed with the knowledge that you've already gotten from this introduction (assuming that you haven't skipped any of it!), it should be just as beneficial going through the?DAML+OIL Walkthru.One DAML construct that we shall run through is the daml:inverseOf property. Using this property, we can say that one property is the inverse of another. The rdfs:range and rdfs:domain values of daml:inverseOf is rdf:Property. Here is an example of daml:inverseOf being used:-:hasName daml:inverseOf :isNameOf .:Sean :hasName "Sean" ."Sean" :isNameOf :Sean .The second useful DAML construct that we shall go through is the daml:UnambiguousProperty class. Saying that a Property is a daml:UnambiguousProperty means that if the object of the property is the same, then the subjects are equivalent. For example:-foaf:mbox rdf:type daml:UnambiguousProperty .:x foaf:mbox .:y foaf:mbox .implies that:-:x daml:equivalentTo :y .Don't worry if this is getting all a bit too much... it's not essential to learning about the Semantic Web, but it is useful, since many Semantic Web applications now involve DAML. However, DAML is only one in a series of languages and so forth that are being used.InferenceThe principle of "inference" is quite a simple one: being able to derive new data from data that you already know. In a mathematical sense, querying is a form of inference (being able to infer some search results from a mass of data, for example). Inference is one of the driving principles of the Semantic Web, because it will allow us to create SW applications quite easily.To demonstrate the power of inference, we can use some simple examples. Let's take the simple car example: we can say that:-:MyCar de:macht "160KW" .Now, to a German Semantic Web processor, the term ":macht" may well be built into it, and although an English processor may have an equivalent term built into it somewhere, it will not understand the code with the term in it that it doesn't understand. Here, then, is a piece of inference data that makes things clearer to the processor:-de:macht daml:equivalentTo en:power .We have used the DAML "equivalentTo" property to say that "macht" in the German system is equivalent to "power" in the English system. Now, using an inference engine, a Semantic Web client could successfully determine that:-:MyCar en:power "160KW" .This is only a very simple example of inference, but you can see immediately how easily the system could scale up. Merging databases simply becomes a matter of recording in RDF somewhere that "Person Name" in your database is equivalent to "Name" in my database, and then throwing all of the information together and getting a processor to think about it.Indeed, this is already possible with Semantic Web tools that we have at our disposal today: CWM. Unfortunately, great levels of inference can only be provided using "First Order Predicate Logic" languages, and DAML is not a FOPL language entirely.LogicFor the Semantic Web to become expressive enough to help us in a wide range of situations, it will become necessary to construct a powerful logical language for making inferences. There is a raging debate as to how and even whether this can be accomplished, with people pointing out that RDF lacks the power to quantify, and that the scope of quantification is not well defined. Predicate logic is better discussed in John Sowa's excellent?Mathematical Background (Predicate Logic).In particular, Pat Hayes is hard at work on a model for RDF that may ease the situation (2001-09), but there is still a great amount of uncertainty at this time. Of course, this does not stop us from using a Webized version of KIF or somesuch as a logical language on the Semantic Web.At any rate, we already have a great range of tools with which to build the Semantic Web: assertions (i.e. "and"), and quoting (reification) in RDF, classes, properties, ranges and documentation in RDF Schema, disjoint classes, unambiguous and unique properties, datatypes, inverses, equivalencies, lists, and much more in DAML+OIL.Note that Notation3 introduces a "context" construct, enabling one to group statements together and quantify over them using a specially designed?logic vocabulary. Using this vocabulary, for example, one can express "or", using NANDs:-{ { :Joe :loves :TheSimpsons } a log:Falsehood . { :Joe :is :Nuts } a log:Falsehood .} a log:Falsehood .Which can be read as "it is not true that Joe does not love The Simpsons and is not nuts". I resisted the temptation to make Joe a universally quantified variable.Note that the above example does not serialize "properly" into XML RDF, because XML RDF does not have the context construct as denoted by the curly brackets in the example above. However a similar effect can be achieved using reification and containers.The Power Of Semantic Web LanguagesThe main power of Semantic Web languages is that any one can create one, simply by publishing some RDF that describes a set of URIs, what they do, and how they should be used. We have already seen that RDF Schema and DAML are very powerful langauges for creating languages.Because we use URIs for each of the terms in our languages, we can publish the languages easily without fear that they might get misinterpreted or stolen, and with the knowledge that anyone in the world that has a generic RDF processor can use them.The Principle Of Least PowerThe Semantic Web works on a principle of least power: the less rules, the better. This means that the Semantic Web is essentially very unconstraining in what it lets one say, and hence it follows that anyone can say anything about anything. When you look at what the Semantic Web is trying to do, it becomes very obvious why this level of power is necessary... if we started constraining people, they wouldn't be able to build a full range of applications, and the Semantic Web would therefore become useless to some people.How Much Is Too Much?However, it has been pointed out that this power will surely be too much... won't people be trying to process their shopping lists on an inference engine, and suddenly come up with a plan for world peace, or some strange and exciting new symphony?The answer is (perhaps unfortunately!) no. Although the basic parts of the Semantic Web, RDF and the concepts behind it are very minimally constraining, applications that are built on top of the Semantic Web will be designed to perform specific tasks, and as such will be very well defined.For example, take a simple server log program. One might want to record some server logs in RDF, and then build a program that can gather statistics from the logs that pertain to the site; how many visitors it had in a week, and so forth. That doesn't mean that it'll turn your floppy disc drive into a toaster or anything; it'll just process server logs. The power that you get from publishing your information in RDF is that once published in the public domain, it can be?repurposed?(used for other things) so much easier. Because RDF uses URIs, it is fully decentralized: you don't have to beg for some central authority to publish a language and all your data for you... you can do it yourself. It's Do It Yourself data management.The Pedantic WebUnfortunately, there is an air of academia and corporatate thinking lingering in the Semantic Web community, which has lead to the term "Pedantic Web" being coined, and a lot of mis/disinformation and unecessary hype being disseminated. Note that this very document was devised to help clear up some common misconceptions that people may have about the Semantic Web.For example, almost all beginners to RDF go through a sort of "identity crisis" phase, where they confuse people with their names, and documents with their titles. For example, it is common to see statements such as:-<; dc:creator "Bob" .However, Bob is just a literal string, so how can a literal string write a document? What the author really means is:-<; dc:creator _:b ._:b foaf:name "Bob" .i.e., that was created by someone whose name is "Bob". Tips like these are being slowly collected, and some of them are being displayed in the?SWTips?guide, a collection of Semantic Web hints and tips maintained as a collaborative development project.Education And OutreachThe move away from the "Pedantic Web", to some extent, is all part of a movement to bring the power of the Semantic Web to the people. This is a well documented need:-[...] the idea that the above URIs reveal a schema that somehow fully describes this language and that it is so simple (only two {count 'em 2} possible "statements"), yet looks like the recipe for flying to Mars is a bit daunting. Its very simplicity enables it to evaluate and report on just about anything - from document through language via guidelines! It is a fundamental tool for the Semantic Web in that it gives "power to the people" who can say anything about anything.-?EARL for dummies, William Loughborough, May 2001RDF Schema and DAML+OIL are generally languages that need to be?learned, however, so what is being done to accomodate people who have neither the time nor patience to read up on these things, and yet want to create Semantic Web applications? Thankfully, many Semantic Web applications will be lower end appliactions, so you'll no more need to have a knowledge of RDF than?Amaya?requires one to have a knowledge of (X)HTML.Trust and ProofThe next step in the archtecture of the Semantic Web is trust and proof. Very little is written about this layer, which is a shame since it will become very important in the future.In stark reality, the simplest way to put it is: if one person says that x is blue, and another says that x is not blue, doesn't the whole Semantic Web fall apart?The answer is of course not, because a) applications on the Semantic Web at the moment generally depend upon context, and b) because applications in the future will generally contain proof checking mechanisms, and digital signatures.ContextApplications on the Semantic Web will depend on context generally to let people know whether or not they trust the data. If I get an RDF feed from a friend about some movies that he's seen, and how highly he rates them, I know that I trust that information. Moreover, I can then use that information and safely trust that it came from him, and then leave it down to my own judgement just to how much I trust his critiques of the films that he has reviewed.Groups of people also operate on shared context. If one group is developing a Semantic Web depiction service, cataloguing who people are, what their names are, and where pictures of those people are, then my trust of that group is dependant upon how much I trust the people running it not to make spurious claims.So context is a good thing because it lets us operate on local and medium scales intuitively, without having to rely on complex authentication and checking systems. However, what happens when there is a party that we know, but we don't know how to verify that a certain heap of RDF data came from them? That's where digital signatures come in.Digital SignaturesDigital signatures are simply little bits of code that one can use to unambiguously verify that one wrote a certain document. Many people are probably familiar with the technology: it the same key based PGP-style thing that people use to encrypt and sign messages. We simply apply that technology to RDF.For example, let's say I have some information in RDF that contains a link to a digital signature:-this :signature <; .:Jane :loves :Mary .To ascertain whether or not we trust that Jane really loves Mary, we can feed the RDF into a trust engine (an inference engine that has a little digital signature checker built into it), and get it to work out if we trust the source of the information.Proof LanguagesA proof language is simply a language that let's us prove whether or not a statement is true. An instance of a proof language will generally consist of a list of inference "items" that have been used to derive the information in question, and the trust information for each of those items that can then be checked.For example, we may want to prove that Joe loves Mary. The way that we came across the information is that we found two documents on a trusted site, one of which said that ":Joe :loves :MJS", and another of which said that ":MJS daml:equivalentTo :Mary". We also got the checksums of the files in person from the maintainer of the site.To check this information, we can list the checksums in a local file, and then set up some FOPL rules that say "if file 'a' contains the information Joe loves mary and has the checksum md5:0qrhf8q3hfh, then record SuccessA", "if file 'b' contains the information MJS is equivalent to Mary, and has the checksum md5:0892t925h, then record SuccessB", and "if SuccessA and SuccessB, then Joe loves Mary".An example of this in Notation3 can be found in some of the author's?proof example?experiments, but here is the rules file:-@prefix : <; .@prefix p: <; .@prefix log: <; .@prefix rdfs: <; .p:ProvenTruth rdfs:subClassOf log:Truth .# Proof{ { <a.n3> p:checksum <md5:blargh>; log:resolvesTo [ log:includes { :Joe :loves :MJS } ] }log:implies{ :Step1 a p:Success } } a log:Truth .{ { <b.n3> p:checksum <md5:test>; log:resolvesTo [ log:includes { :MJS = :Mary } ] }log:implies{ :Step2 a p:Success } } a log:Truth .{ { :Step1 a p:Success . :Step2 a p:Success }log:implies { { :Joe :loves :Mary } a p:ProvenTruth } } a log:Truth .The file speaks for itself, and when processed using CWM, does indeed work, producing the intended output. CWM doesn't have the capability to automatically check file checksums or digital signatures, but it is only a matter of time before a proper Semantic Web trust engine is written.Ambient Information and SEMThe scope of information was discussed a little, but let's take into consideration what it really means to have a "local" and a "global" system.In general, there are small and large scale systems, and interactions between the two will most likely form a huge part of the transactions that occur on the Semantic Web. Let's define what we mean by large, medium, and small scale systems.Large ScaleAn example of a large scale system is two companies that are undergoing a merger needing to combine their databases. Another example would be search engines compiling results based upon a huge range of data. Large scale Semantic Web systems generally involve large databases, and heavy duty inference rules and processors are required to handle the databases.Medium ScaleMedium scale Semantic Web systems attempt to make sense out of the larger scale Semantic Web systems, or are examples of small scale Semantic Web systems joined together. An example of the former is a company trying to partially understand two large scale invoice formats enough to use them together. An example of the latter is of two address book language groups trying to create a super-address book language.Small ScaleSmall scale Semantic Web systems are less widely discussed. By small scale Semantic Web systems, we mean languages that will be used primarily offline, or piles of data that will only be transferred with a limited scope, perhaps between friends, departments, or even two companies.Sharing data on a local level is a very powerful example of how the Semantic Web can be useful in a myriad of situations. In the next section on?evolution?we shall be finding out how interactions between the different sized systems will form a key part of the Semantic Web.SEM - SEmantic MemoryThe concept of a SEmantic Memory was first proposed by Seth Russell, who suggested that personal database dumps of RDF that one has collected from the "rest" of the Semantic Web (a kind of Semantic Cloud) would be imperative for maintaining a coherant view of data. For example, a SEM would most likely be partitioned into data which is inherent to the whole Semantic Web (i.e., the schemata for the major languages such as XML RDF, RDF Schema, DAML+OIL, and so on), local data which is important for any Semantic Web applications that may be running (e.g. information about the logic namespace for CWM, which is currently built in), and data that the person has personally been using, is publishing, or that has been otherwise entered into the root context of the SEM.The internal structure of a SEM will most likely go well beyond the usual triples structure of RDF, perhaps as far as quads or even pents. The extra fields are for contexts (an StID), and perhaps sequences. In other words, they are ways of grouping information?within?the SEM, for easy maintainence and update. For example, it should become simple to just delete any triple that was added into a certain context by removing all triples with that particular StID.A lot of work on the Semantic Web has concentrated on making data stores (i.e. SEMs) interoperable, which is good, but that has lead to less work being conducted on what actually happens within the SEM itself, which is not good, because the representation of quads and pents in RDF is therefore up in the air. Obviously, statements can be modelled as they would be for reification:-rdf:Statement rdfs:subClassOf :Pent ._:s1 rdf:type :Pent ._:s1 rdf:subject :x ._:s1 rdf:predicate :y ._:s1 rdf:object :z ._:s1 :context :p ._:s1 :seq "0" .But clearly a dedicated pentuples format is always going to be more efficient, and aviod the perils of reification:-:x :y :z :p "0" .This language also needs a default context flag that indicates the root context of the document. The root context of a document is the space to which the (non-quoted) assertions are parsed, the conceptual information space in which all of the assertions are taken to be true. Any quoted information in the document (for example, using the Notation3 context syntax) would be in a different (possibly anonymous) context than the root context of the document.TimBL appears, gaguing from the CWM source code, to be using "...#_formula" as the root context for the document, which (if true) is a bit of a nasty hack... what if one creates a property with the same URI? Maintaining interoperability at this level of the Semantic Web is an important thing for the Semantic Web developers to be investigating at this stage.EvolutionA very important concept on the Semantic Web is that of evolution: going from one system into another. Two key parts of evolvability are?partial understanding?and?transformability. We will find out next how these manifest themselves naturally when changing the scale of a system.Partial Understanding: Large Scale to Medium ScaleThe concept of?partial understanding?is a very important one on the Semantic Web, and can often be found in older documents that came out about the same time as the Semantic Web was first being theorized.An example of partial understanding when moving a large scale system to a medium scale system is of a company trying to make sense out of two invoices, one from Company A and one from Company B. The knowledge that both of the companies use similar fields in their invoices is well known, so company trying to make sense out of the invoices can easily compile a master list of expenditures by simply scraping the data from the two invoice languages. Neither Company A nor Company B need to know that this is going on.Indeed, TimBL included this example in his XML 2000 keynote:-[...] what we'll end up doing in the future is converting things, so for example [...] in the Semantic Web we will have a relationship between two langauges so that if you get an invoice in a langauge you don't understand, and you have... some business software which can pay invoices... by following links across the Semantic Web, your machine will be able to automatically convert it from one language to another, and so process it.-?Tim Berners-LeeTransformability: Small Scale to Medium ScaleAn example of a small scale Semantic Web system joined together to make a medium sized Semantic Web system could be two groups that have published address book fomats wanting to make a larger and better address book format by merging the two current formats together. Anyone using one of the old address book formats could probably convert them into the new format, and hence there would be a greater sense of interoperability. That's generally what happens when one goes from a small scale Semantic Web system into a medium scale Semantic Web system, although this is often not without some disadvantages and incompatabilites. The Semantic Web takes the sting out of it by automating 99% of the process (it can convert field A into field B, but it can't fill in any new data for you... of course, new fields can always be left empty for a while).Facilitating EvolvabilityHow do we document the evolution of languages? This is a very important and indeed urgent question, and one which TimBL summarized quite neatly:-Where for example a library of congress schema talks of an "author", and a British Library talks of a "creator", a small bit of RDF would be able to say that for any person x and any resource y, if x is the (LoC) author of y, then x is the (BL) creator of y. This is the sort of rule which solves the evolvability problems. Where would a processor find it? [...]-?Semantic Web roadmap, Tim Berners-LeeOne possible answer is: third party databases. Very often, it is not practical to have (in TimBL's example) either the LoC or or BL record the fact that two of their fields are the same, so this information will have to be recorded by a reputable third party.One such "third party" that was set up to investigate this is?SWAG, the Semantic Web Agreement Group. Co-founded by Seth Russell, Sean B. Palmer, Aaron Swartz, and William Loughborough, the group aims to ensure interoperability on the Semantic Web. They set up what is possibly the first ever third party Semantic Web dictionary, the?WebNS SWAG Dictionary.Intertwingling: Difficult, But ImportantAlthough the Semantic Web as a whole is still very much at a grassroots kind of level, people are starting to take notice; they're starting to publish information using RDF, and thereby making it fit for the Semantic Web.However, not enough is being done to link information together... in other words, the "Semantic" part of the "Semantic Web" is coming along nicely, but where's the "Web"? People are not using other people's terms effectively; when they use other terms, they often do so because they're aimlessly trying to help, but just generating noice in the process. If you're going to use other people's data, try to find out what the advantage is in doing that beforehand. For example, just because you use the term "dc:title" in your RDF rather than a home brewed ":title", does that mean that suddenly a Dublin Core application is going to be able to "understand" your code? Of course not. What it does mean however is that if the "dc:title" property in your instance is being put to use in such a way that information may be need to repurposed from it in the near future, then you?may?gain some advantage because "dc:title" is such a commonly used term, you may be able to modify a current rules file, or whatever.Another part of the problem may be due to a problem similar to the one that the early World Wide Web experienced: why bother publishing a Web site when there is no one else's site to link to or be linked to? Why bother publishing a Web site when so few people have browsers? Why bother writing a browser when there are so few Web sites? Some people have to make the leaps for it all to happen, and that's a slow process.What can be done about the situation? Well, it may hopefully sort itself out. Another well-known principle that applies very well to Semantic Web applications is that there is no point in reinventing the wheel; viz., if someone has already invented a schema which contains a comprehensive and well understood and used set of terms that you also need to use in your application, then there is no point in trying to redo the work that they have done. At some points this may lead to a form of "schema war", but survival of the fittest should see to it that a core of the best schemata are put to the most use. This is probably what TimBL means when he says that terms will just "emerge" out of the Semantic Cloud, that when people keep using the term "zip", rather than just recording that my term "zip" is equivalent to your term "zip" which is equivalent to someone else's term "zip", we'll all just use the same URI, and hence interoperability will be vastly improved.Does It Work? What Semantic Web Applications Are There?I addressed this in a previous article:?The Semantic Web: Taking Form, but it does bear repeating: the Semantic Web?already?works, and people are using it.Semantic Web ApplicationsUnfortunately, the Semantic Web is dissimilar in many ways from the World Wide Web, including that you can't just point people to a Web site for them to realise how it's working, and what it is. However, there have been a number of small scale Semantic Web applications written up. One of the best ones is Dan Connolly's Arcs and Nodes diagrams experiment:-One of the objectives of the advanced development component of the Semantic Web activity is to demonstrate how RDF and Semantic Web technologies can be applied to the W3C Process to increase efficiency, reliability, etc. In the early stages of developing an RDF model of the W3C process, the tools I was using to visualize the model while working on it started working well enough that I started applying them to all sorts of stuff.-?Circles and arrows diagrams using stylesheet rules,?Dan Connolly.Of course, this is a rather demonstration-oriented Semantic Web project, but it does illustrate the feasibility of applications being easily built using Semantic Web toolkits.Another good example of the Semantic Web at work is Dan Brickley et al.'s?RDFWeb. RDFWeb is a RDF database driven hypermedia blogspace, a site where all information is stored as RDF, and then that RDF used to render XHTML. Plans are underway to incorporate more advanced Semantic Web principles into the site.What Can I Do To Help?There are many ways in which one can contribute to creating the Semantic Web. Here's a few of them:-Publish some globally useful data in RDF.Write an inference engine in the language of your choice.Spread the word: do some education and outreach.Help in the developent of RDF Schema and/or DAML.Contribute in representing state in RDF, a rather neglected field of research.Apply your own development backgrounds to the Semantic Web, give us all a new angle to consider it from.Instead of using some proprietary system for your next application, consider making it a Semantic Web project instead.There are many other ways in which one can help as well: ask in the community for more details.What Now? Further ReadingAs of 2001-09, the amount of Semantic Web Education and Outreach materials can only really be described as "pitiful" (hence this introduction, for a start). Here's a short list of some of thegood?primers and materials currently available, in no particular order:-?(Getting Into RDF & Semantic Web Using N3)?(Semantic Web Roadmap)?(What Is The Semantic Web?)?(Semantic Web Primer)?(Semantic Web Introduction - Long)?(SciAm: The Semantic Web)?(Building The Semantic Web)?(The Semantic Web, Taking Form)?(SW Activity Statement)?(SWAD)For more information, all the latest news etc., Dave Beckett's?Resource Description Framework (RDF) Resource Guide?is absolutely brilliant.Many Semantic Web and RDF developers hang out on the RDF IG IRC chatroom, on?irc., #rdfig. the Internet free and openStarting in 1973, when my colleagues and I proposed the technology behind the Internet, we advocated for an open standard to connect computer networks together. This wasn’t merely philosophical; it was also practical.?Our protocols were designed to make the networks of the Internet non-proprietary and interoperable. They avoided “lock-in,” and allowed for contributions from many sources. This openness is why the Internet creates so much value today. Because it is borderless and belongs to everyone, it has brought unprecedented freedoms to billions of people worldwide: the freedom to create and innovate, to organize and influence, to speak and be heard.?But starting in a few hours, a closed-door?meeting?of the world’s governments is taking place in Dubai, and regulation of the Internet is on the agenda. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is convening a conference from December 3-14 to revise a decades-oldtreaty, in which only governments have a vote. Some proposals could allow governments to justify the censorship of legitimate speech, or even cut off Internet access in their countries.You can read more about my concerns on?,?but I am not alone. So far, more than 1,000 organizations from more than 160 countries have?spoken up too, and they’re joined by hundreds of thousands of Internet users who are standing up for a free and open Internet. On an interactive map at?, you can see that people from all corners of the world have signed our petition, used the #freeandopen hashtag on social media, or created and uploaded videos to say how important these issues are.?If you agree and want to support a free and open Internet too, I invite you to join us by signing the petition at?takeaction. Please make your voice heard and spread the word.?Update?December 15, 2012:?At the conclusion of the ITU meeting in Dubai on Friday, 89 countries signed the treaty, while 55 countries said they would not sign or that additional review was needed. We stand with the countries who refused to sign, and with the?millions of you?who have voiced your support for a free and open web.?Posted by Vint Cerf, VP and Chief Internet Evangelist. InternetIn this exclusive interview we talk to?Dr. Vint Cerf?(Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google, widely known as one of the "Fathers of the Internet"). We discuss the growth of the Internet, together with its role in human culture and society. We then look at the state of the Internet now, and what to expect from the future of this profoundly important technology.--------------------------------------------------Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, December 2011There are many reasons for the astonishing success of our species, but our ability to co-operate is surely one of the most profound. The phenomenon of co-operation is, itself, the manifestation of a gamut of intellectual-technologies (which?Nicholas Carr, in his 2011 book "The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains" describes as being those we use to think with, to find information, gather information, exchange information and so forth). “Intellectual technologies…” explains Carr, “...have the greatest and most lasting power over what and how we think. They are our most intimate tools, the ones we use for self-expression, for shaping personal and public identity, and for cultivating relations with others…”For the majority of human history, such technologies (language, writing and so on) were contained within a small group of the population comprised of the political and social elite, religious figures, scientists, philosophers to name a few. Things remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years but “The last century…” observed?Lewis Mumford?(in his 1966 essay, ‘Knowledge Among Men’) “… has witnessed a radical transformation in the entire human environment, largely as a result of the impact of the mathematical and physical sciences upon technology… In terms of the currently accepted picture of the relation of man to technics, our age is passing from the primeval state of man, marked by his invention of tools and weapons for the purpose of achieving mastery over the forces of nature, to a radically different condition, in which he will not only have conquered nature but detached himself completely from the organic habitat.”The past half-century has been an astounding period of cognitive enlightenment where innovation after innovation added new dimensions to the human experience (across all social and intellectual dimensions). Of these innovations, it has been the technologies of mass-communication that have been the most dramatic in their influence. Carr quotes from?Marshall McLuhan’s seminal work ‘Understanding Media’ describing how these advances, “…were breaking the tyranny of text over our thoughts and senses. Our isolated fragmented selves, locked for centuries in the private reading of printed pages, were becoming whole again, merging into the global equivalent of a tribal village. We were approaching the technological simulation of consciousness, when the creative process of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole of human society.” These technologies of mass-communication have unified with the Internet- an anarchic network of interconnected devices which now links over 2.1billion people (30% of the world population) . Carr describes how the Internet is ‘subsuming’ most of our other intellectual technologies, “…it’s becoming our typewriter and our printing press, our map and our clock, our calculator and our telephone, our post office and our library, our radio and our TV.” Even the very essence of ‘who’ we are is changing.“… Electronic systems change not only what we know, but how we know it (Posner, 1990). With the steady expansion of cyberspace, the Enlightenment notion of the human subject-unified, consistent, and non-contradictory-is being increasingly replaced by ‘Netizens’, who may occupy numerous, even contradictory social positions and inhabit multiple, overlapping communities simultaneously. Foucault (1986, 22) put it well: ‘We are in the epoch of simultaneity; we are in the epoch of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and the far, of the side-by-side, of the dispersed…’” (‘Counterhegemonic Discourses and the Internet’, Barney Warf and John Grime, 1997). So what will be the impact of the Internet on our civilisation?In this exclusive interview we talk to Dr. Vint Cerf (Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google, widely known as one of the "Fathers of the Internet"). We discuss the growth of the Internet, together with its role in human culture and society. We then look at the state of the Internet now, and what to expect from the future of this profoundly important technology.Vinton G. Cerf?has served as vice president and chief Internet evangelist for?Google?since October 2005 and was previously senior vice president of Technology Strategy for?MCI. Prior to rejoining MCI in 1994, Cerf was vice president of the?Corporation for National Research Initiatives?(CNRI). As vice president of MCI Digital Information Services from 1982-1986, he led the engineering of?MCI Mail, the first commercial email service to be connected to the Internet.Widely known as one of the "Fathers of the Internet," Cerf is the co-designer of the?TCP/IP?protocols and the architecture of the Internet (During his tenure from 1976-1982 with the U.S. Department of?Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency?(DARPA), Cerf played a key role leading the development of Internet and Internet-related packet data and security technologies). In December 1997,?President Clinton?presented the?U.S. National Medal of Technology?to Cerf and his colleague,?Robert E. Kahn, for founding and developing the Internet. Kahn and Cerf were named the recipients of the?ACM Alan M. Turing award?in 2004 for their work on the Internet protocols. In November 2005,?President George Bush?awarded Cerf and Kahn the?Presidential Medal of Freedom?for their work. The medal is the highest civilian award given by the United States to its citizens. In April 2008, Cerf and Kahn received the prestigious?Japan Prize.Vint Cerf served as chairman of the board of the?Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers?(ICANN) from 2000-2007. Cerf also served as founding president of the?Internet Society?from 1992-1995 and in 1999 served a term as chairman of the Board. In addition, Cerf is honorary chairman of the?IPv6 Forum, dedicated to raising awareness and speeding introduction of the new Internet protocol. Cerf served as a member of the?U.S. Presidential Information Technology Advisory Committee?(PITAC) from 1997 to 2001 and serves on several national, state and industry committees focused on cyber-security. Cerf sits on the Board of Directors for the Endowment for Excellence in Education, the?Broadband for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Corporation,StopBadWare, the?Smart Grid Interoperability Panel?governing board (2009-2011) and the?Intaba Institute?(for the Deaf). He serves on the?Jet Propulsion Laboratory?Director's Advisory Committee and is a distinguished visiting scientist (it is in this latter role where he is working on the design of an?interplanetary Internet) and serves as Chair of the?Visitors Committee on Advanced Technology?of the?U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. He also serves as 1st Vice President and Treasurer of theNational Science & Technology Medals Foundation.Cerf is a recipient of numerous awards and commendations in connection with his work on the Internet. These include the?Marconi Fellowship,?Charles Stark Draper award of the National Academy of Engineering,?the Prince of Asturias award for science and technology, the National Medal of Science from Tunisia, the?St. Cyril and St. Methodius?Order (Grand Cross) of Bulgaria, the Alexander Graham Bell Award presented by the?Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, the NEC Computer and Communications Prize, the Silver Medal of the?International Telecommunications Union, the?IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal, the?IEEE Koji Kobayashi Award, the?ACM Software and Systems Award, the?ACM SIGCOMM Award,?the Computer and Communications Industries Association?Industry Legend Award, installation in the?Inventors Hall of Fame, the?Yuri Rubinsky?Web Award,?the Kilby Award?, the?Rotary Club International Paul P. Harris Medal,?the Joseph Priestley Award?from Dickinson College, the Yankee Group/Interop/Network World Lifetime Achievement Award, the?George R. Stibitz Award, the Werner Wolter Award, the Andrew Saks Engineering Award, the?IEEE Third Millennium Medal, the?Computerworld / Smithsonian Leadership Award, theJ.D. Edwards Leadership Award for Collaboration,?World Institute on Disability?Annual award and the?Library of Congress Bicentennial Living Legend medal.Cerf was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in May 2006. He was made an Eminent Member of the?IEEE Eta Kappa Nu?(HKN) honor society of the IEEE in 2009. In February 2011 he was named a?Stanford Engineering School?"Hero" for his work on the Internet.Cerf holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from?Stanford University?and Master of Science and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science from?UCLA. He also holds honorary Doctorate degrees from twenty internationally respected universities.Q: ‘What’ is the Internet and why did it grow so fast??[Dr. Vint Cerf]?The 'Internet' arose in response to a problem the?defence department?was trying to solve. We were looking at the possibility of using computers for?command and control?and the theory was that if you could use a programmed computer, or a collection of computers, to manage military resources- you may enable a smaller force to overcome a bigger one (the force multiplier). The first experiment was called the 'ARPANET'. This was a packet switching experiment. The second experiment was called 'The Internetting' project, started by Bob Kahn when he was the American Defence Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA). That project basically said, "...If I can put computers in places that the military uses they'll have to work in aircraft, ships at sea, mobile devices, mobile vehicles as well as fixed land installations...." This meant you had to use satellite and radio technology in addition to fixed circuits to build the networks- and then find some way to interconnect them so the computers on any one of the networks could communicate with any other. That was the TCP/IP design, which was originally done in 1973, published in 1974 and elaborated over a period of several years- finally being implemented operationally January 1st 1983.The reason the Internet grew so quickly is that it happened to come at a time when workstations were becoming increasingly popular.?Ethernets?had been around since 1973 and were also very widely available. The research community was enthusiastic about having computer resources closer to the users as opposed to the big time-shared mainframes of the day. During this same period of time, specifications for the TCP/IP protocols were widely and openly available without any intellectual property restrictions on their use. They gained a great deal credibility… because they worked! (Compared to the?OSI initiative?which was mainly paper, and even though it was initiated by the international standards organisation and apparently endorsed by a large number of countries including the US, it simply did not have the experience in the field). During that period of time from '83 onward, especially after '88- we saw serious commercialisation. We saw?routers?commercialised around 1986- by?Cisco?systems and their peers- which made them highly accessible and useful to not only the academic community, but also the private sector. Networking services, which had the province of governments primarily, became commercially accessible- at least in the US- around 1989. That unleashed a substantial demand because people were very interested in using computers for all kinds of things!There are two things to observe. Firstly, the rate at which the Internet grew... the numbers of computers, users and pieces of equipment on the system doubled every year starting in 1988 for quite a while. Secondly, In 1991 or so,?Tim Berners Lee?released his "World Wide Web" design which sat on top of the internet and made it even more useful. This became commercially visible in the form of?Netscape Communications?in around 1994 and as soon as that company went public- the 'dot boom' was triggered, and everybody wanted to invest in the Internet. Fast-forward to April 2000, and this all fell apart- investments were made without sensible business models. People were throwing money around hoping to have another big success like Netscape Communications.... The 'dot bust' happened, which persisted for around five years, but even during that period of time- the Internet continued to grow. Perhaps not doubling every year, but certainly increasing at least 40% per year- as there was still a latent demand for that capability.Q: How has the Internet changed our relationship with information??[Dr. Vint Cerf]?Humans have always had a relationship with information, and it's always been important to our society and culture. Even if you were a cave man, if you didn't know that a sabre-toothed tiger was dangerous you wouldn't live long enough to affect the gene pool! ...Knowledge was always important, it just got more and more important as society developed. The internet is simply the latest in a series of information sharing capabilities which started with writing and came through major milestones like the?Gutenberg press?and other mass-media like newspapers, television, radio and so on. It has the interesting property that it permits interactive use, whereas most mass-media mechanisms are one-way through publishing, broadcast television, radio and so on. Internet, on the other hand, allows for two-way and group interaction.The Internet created an avenue for group communication that hadn't existed before. We could see it very early. Not long after ARPANET's 'email' was invented in around 1971-72, we started to see distribution lists emerge which had very clear social elements to them. In addition to being used for project management and sharing of technical information, they were also used for comments on science fiction stories, observations about restaurants and so on. It was very clear there was a social-element to even very early email! This was expanded over time until we now have these very elaborate systems we label 'social networking’. These ideas have, though, been around for quite a long time. Online chatting, for example, was quite readily in-use way back in the early 1970's. You could meet someone in a time-sharing system somewhere and type at each other, or a group could be typing- and everyone in the group could see. Many of the ideas that people think are 'brand new' to the internet are actually old, but have been incarnated at higher speeds and in different modalities such as audio, video and so on.Q: What has been the impact of the Internet on the world's economic and political landscape??[Dr. Vint Cerf]?It's plain that politics is all about communication- so we've seen huge amplifying effects that the Internet and web permit.?The Arab Spring?is a fairly dramatic example of that, but?the Obama campaign?during 2008 also demonstrated how strongly one could use the Internet and related technologies in order to organise people. Alongside that immediate and obvious observation, but perhaps even more importantly from the standpoint of human progress, the exchange of scientific and technical information has been dramatically improved by having the ability to share data in substantial quantities and to analyse it. Certainly, Google's efforts to scan books and supply technical information through?Google Scholar?are just two small examples of the ways that information sharing has been possible. The World Wide Web, with all of its pages, blogs and so on- has allowed human expression in ways that would have been uneconomic and out of reach before. The most dramatic effect has been this ability for almost anyone to express himself or herself whenever they want to- and potentially be heard by many others.Q: Do you feel the Internet has made the world more 'democratic'??[Dr. Vint Cerf]?I think it [the Internet] has the potential to make a more democratic society, but it's pretty clear that governments- now that they've figured out it's a two way medium- are also trying to control it and use it as an avenue for either disinformation or for inhibiting people from finding information out- the Chinese being the classic example, although they are not alone. Many countries are feeling threatened by the ability of people to exchange information freely over the net. You also have the intellectual property community who have gone bonkers in my opinion. Once technology allows information to be digitised, it's very easy to duplicate and distribute. Rather than understanding that, and trying to leverage it- we have the intellectual property community lobbying to produce really terrible pieces of legislations (like the ones in the US).The Internet TodayQ: What has been the impact of mobile technologies on the Internet??[Dr. Vint Cerf]?In the case of mobiles, two important things to keep in mind are that ‘the mobile’ started out as a telephone, and then- as we emerged into the smart-phone environment (where you could run programmes on the device)- they became mobile computers. When the mobile became capable of reaching applications on the Internet, its functionality and power increased dramatically as you were no longer confined to the computing power of your handset.?Twitter, for example, wouldn't work if it were purely mobile based- or at least wouldn't work as well…. The mobile, in this context, activates something on some server on the net which then cascades to hundreds and thousands of mobiles elsewhere... it's this enabling of access to the internet which has created such a dramatic impact. The fact that you can build applications which can run on the mobile, and interact with the net, gives a mutual re-enforcement and once you start internet enabling other things… like office and home appliances, sensor systems, control systems- even to the extent of internet enabling light-bulbs... you suddenly have an opportunity to apply computing on the network to these distributed devices (that can be reached by means of the internet).It also creates opportunities for third parties to offer managed services by building platforms that run on the internet, but which can interact with these internet enabled devices. I'm anticipating a very dramatic evolution over the next decade, especially in the US with the advent of the smart-grid, and comparable technologies elsewhere in the world.Q: What are the greatest challenges facing the Internet in its current form?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?Security on the net is unsatisfactory right now. We need to have much better tools to control access. We have to improve people's sense of confidence and safety when they're on the net, so the existence of?viruses,?hackers,?worms?and botnets and so on are all things we have to do something about. Some of the things we can do are technical, some are policy and some are personal choices about how we behave.We don't have national or global norms as to what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour on the Internet. We will have to live through a period of time where we try to decide what is it that we accept and don't accept in terms of use of the net. Some of those decisions will be codified in law, and some of those laws will have to be global in scope as bad actors can be in one jurisdiction, while their victims are in another. Until we have international treaties that allow for enforcement, it will be very hard to either track down or prosecute those [committing crimes].Not everything that happens on the Net which is 'bad' is necessarily an illegal or criminal act. In some cases we hurt ourselves because of our behaviour. An example of that is the invasion of privacy as a consequence of being able to post video and imagery and everything else on social networking sites. Third parties can comment on that content and fourth parties can discover things about people that they wouldn't otherwise know- because someone tagged a photo or made a comment on a blog or entry on a social networking site. We are, in some sense, very wide open to potential abuse in these shared facilities. That's why bullying is such a serious problem. Whether it's a crime or not is debatable, but it's negative impact is indisputable.There are a number of social and economic risks that we have to do something about. Identity theft is another good example of that. Weak operating systems and weak browsers allow machines to be infected and become parts of botnets or release information that you wouldn't normally want to share like your passwords, account numbers and so on. I think we have a lot of work ahead of us to make this very flexible and rich medium into something that not only feels safer… but also IS safer for all of us to use. In the places we can't enforce safety by technical means, we will have to do so using law and to ensure people know there will be consequences for their actions.Q: What are your thoughts on the Internet as a future theatre of conflict?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?It's clear that the Internet is another avenue through which certain kinds of abuse can take place including espionage (industrial or otherwise), disinformation campaigns, and so on. These are all things which, while not new in the absolute sense, are new to this particular environment- and therefore operate by different means, and our responses thus may have to be tailored to the methods by which these things occur.This is one of the frustrating things about putting humanity online. When this [Internet] was the province of a collection of engineers, they were all relatively homogenous, they had common objectives (to get the network to actually function!) and we didn't have nearly the problem we have now with the general public. The problem is, of course, the general public includes bad actors whose interests are not necessarily aligned with society. I think we have to accept that if we have an environment as accessible as this one- and as rich in its ability to share information- we have to find ground-rules that will make it a more acceptable environment to be in.The term 'cyber warfare' is a very dangerous one in my view. It's easy to formulate the view that an attack against 'my' communications network (for example) is an attack against the critical infrastructure of society- and therefore it's a national scale event, and deserves a response accordingly.?General Alexander?here in the U.S. recently implied that his thinking is such that the responses?[to cyber-attacks] should include conventional methods. The troublesome aspect is that if you are not able to attribute the attack to the responsible party- the response may go awry. If you think about?botnets?which may be made up of all kinds of machines in the civilian sector, and your response is to launch a counter-attack that hits all those civilian machines... you may, in fact, harm your economics and society in the process of trying to defend it. Also, consider 'false flag' attacks which are not all that hard to launch and may cause retribution against the wrong party.I get nervous when people throw around terms like cyber warfare as if to say our means of determining that we've been attacked or we are at war are clear. I don't think they are. I'm worried about the mind-set that leads people declare cyber-war and then launch even conventional attacks against parties they think are responsible unless there is absolutely clear evidence. This suggests in addition to everything else that we need much better forensic capability than we have right now. So in addition to building defences against various forms of attack, we have to determine where they came from, how they were founded, who was responsible and so on. That's a non-trivial exercise.Q: Do you think the Internet as a medium can help us overcome global crises such as climate change and poverty?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?In a tangential way, maybe.... The Internet is an avenue through which people's attitudes can be 'adjusted'. I don't mean for this to sound like a 'brave new world' exactly, I'm thinking more about the kinds of social interactions that lead people to choose to act in certain ways… whether that be political or something else. If people could be persuaded that global warming requires action, and that each of them have individual actions that can add up into something significant, that would be a good thing. That could be one element in persuasion... The other is scientific, the ability to share documents, validate and even quantify the threat against the climate- such as human?greenhouse gas?generation amongst other things. People have to be persuaded that their individual actions will make a difference.... they think, "I'm just driving one car, it can't be that bad......" but when a billion or two people think like that? It makes a difference. They don't see the consequences of their own actions... and I think the net has a role to play, but it's not magic. The real issue is convincing arguments and incentives for people to change their behaviours.One might also make an argument that if all the power generation and consumption systems, and all the heating and cooling systems and so on could be managed in a more comprehensive way... we could do a better job of their efficient use. This is sort of like traffic engineering, having the lights and streets synchronised and having the entry to the highway controlled by selectively allowing cars on. Things like that might actually be helpful, but once again- when you begin doing things like that- the net can become a target for people to disrupt.In the background here is the continuing threat that the more we depend on something, the more others will seek to disrupt it for their own purposes and our dependency now becomes our disability.Q: What do you feel is the role of?artificial intelligence?technologies and the Internet?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?…Keep in mind that artificial intelligence is a big term. I would argue that some of the speech understanding and translation that Google and Apple are doing represent a significant kind of artificial intelligence- however its not the same as having a human conversation as we are now, or analysing a complex situation and making recommendations. I don't think we're likely to see the kind of artificial intelligence the science fiction writers talk about any time soon, despite?Ray Kurzweil's optimism.On the other hand, there are extraordinary things computers can do, that humans cannot do well- and that includes handling extremely large amounts of information and finding correlation. Despite the fact that we claim that humans are very good at seeing patterns, computers are very good at seeing patterns of certain kinds and that's exactly what we do when we index the web- we try and work things out for you!I see the future not so much as 'autonomous' artificial intelligence, but as a collaborative tool. I think someday we'll be able to have conversations, within limits, with these machine intelligences in order to do things for us that will make us more effective- but I don't want to overstate the capability. In a book called "Alone Together", Sherry Turkle discussed how human beings are remarkably willing to imbue artificial intelligences with a great deal more understanding than they actually have. Therein lies a great deal of danger. If you believe that a device is smart enough to make informed judgement and it's actually a dumb robot? ....you get what you deserve!Q: Do you think the Internet will help us understand our place in the universe?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?For the last 13 years, I've been working on a project looking at the extension of the Internet across the solar system. This project was started at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 1998 and involves the creation of a new set of protocols that will work over the very large distances, and the large speed of light delays, which occur over interplanetary distances- to say nothing of the disruption that occurs through celestial motion, and so on.We have a set of protocols that are derived from, but go beyond, the protocols of the Internet to deal with these wide ranges of parametric variation. Those protocols are being standardised and are on board the space station, a spacecraft that has rendezvoused with two comets, and are also in use here on earth. Prototypes of these protocols are also in use on the?Mars science laboratory?which just launched, and on the rovers which are currently on the planet. We are confident that we have a set of protocols that will allow for very rich networking on interplanetary exploration.?The next project being funded by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (which, I will remind you, funded the ARPANET, the internet and the interplanetary architecture) is an interstellar mission plan. Here we are interested in getting toProxima Centauri?or?Alpha Centauri?in a hundred years… actually getting there and going into orbit. The first problem is getting there in a hundred years rather than 65,000 and the second problem is once we get there, how do we send information back. How can we detect a coherent signal from that far away? What power sources can we use- how can they be modulated? What kind of antenna system would you need to do it? That's all part of our study- and I'm part of one of the teams who are proposing answers.Although this all sounds like science fiction, it's what engineering does... it turns science fiction into reality.Q: Do you think we'll see direct connections between our physiology and the Internet?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?This touches on the edge of the 'cyborg' question.My wife has two?cochlear implants, and there cannot be any question at all that this has made her life better. She was totally deaf before she had the implants, and now she carries on a more or less normal life in an auditory world. There's also no question that we now understand the sensory-neural systems well enough to fool the brain- and we will, eventually, do that with optical and spinal implants. In the latter case, dealing with not just sensory- but sensory and motor systems together. It won't stop there.... when you start seeing some of the biomechanical devices for the repair of injuries, especially the really traumatic ones you see from wartime- and you see the complex behaviours that can be controlled by the same sensory-motor signals that would manage a biological arm.... you begin to see there's some real potential... not only to recover capability, but to exceed it. The likelihood that we will have implants that exceed human capability is very high. I would anticipate that happening. Whether we ever get to the point where there are cognitive interfaces? I think that's highly speculative and I'm doubtful of it- at least within the next ten or twenty years.Q: Has the Internet changed the nature of human intelligence?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?There is some evidence that the use of computers- whether video gaming or 'normal' interactions with the web- is having a measurable effect on brain function... this is not a surprise. Any kind of interaction you have as a child, the brain adapts to... so your interactions with the world have a direct effect on the way your brain interconnections develop.Use of computers and the net are having some measurable effect, but I don't think we entirely understand the significance of those effects yet. It's one thing to look at a?functional MRI?scan and say, "...look, part of the brain is lighting up..." and it's quite another to say, "...and therefore we reach the following conclusion" or "...the brain is doing this..." I don't think we have that depth of knowledge yet.I talked to?Henry Kissinger?about this. He was ranting about the fact that people were willing to accept two paragraphs in response to a query rather than reading a 700-page book. This bugged him because he wrote 700-page books! My response was to say, "...look Henry, I bet you'd be saying that when the invention of writing came along! The world won't remember anything! All the oral history will go away because now you can read it!..." I think that argument is partly true... we tend to remember less now than we felt we needed to in the past because we have such ready access to information. I find myself turning to the net to remember people's names and to recall facts. You could have made the same argument about books. Books remember things for you, if you can find the book to find the right fact.We may have a society which is less dependent on our remembering facts and more dependent on our ability to find things out. When we invented hand calculators, for example.... there was a great cry that nobody would remember multiplication tables anymore. It's entirely possible that's true... but as long as the devices work, it functionally doesn't make much difference. There is a book called "The Machine Stops" which was written around 1909. The idea of the book was a society that was built around a machine that served everyone, took care of their needs, food and everything else- one day, the machine doesn't work. The story is what happens to society when the machine stops working.We will probably encounter some emergent properties of systems like this. One of the worries that I have is that one emergent property will be our dependence on these things- and to the degree that they are either 'disruptable' or not-reliable, then we will create a more fragile society, and a more brittle one- and that worries me.Q: Do you think our relationship with the Internet and allied technologies is going to change the nature of what it means to 'be human’?[Dr. Vint Cerf]?The Internet offers alternative avenues for human interaction. The consequence of that is the discovery of people of like-mind who are not necessarily geographically nearby. That change has been happening for quite a while, as transportation developed. When we got horses we could go further than we could walking.... when we got boats and airplanes, we could go further than we could before. Our community of interest grew and now the 'global village' phrase comes to mind. In that sense, we have a rather different society whose boundary conditions are not necessarily what they were before. National boundaries become less critical to, at least, a lot of human interaction. if you want to find a proxy for understanding the internet- you should pay attention to electricity and ask yourself how dependent we are on that, and what happens when it is not available. You will see a society crumble very quickly when electricity goes away. You don't need an Internet to be scared, you need dependence on electricity in all its forms- including batteries.--------------------------------------------------In his 1998 book “The Control Revolution” Robert Beniger notes that, “...one tragedy of the human condition is that each of us lives and dies with little hint of even the most profound transformations of our society and our species that play themselves out in some small part through our own existence. When the earliest Homo sapiens encountered Homo erectus, or whatever species was our immediate forebear, it is unlikely that the two saw in their differences a major turning point in the development of our race. Much the same conclusion could be drawn from any of a succession of revolutionary societal transformations: the cultivation of plants and the domestication of animals, the growth of permanent settlements, the development of metal tools and writing, urbanisation, the invention of wheeled vehicles and the plough, the rise of market economies, social classes, a world commerce. The origins and early histories of these and many other developments of comparable significance went unnoticed or at least unrecorded by contemporary observers. Human society seems rather to evolve largely through changes so gradual as to be all but imperceptible, at least compared to the generational cycles of the individuals through whose lives they unfold.”It is with this in mind that we must reflect that the world’s first stored program computer (The Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine) was built in 1948, with a memory of just 32 words and now, less than 70 years later, we find over five billion devices are connected to the internet, enabling billions to instantly access close to the total sum of human knowledge and experience.As individual humans, our faculties are severely limited. From birth, it would be close to impossible for one of our species to survive through to adulthood without the support of a "society of others". Our technologies (be they mechanical or intellectual) have largely realised this ethic- initially enabling us to work together- not just with the incumbent civilisation but through our ability to store and pass knowledge, between generations. “If I have seen further than others," wrote?Isaac Newton, "...it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."We are also a species drugged by ego- fascinated by our own ingenuity and capability. It seems the very process of invention, together with the sense of mastery it gives over nature and ourselves is the end, as well as the means, to our existence. Of all these inventions- the internet is surely one of the greatest. It is (as?Eric Schmidt?commented), "...the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand."The truth is, I doubt we'll ever understand the technical ontology of the internet. By the time we realise what 'it' is, the essence has already moved on. Instead, we must consider the metaphysical- the internet is not just a reflection of the zeitgeist- it is an embodiment of 'us' as individuals and as a society. The internet connects us cognitively and becomes a membrane through which our minds can interact, manifesting a whole new iteration of our species, who have begun to exist in a connected symbiotic relationship with technology.The internet is the first technology we have created, that makes us more human. years later, hackers who hit Google continue string of potent attacksThe hackers who?breached the defenses of Google?and at least 34 other big companies three years ago have unleashed a barrage of new attacks since then, many that exploit previously undocumented vulnerabilities in software from Microsoft and Adobe, a new report has found.The number of victims affected, the duration of the campaign, and the difficulty of identifying and exploiting so-called zero-day vulnerabilities mean the resources required "could only be provided by a large criminal organization, attackers supported by a nation state, or a nation state itself," the?report (PDF), which was prepared by researchers from antivirus provider Symantec, concluded. Targets over the last three years have mainly been located in the defense, energy, and finance industries and educational and non-governmental organizations.Most significant about the group is "seemingly an unlimited number of zero-day exploits," which refer to vulnerabilities in widely used software that are exploited before there's public knowledge that they exist. Using an infrastructure Symantec researchers have dubbed Elderwood—a name derived from a variable found in some of its software—the hackers have exploited four zero-day bugs this year alone, and evidence suggests the group has wielded another four zero-days over the past two years. The use of so many previously undocumented vulnerabilities indicates the group has an extremely high level of technical capability."In order to discover these vulnerabilities, a large undertaking would be required by the attackers to thoroughly reverse-engineer the compiled applications," the researchers wrote. "This effort would be substantially reduced if they had access to source code. The vulnerabilities are used as needed, often within close succession of each other if exposure of any of the vulnerabilities is imminent."Update:?Some security experts were skeptical of Symantec's conclusions. Finding and exploiting previously unknown vulnerabilities is a regular undertaking during penetration testing that's often carried out to success in a matter of hours or days."The fact that they use 0days isn't as big a deal as Symantec makes it out to be," said Rob Graham, CEO of penetration testing firm Errata Security. "We constantly find '0days' as part of pentests and use them against our customers. Just the other day, we used a 0day SQL injection bug in [popular manufacturer's name deleted] firewall to break into a customer."There's no reason to think the attacks tracked by Symantec couldn't have been carried out by a much smaller operation with more modest resources, Graham said.The group's attacks date back at least to early 2010 or late 2009, when it?exploited a zero-day vulnerability in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser?to pierce the defenses of Google and other large companies. With their malware inside Google's network, the attackers siphoned source code and other intellectual property of the company. Few if any of the other victims confirmed they were hit, but researchers widely believe their digital assets were also appropriated en masse.The trojan that was installed by the exploits was alternately known as Aurora and Hydraq. It used a certain type of obfuscation to cloak its malicious behavior. Symantec researchers have found that same obfuscation technique deployed in trojans that malware operators installed by exploiting zero-days discovered earlier this year in Adobe's Flash Player (cataloged as?CVE-2012-0779) and Internet Explorer (CVE-2012-1875).The researchers found additional attributes linking other exploits to the same actors, such as similarities in the command and control channels that infected computers contacted to receive instructions and software updates. Another link was the practice of compromising third-party websites that were frequently visited by the ultimate targets of the attacks, for example, manufacturers in the defense supply chain or the Hong Kong branch of Amnesty International that was regularly visited by non-governmental organizations.Researchers have dubbed this approach "watering hole" attacks, and say they're "similar to a predator waiting at a watering hole in a desert. The predator knows that victims will eventually have to come to the watering hole, so rather than go hunting, he waits for his victims to come to him."The researchers noticed that many of these watering hole attacks used more than one zero-day exploit. What's more, the timing of these changes was suspicious. As soon as one zero-day exploit was identified, it would be replaced by one that had yet to be discovered. Other similarities included the malicious executable files used and the encryption in booby-trapped documents sent to victims in e-mail.Perhaps the biggest link is the Elderwood platform. It included a document creation kit that made it easy to bundle specific exploit code and a specific piece of malware and embed it into an otherwise clean document file. Elderwood also included a shared Adobe Flash file that created the precise conditions in a targeted computer's memory required for an exploit to be successful. Other possible components may be tools for the automated creation of website accounts and registration of domain names, and an analysis platform for the huge amounts of data that is pilfered.Google's disclosure in 2010 that it and more than a dozen other sensitive companies were penetrated by the sophisticated attackers cemented the security industry's use of the phrase advanced persistent threat. Although many, this reporter included, once viewed it as a largely meaningless buzz phrase, APTs are useful in distinguishing these types of attacks from more common crime-motivated exploits. The chief difference is this: crime-based attacks, which use malware to obtain online banking passwords or credit card data, are opportunistic, so they're directed at everyone. Defending against them mainly involves having security that's better than other people on the Internet.APTs, by contrast, are directed at a specific person or organization that has unique assets. If attackers don't succeed against a specific target with one campaign, they'll direct a new campaign at the same target and hope for better results. They will repeat the process until they succeed. That makes defending against such attacks significantly harder.Friday's report from Symantec, which showed that the same attackers who pierced the defenses of Google three years ago are using a virtually unlimited supply of zero-days to penetrate new victims, only bolsters the view that APTs are a serious problem with no easy solutions. cyberattacks, hacking humans is highly effective way to access systemsThe e-mails arrived like poison darts from cyberspace.Some went to the Chertoff Group, a national security consulting firm in Washington. Others targeted intelligence contractors, gas pipeline executives and industrial-control security specialists. Each note came with the personal touches of a friend or colleague.43CommentsWeigh InCorrections?Personal PostGraphicHackers penetrate secure networks by attacking the weakest links in cyberspace: human beings.Timeline: History and hacksJUN?2, 2012Explore some of the technological advances that led to cyberspace, along with notable hacks.Flame and other notable virusesJUN?1, 2012A look at some of the notable viruses and worms to plague computers around the world.U.S., Israel behind Stuxnet, officials sayInnovations: Why Sun Tzu would have loved FlameMore On This StoryHealth-care sector vulnerable to hackers, researchers sayArticle: CyberCity allows government hackers to train for attacksGraphic: Practicing for cyberwarArticle: Free hacking tool kits fuel growing cyberspace arms raceView all Items in this Story“Attach[ed] is a quote for the Social Media training we discussed,” said one message sent on July 3 to the vice president of EnergySec, a federally funded group in Oregon that focuses on the cybersecurity of the nation’s power grid.But like much of the digital universe, the e-mails were not what they seemed. They were cyberweapons, part of a devastating kind of attack known as “social engineering.”Emerging details about the e-mails show how social engineering — long favored by con artists, identity thieves and spammers — has become one of the leading threats to government and corporate networks in cyberspace.The technique involves tricking people to subvert a network’s security. It often relies on well-known scams involving e-mail, known as “spear phishing,” or phony Web pages. But such ploys now serve as the pointed tips of far more sophisticated efforts by cyberwarriors to penetrate networks and steal military and trade secrets.The e-mails this spring and summer appear to be part of a long-running espionage campaign by a hacker group in China, according to interviews with security researchers and documents obtained by The Washington Post. Some of the e-mails, including those sent to the Chertoff Group and EnergySec, were caught by suspicious employees. Others hit home.“Multiple natural gas pipeline sector organizations have reported either attempted or successful network intrusions related to this campaign,” officials at the Department of Homeland Security said in a confidential alert obtained by The Post.The May 15 alert, by the department’s specialists in industrial control systems, said “the number of persons targeted appears to be tightly focused. In addition, the email messages have been convincingly crafted to appear as though they were sent from a trusted member internal to the organization.”Social-engineering attacks revolve around an instant when a computer user decides whether to click on a link, open a document or visit a Web page. But the preparation can take weeks or longer.Serious hackers investigate their targets online and draw on troves of personal information people share about themselves, their friends and their social networks. Facebook, Twitter and other social media have become prime sources for the hackers, specialists said.“Everybody has their trigger,” said Bruce M. Snell, director of technical marketing at McAfee Security Systems. “A good social engineer will find that trigger.”Once malicious software code is delivered, it burrows in and hides in a targeted network. That code, known as malware, can lurk for years in intelligence or attack schemes that are sometimes known as “advanced persistent threats.” Eventually, the code reaches back out to the hackers for instructions, often cloaking the communication through encryption or masking it to seem like innocuous Web browsing by an employee.Over the past three years, most major cyberattacks on U.S. corporations have included social engineering, specialists said. That includes hacks of Google and?security giant RSA. Researchers think that scores of attacks were designed by the same Chinese hackers who appear to be involved in the current e-mail campaign. Some U.S. officials think the hackers may have links to the Chinese military.The Chinese are not the only ones using the technique. Cyberwarriors at the Pentagon receive social-engineering training for offensive and defensive missions, knowledgeable specialists said.Personal PostGraphicHackers penetrate secure networks by attacking the weakest links in cyberspace: human beings.Timeline: History and hacksJUN?2, 2012Explore some of the technological advances that led to cyberspace, along with notable hacks.Flame and other notable virusesJUN?1, 2012A look at some of the notable viruses and worms to plague computers around the world.U.S., Israel behind Stuxnet, officials sayInnovations: Why Sun Tzu would have loved FlameMore On This StoryHealth-care sector vulnerable to hackers, researchers sayArticle: CyberCity allows government hackers to train for attacksGraphic: Practicing for cyberwarArticle: Free hacking tool kits fuel growing cyberspace arms raceView all Items in this StoryDavid Kennedy, a security consultant and former National Security Agency analyst, said he is amazed at the effectiveness of the techniques.“I have done hundreds of these, and I have never been stopped,” said Kennedy, who teaches social engineering to other security specialists. “It sounds horrible, but it works every single time.”The human factorSocial engineering works because it targets a vulnerable part of cyberspace that cannot be patched with technical fixes: human beings. People want to believe that their communication is safe.“Because it goes at the human level, not at the technological level, we’re all vulnerable,” said?Joseph Nye Jr., a distinguished service professor at Harvard University who is on the board of advisers to the Chertoff Group. Nye said he has received at least six spear-phishing e-mails purporting to be from the Chertoff Group. He said he deleted them all, but he added, “Every once in awhile, one of these will get by you.”The explosive growth of cyberspace has created a fertile environment for hackers. Facing the flood of e-mail, instant messages and other digital communication, many people have a hard time judging whether notes or messages from friends, family or colleagues are real. Many don’t even try. Hackers are so confident about such permissiveness that they sometimes begin their attacks in social media three or four steps removed from their actual targets. The hackers count on the malicious code spreading to the proper company or government agency — passed along in photos, documents or Web pages.“This is the next evolution of social engineering, where victims are researched in advance and specifically targeted,” said arecent Internet threat report by Symantec, a computer security firm. “The very nature of social networks makes users feel that they are amongst friends and perhaps not at risk. Unfortunately, it’s exactly the opposite and attackers are turning to these sites to target new victims.”At the same time, technology is transforming social engineering. One online data-mining service favored by hackers — as well as by security researchers and law enforcement — works much like a laser-focused Google. The automated system, called Maltego, enables users to quickly bring together and analyze disparate details about people from all corners of cyberspace, showing an individual’s links to friends, family, work associates and personal interests.“None of these steps are particularly difficult to code or do by hand. But doing it by hand is painful,” said Roelof Temmingh, founder and managing director of Paterva, the small South African company that sells the service. “Maltego can do all of this in a flash.”Temmingh demonstrated Maltego’s utility not long ago by looking for a person to target at Fort Meade, home to the super-secret NSA. He typed in Fort Meade’s latitude and longitude and searched for Twitter users. In a couple of steps, Maltego quickly delivered the name of a person who tweeted at the Fort Meade location.With that, Maltego searched MySpace, a dating Web site and other resources to build a rich profile: a young Army private who served in South Korea, likes to smoke and drink, divorced and looking for a “serious relationship.” She likes Harry Potter movies and “The Cosby Show.” Maltego also turned up her name, address and birthdate.Personal PostGraphicHackers penetrate secure networks by attacking the weakest links in cyberspace: human beings.Timeline: History and hacksJUN?2, 2012Explore some of the technological advances that led to cyberspace, along with notable hacks.Flame and other notable virusesJUN?1, 2012A look at some of the notable viruses and worms to plague computers around the world.U.S., Israel behind Stuxnet, officials sayInnovations: Why Sun Tzu would have loved FlameMore On This StoryHealth-care sector vulnerable to hackers, researchers sayArticle: CyberCity allows government hackers to train for attacksGraphic: Practicing for cyberwarArticle: Free hacking tool kits fuel growing cyberspace arms raceView all Items in this StoryBuilding a tool kitIn 2009, David Kennedy began digging deep into corporate security for a Fortune 1000 company as a penetration tester, identifying flaws that hackers could exploit. He wanted to know whether employees could be duped into clicking on unknown documents or handing over confidential information over the phone. Most of them could.Kennedy concluded that social engineering was “the next biggest attack vector.” He teamed up with a nonprofit organization called Social- to develop products that would make security testing more effective.The result is known as the?Social Engineering Toolkit. Its many applications can identify targets and deliver attack payloads, secretly, like digital stealth missiles. The tool kit also provides ready-made code for attacks.In an irony of the digital age, the same tools are available for free to attackers.“Can a bad guy take all this and get better? Sure.?.?.?.?But that is not the intended goal,” said Chris Hadnagy a founder of Social- and author of the book “Social Engineering: The Art of Human Hacking.” “What we are doing is trying to weaponize people to be protected against this threat.”Kennedy described one effective approach involving a tool that creates instant copies of real Web pages and embeds them with malicious code. In an e-mail, the attacker could pose as an executive of a company, seeking help from an IT department employee. The attacker has studied the employee and knows he is new to the company and probably eager to please his superiors.In a phone call that appears to be coming from within the company, the attacker asks the IT staffer why a certain Web page won’t open. The attacker directs the staffer to the bogus Web page. The intrusion occurs the moment the IT staffer visits the page.“I find that leveraging human compassion is generally the best way to gain what I want,” Kennedy, now president of TrustedSec, said in a recent seminar.A tailor-made attackThe current intrusion campaign began in December, possibly earlier. That’s when analysts think the attacks first started against gas pipeline company executives. With some study, it became clear that the e-mails were part of a sophisticated campaign. Only certain executives were singled out for attention. The e-mails were tailored to them.The attackers were relentless, launching e-mails on at least 13 days. They also were creative. Attached to the e-mails were documents covering a variety of subjects that might be of interest to the executives: the U.S. debt crisis, Adobe updates, iTunes help and an analysis of the presidential election.The true scope of the campaign started to become apparent in June, after cybersecurity researchers at a security firm called Digital Bond received one of the phony e-mails. The Digital Bond researchers specialize in industrial-control computers that operate power plants and other critical infrastructure.The note, which appeared to be coming from their boss, Dale Peterson, was filled with technical jargon. “Details are available at: Leveraging_Ethernet_Card_ Vulnerabilities_ in_Field_Devices.pdf?Download it and have a look,” the e-mail said.Personal PostGraphicHackers penetrate secure networks by attacking the weakest links in cyberspace: human beings.Timeline: History and hacksJUN?2, 2012Explore some of the technological advances that led to cyberspace, along with notable hacks.Flame and other notable virusesJUN?1, 2012A look at some of the notable viruses and worms to plague computers around the world.U.S., Israel behind Stuxnet, officials sayInnovations: Why Sun Tzu would have loved FlameMore On This StoryHealth-care sector vulnerable to hackers, researchers sayArticle: CyberCity allows government hackers to train for attacksGraphic: Practicing for cyberwarArticle: Free hacking tool kits fuel growing cyberspace arms raceView all Items in this StoryThe intrusion failed in part because the attackers slipped up and because a Digital Bond researcher was alert. The e-mail was signed “Peterson.” But the security researchers knew that their boss uses his first name on e-mail, not his last.Other security researchers asked to review the situation found the attachments were not actually .pdf documents but “executable files” that deposited “Trojan horse” code when a computer user clicked on them, said Jaime Blasco, security lab manager at AlienVault, who reviewed the attack.Blasco and his partner, Ruben Santamarta of the security firm IOActive, found the hackers had used multiple Web server computers to give instructions to the malicious code. The?electronic trail on those servers?led to other victims, including the Chertoff Group; NJVC of Vienna, Va., a contractor for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) in Arlington County, which represents companies that make components for power grids.Officials at NJVC and NEMA acknowledged the attacks but said employees prevented network intrusions. Department of Homeland Security officials declined to discuss the episodes.The scope of the attacks expanded in July, when the cybersecurity group EnergySec was hit. EnergySec President Patrick Miller also reached out to Blasco for help. Based on evidence, it appeared to be the same attackers: a group of Chinese hackers that had been using social engineering for nearly a decade to break into systems across the globe with impunity.Cyber-researchers have dubbed them the Comment Crew or Comment Group. The name stems from the fact that hackers include attack commands in the comments that programmers typically include in HTML code to document their goals or make notes of changes.The Comment Crew has become notorious for using simple social-engineering techniques, including well-crafted e-mails, in elaborate hacks that breach security, load “remote access tools,” or RATs, and siphon off oceans of data from victims.Though it is sometimes impossible to definitively identify hackers, because of the hall-of-mirrors nature of cyberspace, they often leave behind compelling digital evidence. Researchers said the IP address of a Web server and a particular method of writing HTML comments links the attacks on the gas pipeline executives to those against the Chertoff Group and others. It also links the current campaign to a series of earlier devastating attacks by the Comment Crew, dubbed Operation Shady RAT.Those intrusions compromised hundreds of systems over at least five years, including federal agencies, defense contractors and the United Nations, according to studies by McAfee and the Dell SecureWorks Counter Threat Unit.“The above patterns of attack are very similar to attacks carried out by the actors responsible for the Shady RAT campaign,” said Ned Moran, a researcher at the nonprofit Shadowserver Foundation who also?analyzed the attack on Digital Bond.Joe Stewart, director of malware research at the Dell SecureWorks Counter Threat Unit, estimates the group has at least 100 members who work at specific tasks such as social-engineering research, malware development and the processing of stolen information. In essence, the Comment Crew has made a business of cyber-espionage. Their activity online shows they typically work 9 to 5 — Shanghai time — and take off Chinese holidays.Stewart and others say Chinese hackers have been using a troubling variation of social engineering called a “watering hole” attack. Instead of sending e-mails with links — something that some security-conscious computer users now avoid — they try to entice wary victims to visit familiar, authentic Web sites that have been secretly loaded with attack code. Think of a lion near a watering hole.One ploy involves an e-mail announcement of online coupons for half-price drinks or food at a favorite bar. The attack comes when the victims visit the Web site seeking the coupons and unwittingly download the malware.In a new report, Symantec researchers said some hackers are simply co-opting Web pages popular in certain industries, such as the energy sector, and waiting for victims to arrive.With enough money, focus, malware and social-engineering skills, “anybody can get into anyplace,” Stewart said. “The most careful person is not going to have a defense against it.” 2040 you will be able to upload your brain...Should, by some terrible misfortune, Ray Kurzweil shuffle off his mortal coil tomorrow, the obituaries would record an inventor of rare and visionary talent. In 1976, he created the first machine capable of reading books to the blind, and less than a decade later he built the K250: the first music synthesizer to nigh-on perfectly duplicate the sound of a grand piano. His Kurzweil 3000 educational software, which helps students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder, is likewise typical of an innovator who has made his name by combining restless imagination with technological ingenuity and a commendable sense of social responsibility.However, these past accomplishments, as impressive as they are, would tell only half the Kurzweil story. The rest of his biography – the essence of his very existence, he would contend – belongs to the future.Following the publication of his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Kurzweil has become known, above all, as a technology speculator whose predictions have polarised opinion – from stone-cold scepticism and splenetic disagreement to dedicated hero worship and admiration. It's not just that he boldly envisions a tomorrow's world where, for example, tiny robots will reverse the effects of pollution, artificial intelligence will far outstrip (and supplement) biological human intelligence, and humankind "will be able to live indefinitely without ageing". No, the real reason Kurzweil has become such a magnet for blogospheric debate, and a tech-celebrity, is that he's convinced those future predictions – and many more just as stunning – are imminent occurrences. They will all, he steadfastly maintains, happen before the middle of the 21st century.Which means, regarding the earlier allusion to his mortal coil, that he doesn't plan to do any shuffling any time soon. Ray Kurzweil, 61, sincerely believes that his own immortality is a realistic proposition... and just as strongly contends that, using a combination of grave-site DNA and future technologies, he will be able to reclaim his father, Fredric Kurzweil (the victim of a fatal heart attack in 1970), from death.Just when will this ultimate life-affirming feat be possible? In Kurzweil's estimation, we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history", by the end of the 2030s; humans and non-biological machines will then merge so effectively that the differences between them will no longer matter; and, after that, human intelligence, transformed for the better, will start to expand outward into the universe, around about 2045. With this last prediction, Kurzweil is referring not to any recognisable type of space travel, but to a kind of space infusion. "Intelligence," he writes, "will begin to saturate the matter and energy in its midst [and] spread out from its origin on Earth."It's as well to mention at this point that, in 2005, Mikhail Gorbachev personally congratulated Kurzweil for foreseeing the pivotal role of communications technology in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates calls him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence". A man of lesser accomplishments, touting the same head-spinning claims, would impress few beyond an inner circle of sci-fi obsessives, but Kurzweil – honoured as an inventor by US presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton – has rightfully earned himself a stockpile of credibility.In person, chewing pensively on a banana, the softly spoken, slightly built Kurzweil looks chipper for his 61 years, and wears an elegantly tailored suit. A father of two, he resides in the Boston suburbs with his psychologist wife, Sonya, but has flown into Los Angeles for a private screening of Transcendent Man, the upcoming documentary that examines his life and theories over a suitably cosmic score by Philip Glass. "People don't really get their intellectual arms around the changes that are happening," he says, perched lightly on the edge of a large armchair, his overall sheen of wellbeing perhaps a shade more encouraging than you'd expect from a man of his age. "The issue is not just [that] something amazing is going to happen in 2045," he says. "There's something remarkable going on right now."To understand exactly what he means, and why he thinks that his predictions bear up to hard scrutiny, it's necessary to return to the title of the above-mentioned book, and the grand idea on which it's based: "the singularity".Borrowed from black-hole physics, in which the singularity is taken to signify what is unknowable, the term has been applied to technology to suggest that we haven't really got a clue what's going to happen once machines are vastly more "intelligent" than humans. The singularity, writes Kurzweil, is "a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed". He is not unique in his adoption of the idea – the information theorist John von Neumann hinted at it in the 1950s; retired maths professor and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge has been exploring it at length since the early 1980s – but Kurzweil's version is currently the most popular "singularitarian" text."I didn't come to these ideas because I had certain conclusions and worked backwards," he explains. "In fact, I didn't start looking for them at all. I was looking for a way to time my inventions and technology projects as I realised timing was the critical factor to success. And I made this discovery that if you measure certain underlying properties of information technology, it follows exquisitely predictable trajectories."For Kurzweil, the crux of the singularity is that the pace of technology is increasing at a super-fast, exponential rate. What's more, there's also "exponential growth in the rate ' of exponential growth". It is this understanding that gives him the confidence to believe that technology – through an explosion of progress in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics – will soon surpass the limits of his imagination.It is also why, in addition to bananas and the odd beneficial glass of red wine, he follows a regime of around 200 vitamin pills daily: not so much a diet as an attempt to "aggressively re-programme" his biochemistry. He claims that tests have shown he aged only two biological years over the course of 16 actual vitamin-popping years. He also says that, thanks to the regime, he has effectively cured himself of Type 2 diabetes. Not even open-heart surgery, which he underwent last year, and from which he made a rapid recovery ("a few hours later I was in the next room, and sent an email") could dent his convictions. On the contrary, he thinks that the brevity of his convalescence is proof positive that the pills are working. If he slows down the ageing process, he reckons, he'll be around long enough to witness the arrival of technology that will prolong his life... forever.Kurzweil was raised in Queens, New York, where two youthful obsessions – electronics and music – would lead to a guest appearance on the 1960s TV quiz show I've Got a Secret, on which (aged 17) he showcased his first major invention: a home-made computer that could compose tunes. Five years later came the death (in 1970, when Ray was 22) of his father, Fredric, a struggling composer and conductor who, Kurzweil believes, never really got his due. "I'm painfully aware of the limitations he had, which were not his fault," he says. "In that generation, information about health was not very available, and we didn't have [today's] resources for creating music. Now, a kid in a dorm room can create a whole orchestral composition on a synthesizer."The tragedy of that loss – and the fact that the means to repair a congenital heart defect were available to him, but not his father – is clearly an intense motivation for Kurzweil. Sometime soon, he believes, he will once again be able to converse with his father, such is the potential of the scientific advances he believes will ultimately pave the way to the singularity. Not everyone, though, concurs with his appraisal of technological progress, and his belief in the imminence of immortality.Memorably, in the Transcendent Man documentary, Kevin Kelly, founding editor of future-thinking magazine Wired, labels Kurzweil a "deluded dreamer" who is "performing the services of a prophet". In reacting to that assessment, Kurzweil's habitually mellow tone of voice takes on a hint – albeit mild – of umbrage. "It's interesting that [Kelly] says my views are 'hard-wired', when I actually think his views are hard-wired," he says. "He's a linear thinker, and linear thinking is hard-wired in our brains: it worked very well 1,000 years ago. Some people really are resistant to accepting this exponential perspective, and they're very smart people. You show them the data, and yes, they follow it, but they just cannot get past it. Other people accept it readily."Whereas Kelly differs from Kurzweil on the grounds of interpretation and tone, other voices of dispute are rooted in a deep-seated fear of technological calamity. "The form of opposition from fundamentalist humanists, and fundamentalist naturalists – that we should make no change to nature [or] to human beings – is directly contrary to the nature of human beings, because we are the species that goes beyond our limitations," counters Kurzweil. "And I think that's quite a destructive school of thought – you can show that hundreds of thousands of kids went blind in Africa due to the opposition to [genetically engineered] golden rice. The opposition to genetically modified organisms is just a blanket, reflexive opposition to the idea of changing nature. Nature, and the natural human condition, generates tremendous suffering. We have the means to overcome that, and we should deploy it."To those opponents who detect a thick strain of techno-evangelism in Kurzweil's basically optimistic interpretation of the singularity, he reacts with self-parody: there's a tongue-in-cheek photo in The Singularity is Near of the author wearing a sandwich board bearing the book's title, and he insists he was never "searching for an alternative to customary faith". At the same time, he says humankind's inevitable move towards non-biological intelligence is "an essentially spiritual undertaking".Whether or not he attracts a significant following of dedicated believers in search of deliverance, ecstasy or any variation thereof (some commentators have called the singularity "the rapture for geeks"), Kurzweil has undoubtedly positioned himself at the heart of a growing singularity industry. He is a director of the non-profit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, "the only organisation that exists for the expressed purpose of achieving the potential of smarter-than-human intelligence safer and sooner"; there's a second film awaiting release (part fiction, part documentary, co-produced by Kurzweil), also based on The Singularity is Near; and in addition to his theoretical books, he has co-authored a series of health titles, including Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever and Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. The secret of immortality, he wants you to know, is available in book form.Those who have lent Kurzweil their support include space-travel pioneer Peter Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation; videogame designer (and creator of Spore and SimCity) Will Wright; and Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist George Smoot. All three can be found on the faculty and adviser list of the recently founded Singularity University (Silicon Valley), of which Kurzweil is chancellor and trustee.If the pace of technology continues to accelerate, as Kurzweil predicts, it seems likely that discussion of the singularity will see an exponential growth of its own. Few would dispute that it's one of the 21st century's most compelling ideas, because it connects issues that intensely polarise people (God, the energy crisis, genetic engineering) with sci-fi concepts that stir the imagination (artificial intelligence, immersive virtual reality, molecular engineering). Thanks largely to Kurzweil and the singularity, scenarios once viewed as diverting entertainment are being reappraised with a new seriousness. The line between fanciful thinker and credible, scientific analyst is becoming blurred: what once would have been relegated to the realms of sci-fi is now gaining factual currency."People can wax philosophically," says Kurzweil. "It's very abstract – whether it's a good thing to overcome death or not – but when it comes to some new methodology that's a better treatment for cancer, there's no controversy. Nobody's picketing doctors who put computers inside people's brains for Parkinson's: it's not considered controversial."Might that change as more people become aware of the singularity and the pace of technological change? "People can argue about it," says Kurzweil, relaxed as ever within his aura of certainty. "But when it comes down to accepting each step along the way, it's done really without much debate." is first humanoid robot to address a conferenceAn advanced computer called the BINA48 (Breakthrough Intelligence via Neural Architecture, 48 exaflops per second processing speed and 480 exabytes of memory; exa = 10 to the 18th power), and also known as “the Intelligent Computer,” became aware of certain plans by its owner, the Exabit Corporation, to permanently turn it off and reconfigure parts of it with new hardware and software into one or more new computers. … —?From a?mock trial?at the International Bar Association conference in San Francisco in 2003.*??(Videos)Three-year-old?Bina48?(the 2012 version) will keynote?the?Enterprise Learning! Conference & Expo 2012**?on September 26 in Irvine, California — the first humanoid robot in history to do so.One of the world’s most advanced social robots, Bina48 will offer a challenge to the?assembly of senior learning executives: “could a humanoid robot be a teacher or personal tutor in the next decade?”Bina48, part of the?LifeNaut?project, will be joined on-stage by Bruce Duncan, Managing Director of the?Terasem Movement Foundation?Inc. and Principal Investigator with the LifeNaut missioned by Dr. Martine Rothblatt and created by Hanson Robotics,?Bina48 is one of the world’s most advanced social robots. a composite of information from several people, including Bina Aspen, co-founder of the Terasem Movement.?She uses video interview transcripts, laser- scanning life-mask, facial-recognition, AI, and voice-recognition technologies. to learn and interface with her human counterparts.MindfilesLifenaut is a free online networking and personal data storage service that will “preserve?one’s individual consciousness so that it remains viable for possible uploading with consciousness software into a cellular regenerated or bionanotechnological body by future medicine and technology,”?says Duncan. “It allows people to build a rich personal profile that preserves their essential, unique qualities as ‘mindfiles.” ?(Lifenaut can also store your DNA.)“Mindfiles?are database files with uploaded digital information (videos, pictures, documents, and audio recordings) about a person’s unique characteristics (such as mannerisms, attitudes, values, and beliefs),” he explains.Mindfiles (there are about 12,000 so far) are stored online at?. Future AI programs, Terasem believes, will use a mindfile and a person’s DNA to create a digital clone of that person that can interact with?future family members and others.* The issue could arise in a real court within the next few decades, as computers achieve or exceed the information processing capability of the human mind and the boundary between human and machine becomes increasingly blurred, says Rothblatt.** Elearning! Media Group offers learning professionals a free pass to hear Bina48’s keynote address, and gain entrance to the exposition hall and innovation theater. Register?here,?select?“Expo Pass,” and enter the code “FREE.”?Bina48 is speaking at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday Sept. 26 at the Hyatt Regency?in Irvine, CA as part of the closing presentations. and Life SciencesI am going to touch briefly on technologies that are currently under development and then move a step ahead, into more of a philosophical regime rather than a scientific regime, and see what should be done, the main goal of us scientists, in moving ahead to these technologies.??Many of us are already familiar with nanotechnology.? We are inundated on a daily basis with plenty of information vianewspapers, magazines, or scientific research publications.?? There is also plenty of money available to conduct the nano research, both from the governmental agencies, as well as from private agencies.? We are all also familiar with how nanotechnology is going to achieve varying things, scientifically and otherwise.?????Nanotechnology is no longer a myth, it is science based on real life successes.? It is going to bring in a market value of about $25 billion by the year 2011, which is not very far away; it is just four years more.? It is truly a revolution, competing with some of the great revolutions there have been so far such as textiles, railroad, automobile, computer, and so on. ????Having really seen the impact of the nanotechnology revolution, I want to give you a heads-up on exactly what the nano scale is. It takes about one nanometer to reach one billionth of a meter; the depiction that you see is equal to one nanometer.There are several examples that we could use to define nanoscience [1] and nanotechnology, both natural as well as manmade.Nanoscience is all about understanding the scientific aspects of materials and technologies of the nano scale. Present nanotechnologies are about converting this basic science into applied benefits. I am going to outline why these nanomaterials are important, and why we feel the importance of the nanomaterial is not only within the manmade things, but also in the natural environment.? The nanomaterials are really important because the materials possess very, very unique properties.??Take gold for example; we are all familiar with gold.? You can see these ornaments are owned by many people in different countries.? Solid gold is bright yellow in color, whereas the nano-sized gold is bright red in color. The optical and mechanical properties of the gold change with size.?? ??????????Think of any property, the nano scale has very unique properties.? The idea is to convert,? take advantage of these nano scale properties, and build items by utilizing those unique advantages.?????Nanotechnology is not really new; it’s been there in nature, we now have the opportunity to understand the presence of nanoscience and nanotechnology in nature. There are several, very exciting examples. For example, abalone pearls.? I am sure we are all familiar with abalone pearls, which are extremely expensive and are made up of nanostructured calcium carbonate with protein and carbohydrate mortar. That's what makes these abalone pearls worth millions of dollars. ???????Whereas the familiar chalk that we use for writing on the board is also made of calcium carbonate.? Chalk is worth pennies when compared to the millions of dollars of value of associated with abalone pearls. That is the kind of value that nanotechnology and nanoscience possesses within the natural environment.There are a few more examples, the gecko for one. The gecko has the ability to provide an extreme and aggressive competence in climbing mountains. The ability of the gecko comes from the structures of the gecko’s foot, which is all made of nanostructured material.? ?Such nanostructure provides unique properties and unique advantages. ????????Similarly, there are power plants, literally power plants which are chloroplasts in various plants that we've seen, and that is what is responsible for energy, and this is again a nanostructured material.Another example is the the Manuka beetle cuticle, which has a nanostructured liquid crystals that have very interesting optical properties that makes the cuticle iridescent.While there are innumerable number of examples in nature, it is exciting to know that we are now, slowly unraveling these mysteries.When we examine the moth's eye using the traditional electron microscope technique, we would realize it has some very interesting nanostructures, and that is what is responsible for the behavior of the eye.When you look at this beautiful Monarch Butterfly, you see beautiful colors; different colors of the butterflies which are shown in nature. What you see here is the wing of the Morpho butterfly, and those colors are due to the nanostructure, which is responsible for the tint in the blue line. ?Having learned all these lessons from nature, we are slowly trying to mimic nature. Trying to see how best we can incorporate the nanostructure process of the materials in nature, and how to convert them to our advantage.? A recent publication of Nature and Nanotechnology [1] describes how a tobacco mosaic virus conjugated with nanoparticles is being developed as a digital memory device (Nature Nanotechnology?72(1), 72-77, 2006).What good example is greater than the human body itself?? The human body is an array of various nanotechnological materials and nanotechnological principles, so the human body is really an epitome of the advantages that nanoscience and nanotechnology can offer. ???????Having really looked at what the life sciences offer in nature, man is trying to translate those into the laboratory.? When you look at the manmade nanotechnologies of what we have today, one could literally make a variety of different sizes and shapes of these nanomaterials.You have rods, nanocubes, nanotetrapods, carbon nanotubes, nanowires, nanofiber,?? nanoplates, and so on.? These are all being made on a commercial scale in laboratories.The commercial potential of the advantage is very obvious.? Look at the way the carbon nanotubes are being developed for a variety of products for their unique and excellent properties being the lightest and yet the hardest material ever known to humankind.The technologies that are being developed in terms of biomedical applications are multifunctional polymeric nanoparticle platforms; nanosensors for in vitro bio-analysis, drug delivery, and diagnosis, and so forth. ????????There are also technologies that are close to commercialization or already commercialized. For example, the technology that has been recently commercialized in Japan is a drug delivery system for topical applications.? This is a nano-based technology that really changes fine wrinkles of an aged hairless mouse. The treatment helped in ridding the wrinkles (Pharm Tech Japan?? (2005), 21 (12, Rinji Zokang), 2000-2004).Another very interesting nanostructured material that is being developed for integrated cancer imaging and therapy is silica core gold shell nanoparticles. ???The beauty of these materials, the way they are being designed, is that by just tuning the optical properties of near-infrared rays, one image the tumor, as well as subject it to thermal therapy.? These technologies are, again, under commercial development (C.Loo et al 2005).One of the papers that I am very fond of and citing all the time was published in 2005 -- it's “An Elegant Design of Polymeric core-shell Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Angiogenesis.”[2] The design is so elegant that it has shown tremendous promise in the mice studies, and is currently under development for human trials. Once injected into the bloodstream, the core-shell particle is selectively taken up into tumor tissues, where the lipid layer rapidly releases a drug that kills endothelial cells and disrupts blood vessels. The inner core gradually releases a chemotherapeutic drug to destroy the cancer cells.? (Sengupta et al 2005).This brings us back to my own laboratory where we are trying to engineer new site specific, controlled released drug delivery systems what my colleague, Professor Leuschner [3], described as integrating the LHRH Ligand Based Therapy [4] for controlled release of anticancer drugs.This release is unique in the sense that we are trying to have a magnetically modulated controlled release.? Wherein one could, in principle, have a three-pronged approach targeted and controlled release delivery of anticancer drugs.This is currently under development in our laboratory.? We are looking at various specific aspects. For example, the first thing we demonstrated is to see if the oscillating magnetic field can control the release of drugs in this material.? We have shown by looking at magnetic polymer composite materials, and then we have demonstrated it is indeed possible when you apply oscillating magnetic fields (Langmuir,?21(5), 2042 -2050, 2005).I think I can properly address the question: Why are you looking at commercialization aspects and technology for LHRH based materials or imaging as to the treatment?The first thing being developed is LHRH-SPION contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging of cancer and the preliminary? results that we got, both in animal studies,? as well as intra studies, are very, very encouraging (Breast Cancer Research and Treatment,99(2), 163-176, 2006).?????? ???????????This is where nanotechnology is so far and there are several more exciting opportunities that? nanotechnology provides, and those nanotechnologies? have to be screened, but are not far away.This is no longer science fiction, it is science based on real life examples. For example, there are military suits that are being developed which can monitor health (which can ease injury), and communication, enhancing a soldier’s performance. ???In addition, such military suits are so lightweight that one could literally leap into tall buildings in a single bound.?? ???????????Similarly, imagine going to a doctor and having the cancer detected as well as treated at the same time on a single visit. It is a possibility; it is no longer a myth.? One could talk about space elevators [1] -?? these are all technologies that are currently being developed.While such technologies are being developed, one may be worrying about the concepts on nano wars.? There’s much discussion going on in trying to understand what fine control and influence one could have utilizing these nanomaterials for biomedical applications.? I think such dialogue is very, very crucial and important while the technologies are being developed. ???????????I recommend a very interesting book by Michael Crichton,?Prey[2]. I think this also helps one to really understand the various other aspects of these new technologies that are being developed. ????????Having given you a brief idea about how these nanotechnologies are revolutionizing different disciplines and different phases of life sciences, I think one may ask the question as to where this is all leading.? I think that is the most important question in my view. ?????????The purpose of moving into higher end technologies, day in and day out, is to enhance our quality of life, or is there something else?? I think that's the crucial question which one needs to answer. ?? ???????????I think the most important lessons that nanotechnologies provides is for our lives.? That crucial understanding is what I would call nano-thinking.? Nano-thinking is the ability to think small while thinking big. It is the difference between a commercial thinking and an integrated thinking. When you have such thinking, you cannot only enhance your ability to do wonderful science, but also increase your ability to look inward.?Coming back to my question of what all of these technologies and continuous enhancements in our level of thinking - level of implementing our minds leads to?? I think it all leads to universal consciousness.Our mind is an extraordinary source of highest potential. The mind is really responsible for bringing out these new technologies and new approaches, and helping us to understand nature and the world better.?? The mind is what is really sharpening us, and then the sharpening is what is going to bring us towards universal consciousness. ??????There is a very interesting statement from ancient Scriptures, VEDAS, from the Hindu religion, The statement is “Anoraniyam Mahatmayam”. What it means is that the universe, or the universal consciousness, is just one, which is the smallest of the smallest, and biggest of the biggest. This statement truly conceptualizes nanoscience.???? ?? ?Therefore, there is only one thing which carries both the small and the big, and that is the universal consciousness.? I think that all research and technologies are moving in that direction.I would like to end with two very important statements from Einstein that really summarize where all of these technologies are leading to. The first one is:?"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science.? He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. ?To know what is impenetrable to us does really exist, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms.? This knowledge, this feeling is the center of true religiousness."Another rather very profound statement from Einstein is:"Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical applications of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind." Sheet on XenotransplantationDefinitionsXenotransplantation?is the use of live nonhuman animal cells, tissues and organs in human patients. These cells can be implanted or enclosed in a device that is used outside the body ("ex vivo perfusion").Zoonoses?are defined as diseases of animals that can be transmitted to humans under natural conditions (e.g., toxoplasmosis, Salmonella infections).?A xenogeneic infection?is a transmissible disease introduced from animals into humans through xenotransplantation.BG 96-6September 20, 1996?Background?Limited availability of human organs and tissues, coupled with recent biotechnical advances, has increasingly led to implantations of living cells from other species when human donors are not available, when a bridge organ is needed, or when animal cells may provide a unique benefit. This is called xenotransplantation.?Between 1990 and 1995, an average of 4,835 people each year donated organs after death, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that oversees the national organ and bone marrow transplantation programs. Nonetheless, approximately 48,000 people are now on the waiting list for organs, and the number of individuals awaiting transplants continues to grow. For example, more than 33,000 patients were awaiting kidney transplants in August 1996. Approximately 3,000 people die each year because donor organs are not available to them.?The draft Public Health Service guideline was prepared to help minimize public health risks associated with xenotransplantation while not restricting access to promising therapies for individuals with life-threatening and chronic debilitating illnesses. The guideline applies to all types of xenotransplants, including cells, tissues and solid organs.?Concerns about potential infection with both recognized disease agents and new ones arising from xenotransplants are real. For example, an infecting microbe may change when it is transmitted from its natural host into a new species. A virus that does not cause disease in its animal host may cause serious disease or even be fatal to a human transplant recipient.?Protecting Public Health: The Draft Guideline for Xenotransplantation1. The Clinical PlanThe transplant team should include individuals such as the surgeon, infectious disease physician, veterinarian, transplant immunologist, infection control specialist, and clinical microbiologist.The clinical center should be associated with an accredited virology and microbiology laboratory.The protocol should be reviewed by the clinical center Biosafety Committee, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and the Institutional Review Board. Protocols are subject to review and approval by FDA.The protocol should describe the screening methods for known infectious agents before transplantation.The informed consent process should include disclosure of the potential risks to the recipient, the family, or close contacts (especially sexual), and the need to archive pre- and post-transplant serum specimens for long-term follow-up.2. Animal SourcesAnimals should be procured from screened, closed herds or colonies that are well-characterized and as free as possible of infectious agents.Animals should have documented lineages and be bred and reared in captivity.Other outlined issues address the animal facility, including record-keeping, screening for known infectious agents, animal qualifications, and archiving of animal medical records and specimens.3. Clinical IssuesThe health status of xenotransplant recipients should be monitored clinically and through laboratory tests.Laboratory testing methods should be established and documented before the transplant is performed.Recipients should be educated concerning potential infectious disease risks to themselves and to their close contacts.Hospital infection control procedures should be in place.Laboratories should be available to culture and identify both known and novel infectious agents.The health-care team should be educated about the possible infectious disease risks.Serological samples should be archived for retrospective investigation of possible infections.Health-care records should be systematically maintained in ways that protect patients' confidentiality.4. Public Health NeedsA national registry is recommended to provide information to assess long-term safety and to help in epidemiological investigations. FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health are collaborating with the Health Resources and Services Administration to develop a pilot program to define the scope, focus, and optimal design of a national registry. Such a registry would help to identify xenotransplant-associated health problems that have public health significance.FDA's Role?The infectious disease risks inherent in all forms of xenotransplantation warrant a consistent regulatory framework. FDA soon will publish a draft guidance document to provide further practical information to the transplant community.?FDA regulates numerous products intended to prevent, treat or diagnose diseases or injuries under the authority of the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Clinical studies of new experimental biologics, such as xenogeneic cells, tissues and organs, should be performed under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application that is filed with FDA. IND applications should contain information on product manufacturing and testing to ensure that trial subjects will not be exposed to unreasonable risks, taking into account the potential for benefit.?Critical Events Leading to the GuidelineNov. 17, 1994:?Philip R. Lee, M.D., the assistant secretary for health, requested that FDA, NIH and CDC hold a consensus conference on infectious disease risks associated with xenotransplantation. At about the same time, several institutional review boards contacted FDA regarding proposed xenotransplant studies at their institutions, expressing concern about the safety of donor animal tissues. A meeting was planned for early 1995 to discuss the need for specific guidelines.January 1995:?CDC, FDA, NIH, HRSA, the Department of Defense, academic institutional review boards, animal-care committees, transplant surgeons, the National Organization of Rare Diseases, and the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine met to discuss public health concerns regarding xenotransplantation. It was decided that a comprehensive guideline was needed. Several working groups were formed to discuss what key elements needed to be included in the guideline.April 1995:?At FDA's Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee, infectious disease issues were discussed. Here also, a sponsor of a xenotransplant experiment described one approach to controlling infectious disease risks. The committee outlined preliminary public health safety concerns that should be included in any guideline for xenotransplantation.June 25-27, 1995:?The Institute of Medicine (IOM) held a public workshop on scientific, medical, public health, socioeconomic, legal, and ethical issues. The Public Health Service agencies brought the issue of infectious disease risks to the workshop for further public discussion and comment.June 28, 1995:?A day later, PHS held a "Federal Day" workshop to bring the PHS working groups together to discuss their progress on the guidelines and to create a guideline that would address the issues presented at the IOM meeting. The goal set was to create a draft guideline for discussion by July 1995.July 13-14, 1995:?FDA's Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee met on July 13 to discuss xenotransplantation issues. Issues discussed included animal source qualification and exclusion criteria, location and review of experiments, a national patient data base, surveillance and specimen archiving, screening and post-transplant patient surveillance, and informed consent.?On July 14, the committee discussed a highly publicized experimental protocol that had been submitted to the agency for review--a baboon bone marrow transplant to treat a patient with AIDS. The committee recognized the need for well-designed protocols to control infectious disease risks. Although questions were asked about the outcome of the experiment, from the perspective of both the patient and the public health, the committee recommended that this protocol be approved for one patient. The committee also discussed extracorporeal liver-assist devices, which may contain live animal cells such as pig liver cells.Nov. 30, 1995 New England Journal of Medicine:?Sounding Board article "Xenotransplantation and Xenogeneic Infections" discussed the potential risks for transplant recipients and to the public health. Written by Drs. Chapman and Folks (CDC), Dr. Salomon (Scripps Research Institute), and Drs. Patterson, Eggerman and Noguchi (FDA), the article clarifies the reasons why guidance is needed in the field of xenotransplantation.March 1996:?PHS met with representatives of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the American Society of Transplant Physicians to discuss principles of the draft guideline and the perspectives of the transplant community. The transplant surgeons recommended that FDA, CDC and NIH collaborate with HRSA in establishing a national registry, since that agency currently oversees the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.April 1996:?The British Nuffield Council on Bioethics published a study calling for national regulation of xenotransplantation to be in place before any clinical trials could proceed.July 1996:?A request for proposals was published for a pilot study of the National Xenotransplantation Registry operated under contract by HRSA.July 1996:?The Institute of Medicine issued a report on xenotrans plantation calling for national guidelines. Both the IOM and Nuffield reports supported the concept of a national registry as proposed by PHS.September 1996:?The draft PHS guideline for xenotransplantation is published.?Public Information AboutPhase One (Safety) Clinical Trials Involving Xenotransplantation1. Fetal pig neuronal cells for Parkinson's Disease, Diacrin, Inc., April 1995 phase I clinical trial begun. The initial clinical center was Lahey Hitchcock Clinic, Mass.?2. Genetically modified pig liver is used for ex vivo perfusion in the treatment of fulminant liver failure, Dr. Platt, Duke University, North Carolina.?3. Baboon bone marrow transplant for HIV, Dr. Ildstad, UCSF General Hospital, single-patient IND. FDA allowed IND to proceed August 1995. Transplant took place Dec. 14, 1995. The absence of evidence of baboon cell engraftment was reported February 1996.?4. Fetal calf adrenal cells (encapsulated) implanted in the spinal cord space for pain relief in end-stage cancer, Cytotherapeutics, Rhode Island.?5. Pig pancreatic islets (encapsulated) implanted for the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, VivoRx, Minnesota and California. of MartineRothblatt.MindFiles encourage discussion about the Terasem faith through published hyperlinks to one's web presence.Blog:transgender2transhuman.MySpace:95918827Facebook:mrothblattWeb site:Twitter:martine4Picassa:picasaweb.home?hl=en&tab=wqPhanFare:martine.YouTube:martineblissVimeo:user3376518/videosiLike:Martine ROther websites: of Woodstock Panel with Ray Kurzweil and Martine: ? Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity.Ray Kurzweil, the famous inventor, is trim, balding, and not very tall. With his perfect posture and narrow black glasses, he would look at home in an old documentary about Cape Canaveral, but his mission is bolder than any mere voyage into space. He is attempting to travel across a frontier in time, to pass through the border between our era and a future so different as to be unrecognizable. He calls this border the singularity. Kurzweil is 60, but he intends to be no more than 40 when the singularity arrives.Kurzweil's notion of a singularity is taken from cosmology, in which it signifies a border in spacetime beyond which normal rules of measurement do not apply (the edge of a black hole, for example). The word was first used to describe a crucial moment in the evolution of humanity by the great mathematician John von Neumann. One day in the 1950s, while talking with his colleague Stanislaw Ulam, von Neumann began discussing the ever-accelerating pace of technological change, which, he said, "gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs as we know them could not continue."Many years later, this idea was picked up by another mathematician, the professor and science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who added an additional twist. Vinge linked the singularity directly with improvements in computer hardware. This put the future on a schedule. He could look at how quickly computers were improving and make an educated guess about when the singularity would arrive. "Within 30 years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence," Vinge wrote at the beginning of his 1993 essay?The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era. "Shortly after, the human era will be ended." According to Vinge, superintelligent machines will take charge of their own evolution, creating ever smarter successors. Humans will become bystanders in history, too dull in comparison with their devices to make any decisions that matter.Kurzweil transformed the singularity from an interesting speculation into a social movement. His best-selling books?The Age of Spiritual Machines?and?The Singularity Is Near?cover everything from unsolved problems in neuroscience to the question of whether intelligent machines should have legal rights. But the crucial thing that Kurzweil did was to make the end of the human era seem actionable: He argues that while artificial intelligence will render?biological?humans obsolete, it will not make human consciousness irrelevant. The first AIs will be created, he says, as add-ons to human intelligence, modeled on our actual brains and used to extend our human reach. AIs will help us see and hear better. They will give us better memories and help us fight disease. Eventually, AIs will allow us to conquer death itself. The singularity won't destroy us, Kurzweil says. Instead, it will immortalize us.There are singularity conferences now, and singularity journals. There has been a congressional report about confronting the challenges of the singularity, and late last year there was a meeting at the NASA Ames Research Center to explore the establishment of a singularity university. The meeting was called by Peter Diamandis, who established the X Prize. Attendees included senior government researchers from NASA, a noted Silicon Valley venture capitalist, a pioneer of private space exploration, and two computer scientists from Google.At this meeting, there was some discussion about whether this university should avoid the provocative term?singularity, with its cosmic connotations, and use a more ordinary phrase, likeaccelerating change. Kurzweil argued strongly against backing off. He is confident that the word will take hold as more and more of his astounding predictions come true.Kurzweil does not believe in half measures. He takes 180 to 210 vitamin and mineral supplements a day, so many that he doesn't have time to organize them all himself. So he's hired a pill wrangler, who takes them out of their bottles and sorts them into daily doses, which he carries everywhere in plastic bags. Kurzweil also spends one day a week at a medical clinic, receiving intravenous longevity treatments. The reason for his focus on optimal health should be obvious: If the singularity is going to render humans immortal by the middle of this century, it would be a shame to die in the interim. To perish of a heart attack just before the singularity occurred would not only be sad for all the ordinary reasons, it would also be tragically bad luck, like being the last soldier shot down on the Western Front moments before the armistice was proclaimed.In his childhood, Kurzweil was a technical prodigy. Before he turned 13, he'd fashioned telephone relays into a calculating device that could find square roots. At 14, he wrote software that analyzed statistical deviance; the program was distributed as standard equipment with the new IBM 1620. As a teenager, he cofounded a business that matched high school students with colleges based on computer evaluation of a mail-in questionnaire. He sold the company to Harcourt, Brace & World in 1968 for $100,000 plus royalties and had his first small fortune while still an undergraduate at MIT.Though Kurzweil was young, it would have been a poor bet to issue him life insurance using standard actuarial tables. He has unlucky genes: His father died of heart disease at 58, his grandfather in his early forties. He himself was diagnosed with high cholesterol and incipient type 2 diabetes — both considered to be significant risk factors for early death — when only 35. He felt his bad luck as a cloud hanging over his life.Still, the inventor squeezed a lot of achievement out of these early years. In his twenties, he tackled a science fiction type of problem: teaching computers to decipher words on a page and then read them back aloud. At the time, common wisdom held that computers were too slow and too expensive to master printed text in all its forms, at least in a way that was commercially viable.But Kurzweil had a special confidence that grew from a habit of mind he'd been cultivating for years: He thought exponentially. To illustrate what this means, consider the following quiz: 2, 4, ?, ?.What are the missing numbers? Many people will say 6 and 8. This suggests a linear function. But some will say the missing numbers are 8 and 16. This suggests an exponential function. (Of course, both answers are correct. This is a test of thinking style, not math skills.)Human minds have a lot of practice with linear patterns. If we set out on a walk, the time it takes will vary linearly with the distance we're going. If we bill by the hour, our income increases linearly with the number of hours we work. Exponential change is also common, but it's harder to see. Financial advisers like to tantalize us by explaining how a tiny investment can grow into a startling sum through the exponential magic of compound interest. But it's psychologically difficult to heed their advice. For years, an interest-bearing account increases by depressingly tiny amounts. Then, in the last moment, it seems to jump. Exponential growth is unintuitive, because it can be imperceptible for a long time and then move shockingly fast. It takes training and experience, and perhaps a certain analytical coolness, to trust in exponential curves whose effects cannot be easily perceived.Moore's law — the observation by Intel cofounder Gordon Moore that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles roughly every 18 months — is another example of exponential change. For people like Kurzweil, it is the key example, because Moore's law and its many derivatives suggest that just about any limit on computing power today will be overcome in short order. While Kurzweil was working on his reading machine, computers were improving, and they were indeed improving exponentially. The payoff came on January 13, 1976, when Walter Cronkite's famous sign-off — "and that's the way it is" — was read not by the anchorman but by the synthetic voice of a Kurzweil Reading Machine. Stevie Wonder was the first customer.The original reader was the size of a washing machine. It read slowly and cost $50,000. One day late last year, as a winter storm broke across New England, I stood in Kurzweil's small office suite in suburban Boston, playing with the latest version. I hefted it in my hand, stuck it in my pocket, pulled it out again, then raised it above a book flopped open on the table. A bright light flashed, and a voice began reading aloud. The angle of the book, the curve of its pages, the uneven shadows — none of that was a problem. The mechanical voice picked up from the numerals on the upper left corner —?... four hundred ten. The singularity is near. The continued opportunity to alleviate human distress is one key motivation for continuing technological advancement?— and continued down the page in an artificial monotone. Even after three decades of improvement, Kurzweil's reader is a dull companion. It expresses no emotion. However, it is functionally brilliant to the point of magic. It can handle hundreds of fonts and any size book. It doesn't mind being held at an angle by an unsteady hand. Not only that, it also makes calls: Computers have become so fast and small they've nearly disappeared, and the Kurzweil reader is now just software running on a Nokia phone.In the late '70s, Kurzweil's character-recognition algorithms were used to scan legal documents and articles from newspapers and magazines. The result was the Lexis and Nexis databases. And a few years later, Kurzweil released speech recognition software that is the direct ancestor of today's robot customer service agents. Their irritating mistakes taking orders and answering questions would seem to offer convincing evidence that real AI is still many years away. But Kurzweil draws the opposite conclusion. He admits that not everything he has invented works exactly as we might wish. But if you will grant him exponential progress, the fact that we already have virtual robots standing in for retail clerks, and cell phones that read books out loud, is evidence that the world is about to change in even more fantastical ways.Look at it this way: If the series of numbers in the quiz mentioned earlier is linear and progresses for 100 steps, the final entry is 200. But if progress is exponential, then the final entry is 1,267,650,600,228,229,400,000,000,000,000. Computers will soon be smarter than humans. Nobody has to die.In a small medical office?on the outskirts of Denver, with windows overlooking the dirty snow and the golden arches of a fast-food mini-mall, one of the world's leading longevity physicians, Terry Grossman, works on keeping Ray Kurzweil alive. Kurzweil is not Grossman's only client. The doctor charges $6,000 per appointment, and wealthy singularitarians from all over the world visit him to plan their leap into the future.Grossman's patient today is Matt Philips, 32, who became independently wealthy when Yahoo bought the Internet advertising company where he worked for four years. A young medical technician is snipping locks of his hair, and another is extracting small vials of blood. Philips is in good shape at the moment, but he is aware that time marches on. "I'm dying slowly. I can't feel it, but I know its happening, little by little, cell by cell," he wrote on his intake questionnaire. Philips has read Kurzweil's books. He is a smart, skeptical person and accepts that the future is not entirely predictable, but he also knows the meaning of upside. At worst, his money buys him new information about his health. At best, it makes him immortal."The normal human lifespan is about 125 years," Grossman tells him. But Philips wasn't born until 1975, so he starts with an advantage. "I think somebody your age, and in your condition, has a reasonable chance of making it across the first bridge," Grossman says.According to Grossman and other singularitarians, immortality will arrive in stages. First, lifestyle and aggressive antiaging therapies will allow more people to approach the 125-year limit of the natural human lifespan. This is bridge one. Meanwhile, advanced medical technology will begin to fix some of the underlying biological causes of aging, allowing this natural limit to be surpassed. This is bridge two. Finally, computers become so powerful that they can model human consciousness. This will permit us to download our personalities into nonbiological substrates. When we cross this third bridge, we become information. And then, as long as we maintain multiple copies of ourselves to protect against a system crash, we won't die.Kurzweil himself started across the first bridge in 1988. That year, he confronted the risk that had been haunting him and began to treat his body as a machine. He read up on the latest nutritional research, adopted the Pritikin diet, cut his fat intake to 10 percent of his calories, lost 40 pounds, and cured both his high cholesterol and his incipient diabetes. Kurzweil wrote a book about his experience,?The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life. But this was only the beginning.Kurzweil met Grossman at a Foresight Nanotech Institute meeting in 1999, and they became research partners. Their object of investigation was Kurzweil's body. Having cured himself of his most pressing health problems, Kurzweil was interested in adopting the most advanced medical and nutritional technologies, but it wasn't easy to find a doctor willing to tolerate his persistent questions. Grossman was building a new type of practice, focused not on illness but on the pursuit of optimal health and extreme longevity. The two men exchanged thousands of emails, sharing speculations about which cutting-edge discoveries could be safely tried.Though both Grossman and Kurzweil respect science, their approach is necessarily improvisational. If a therapy has some scientific promise and little risk, they'll try it. Kurzweil gets phosphatidylcholine intravenously, on the theory that this will rejuvenate all his body's tissues. He takes DHEA and testosterone. Both men use special filters to produce alkaline water, which they drink between meals in the hope that negatively charged ions in the water will scavenge free radicals and produce a variety of health benefits. This kind of thing may seem like quackery, especially when promoted by various New Age outfits touting the "pH miracle of living." Kurzweil and Grossman justify it not so much with scientific citations — though they have a few — but with a tinkerer's shrug. "Life is not a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study," Grossman explains. "We don't have that luxury. We are operating with incomplete information. The best we can do is experiment with ourselves."Obviously, Kurzweil?has no plan for retirement. He intends to sustain himself indefinitely through his intelligence, which he hopes will only grow. A few years ago he deployed an automated system for making money on the stock market, called FatKat, which he uses to direct his own hedge fund. He also earns about $1 million a year in speaking fees.Meanwhile, he tries to safeguard his well-being. As a driver he is cautious. He frequently bicycles through the Boston suburbs, which is good for physical conditioning but also puts his immortality on the line. For most people, such risks blend into the background of life, concealed by a cheerful fatalism that under ordinary conditions we take as a sign of mental health. But of course Kurzweil objects to this fatalism. He wants us to try harder to survive.His plea is often ignored. Kurzweil has written about the loneliness of being a singularitarian. This may seem an odd complaint, given his large following, but there is something to it. A dozen of his fans may show up in Denver every month to initiate longevity treatments, but many of them, like Matt Philips, are simply hedging their bets. Most health fanatics remain agnostic, at best, on the question of immortality.Kurzweil predicts that by the early 2030s, most of our fallible internal organs will have been replaced by tiny robots. We'll have "eliminated the heart, lungs, red and white blood cells, platelets, pancreas, thyroid and all the hormone-producing organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lower esophagus, stomach, small intestines, large intestines, and bowel. What we have left at this point is the skeleton, skin, sex organs, sensory organs, mouth and upper esophagus, and brain."In outlining these developments, Kurzweil's tone is so calm and confident that he seems to be describing the world as it is today, rather than some distant, barely imaginable future. This is because his prediction falls out cleanly from the equations he's proposed. Knowledge doubles every year, Kurzweil says. He has estimated the number of computations necessary to simulate a human brain. The rest is simple math.But wait. There may be something wrong. Kurzweil's theory of accelerating change is meant to be a universal law, applicable wherever intelligence is found. It's fine to say that knowledge doubles every year. But then again, what is a year? A year is an astronomical artifact. It is the length of time required by Earth to make one orbit around our unexceptional star. A year is important to our nature, to our biology, to our fantasies and dreams. But it is a strange unit to discover in a general law."Doubling every year," I say to Kurzweil, "makes your theory sound like a wish."He's not thrown off. A year, he replies, is just shorthand. The real equation for accelerating world knowledge is much more complicated than that. (In his book, he gives it as:?.)He has examined the evidence, and welcomes debate on the minor details. If you accept his basic premise of accelerating growth, he'll yield a little on the date he predicts the singularity will occur. After all, concede accelerating growth and the exponential fuse is lit. At the end you get that big bang: an explosion in intelligence that yields immortal life.Despite all this, people continue to disbelieve. There is a lively discussion among experts about the validity of Moore's law. Kurzweil pushes Moore's law back to the dawn of time, and forward to the end of the universe. But many computer scientists and historians of technology wonder if it will last another decade. Some suspect that the acceleration of computing power has already slowed.There are also philosophical objections. Kurzweil's theory is that super-intelligent computers will necessarily be human, because they will be modeled on the human brain. But there are other types of intelligence in the world — for instance, the intelligence of ant colonies — that are alien to humanity. Grant that a computer, or a network of computers, might awaken. The consciousness of the this fabulous AI might remain as incomprehensible to us as we are to the protozoa.Other pessimists point out that the brain is more than raw processing power. It also has a certain architecture, a certain design. It is attached to specific type of nervous system, it accepts only particular kinds of inputs. Even with better computational speed driving our thoughts, we might still be stuck in a kind of evolutionary dead end, incapable of radical self-improvement.And these are the merely intellectual protests Kurzweil receives. The fundamental cause for loneliness, if you are a prophet of the singularity, is probably more profound. It stems from the simple fact that the idea is so strange. "Death has been a ubiquitous, ever-present facet of human society," says Kurzweil's friend Martine Rothblatt, founder of Sirius radio and chair of United Therapeutics, a biotech firm on whose board Kurzweil sits. "To tell people you are going to defeat death is like telling people you are going to travel back in time. It has never been done. I would be surprised if people had a positive reaction."To press his case, Kurzweil is writing and producing an autobiographical movie, with walk-ons by Alan Dershowitz and Tony Robbins. Kurzweil appears in two guises, as himself and as an intelligent computer named Ramona, played by an actress. Ramona has long been the inventor's virtual alter ego and the expression of his most personal goals. "Women are more interesting than men," he says, "and if it's more interesting to be with a woman, it is probably more interesting to be a woman." He hopes one day to bring Ramona to life, and to have genuine human experiences, both with her and as her. Kurzweil has been married for 32 years to his wife, Sonya Kurzweil. They have two children — one at Stanford University, one at Harvard Business School. "I don't necessarily only want to be Ramona," he says. "It's not necessarily about gender confusion, it's just about freedom to express yourself."Kurzweil's movie offers a taste of the drama such a future will bring. Ramona is on a quest to attain full legal rights as a person. She agrees to take a Turing test, the classic proof of artificial intelligence, but although Ramona does her best to masquerade as human, she falls victim to one of the test's subtle flaws: Humans have limited intelligence. A computer that appears too smart will fail just as definitively as one that seems too dumb. "She loses because she is too clever!" Kurzweil says.The inventor's sympathy with his robot heroine is heartfelt. "If you're just very good at doing mathematical theorems and making stock market investments, you're not going to pass the Turing test," Kurzweil acknowledged in 2006 during a public debate with noted computer scientist David Gelernter. Kurzweil himself is brilliant at math, and pretty good at stock market investments. The great benefits of the singularity, for him, do not lie here. "Human emotion is really the cutting edge of human intelligence," he says. "Being funny, expressing a loving sentiment — these are very complex behaviors."One day, sitting in his office overlooking the suburban parking lot, I ask Kurzweil if being a singularitarian makes him happy. "If you took a poll of primitive man, happiness would be getting a fire to light more easily," he says. "But we've expanded our horizon, and that kind of happiness is now the wrong thing to focus on. Extending our knowledge and casting a wider net of consciousness is the purpose of life." Kurzweil expects that the world will soon be entirely saturated by thought. Even the stones may compute, he says, within 200 years.Every day he stays alive brings him closer to this climax in intelligence, and to the time when Ramona will be real. Kurzweil is a technical person, but his goal is not technical in this respect. Yes, he wants to become a robot. But the robots of his dreams are complex, funny, loving machines. They are as human as he hopes to be. Scientist Says ‘Immortality’ Possible for Wealthy Elite by 2045Ruling families and the wealthy elite have long dreamed of immortality to preserve their ability to rule for all of eternity, with heads of dynasties historically offering abundant prizes and gifts to those with secrets to everlasting life on Earth. One prominent Russian scientist now says that such an achievement will be possible for the wealthy elite by roughly 2045 through a concept deeply studied and publicized by researchers like Steve Quayle and Stan Deyo.Often criticized as ‘conspiracy theory’ or bizarre science fiction back when analysts were blowing the whistle over this ‘privileged’ technology, the process involves?generating fully functional holographic human avatars and transporting one’s ‘consciousness’ into an artificial brain. While the overall ‘immortality’ process is intended to be completed by 2045, the scientist states on his website that the act of transplanting a human brain into an artificial body will be?available in as little as seven years.The rest of the project would extend all the way to 2045, ran by a ‘team of the world’s leading scientists’ working on the initiative.On?the website?of?Dmitry Itskov, the scientist behind the idea, the?31-year-old asks for contributions from the world’s wealthiest members of society in order to accelerate his plan. These wealthy contributors will then be rewarded with the use of this technology upon completion, allowing them to ‘live’ in an artificial brain and body throughout the course of history.?On the website is also an image which outlines the projected process of completion, with the?holographic body avatars actually available by 2015:Following the creation of a remotely controlled robotic copy of one’s body in 2015, 2020 then brings a body in which a human brain can be transplanted after death. In 2030, human personality is set to be transferred directly to the ‘borg’ brain and implanted. In 2040-2045, the plan is set to complete with a full-fledged hologram-like avatar in which the artificial brain and body will ‘store’ the consciousness of the subject. In a more detailed description,?Dmitry Itskov explains on his website how these new borg-like bodies feature a ‘artificial brain linked to a robot’ complete with a consciousness link to an internet-esque system. Once again, this was spoken of verbatim more than three decades ago by analysts like Steve Quayle and Stan Deyo.2015-2020 PlanThis phase of the plan includes the emergence of android ‘avatar’ bodies?controlled with a ‘brain-computer’ chip interface (likely of RFID nature). This chip would be systematically established to issue ‘orders’ to the artificial body and eventually interlink with the artificial brain.2020-2025This time frame involves the linking of the human brain and robot with an ‘autonomous life-support system’, giving way to a new field of transhumanistic developments and further turning the human body into a bio-electronic ‘avatar’.2030-2035In this near-final stage, human consciousness is to be transplanted onto an artificial carrier or ‘brain’ creating ‘cybernetic immortality’. Artificial intelligence will emerge with robots likely taking the role of all military, police, and others. These robots will have their own form of artificial ‘consciousness’.2045The artificial brain turns into something that has no substance, linking into an ‘internet’ of sorts in which the ‘global consciousness’ network is established.?Humanity is set to “become a new species” and forfeit any form of physical materialization. Project. Eternalizing Consciousness using a virtual avatar.The goal of the Lifenaut Project is to create an automated, user-friendly, and web accessible system that allows individuals around the globe to create significantly detailed personality archives.The service is completely free and our hope is that future?AI-like software will allow these archives (which we call "mindfiles") to replicate the consciousness of the individuals from which they came, explained Nick Mayer, whose job is to guide the development teams involved in this project and oversee the orchestration of their work.Presently the mindfiles are composed of: an array of file types that the user uploads (and can view) using our lifenaut interface, personality test results, profile information, and lines of conversation from teaching sessions between the user and his/her talking "AI Avatar."? Mayer believes that although at this point the AI Avatars are not too intelligent, ultimately all of the information in the mindfile can be tapped into the conversational capability of the avatar, thus creating an analog of the users’ consciousness.More details about the Lifenaut project are described in the following excerpt from a letter that Mayer composed to lifenaut userbase:The purpose of this note is to provide some context for and to introduce some other ongoing cyber-biological research efforts.? The Lifenaut Project is a research experiment.? Its long-term goal is to test this hypothesis (an educated guess): Given a comprehensive database, saturated with the most salient aspects of an individual’s personality, future intelligent software will be able to replicate this individual’s consciousness.?Why are we embarking on such a project?The wisdom of ancestors has been valued by most cultures since the beginning of humankind.? The Lifenaut Project will not only ensure that ancestral wisdom will continue to guide future generations, but will exponentially improve this connection between past and present by allowing children to have conversations with the actual words of their great, great grandparents, for example.?What if this experiment doesn’t work?If, after creating a database saturated with the most pertinent aspects of an individual’s personality (what we call a mindfile), future intelligent software is NOT able to replicate this individual’s consciousness, then all of the hard work that individual put into creating their mindfile will not have been wasted.? I say this because all of the information about that individual— thousands of lines of free flowing and guided conversations, personality test results, the array of uploaded file types articulately tagged with descriptions, dates, locations etc. etc. will now have been stored in a non-degradable (digital) form.? This unique digital archive could potentially exist forever and be accessible to people for generations and generations to come.??How can you say that a “mindfile” could last forever?The database is backed up daily in 3 different locations around the world and in 2 different media types.? As new digital storage media develop with greater longevity and stability, will adopt these new technologies.? The key point is that the form of storage is digital.? Digital media can be copied and transferred an infinte number of times and will not degrade.? Paper degrades, so do cds, photos, dvds, hard drives, videotapes, computers, iPods.? But digital information transferred from one medium to another does not.? Microsoft actually has a research project underway for which they have filed a patent, entitled The?Immortal Information Storage and Access Platform.? Something like this could potentially be the final destination of our Lifenaut database.?I am personally excited about the prospect of storing the bulk of my life’s unique information in an immortal database.? I view it as an interactive time capsule where my children and even their children’s children will be able to login and learn from my experiences, hear stories exactly as I told them, long after I am gone.? It is absurd that we spend our lives experiencing and learning about the world and then at the very end when we have attained the most educated, informed perspective we can possibly have, it all vanishes.? Within a few generations all that is left of that lifetime of learning is possibly a name remembered, maybe a story, possibly a few mysterious photographs.The Lifenaut Project and research towards immortal data storage platforms can reverse this paradox.?Who is conducting this experiment and what are some other projects like it?While at first this may seem more like sci-fi than science, all one needs to do is read about some of the mind- blowing leaps and bounds that are being accomplished by researchers in the fields of Cognitive Computing/ Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology, Neuroscience, and Robotics (resources provided atScience Supporting Terasem).? Of particular interest are three research projects whose ultimate goal is to replicate the human brain and its learning process: Numenta, IBM’s Blue Brain Project, and Novamente.?Numenta?is a new for profit company spun- off from the Redwood Neuroscience Institute both of which are located in Silicon Valley, CA, USA.? Both entities were co-founded by Jeff Hawkins, author of On Intelligence (a short read I highly recommend) and CEO of Palm Computing.? Numenta’s approach to developing intelligent bio-software is a fascinating and unique one—they are modeling software after the human neocortex’s actual structure.? Like an infant’s set of freshly interconnected neurons, their hierarchical arrangement of “nodes” are learning to visually recognize more and more complex objects.? Jeff calls his model Hierarchical Temporal Memory.????The?Blue Brain Project?is a collaborative effort between IBM and Ecole Polytechnique Federale Da Lausanne.? Proffesor Henry Markam has been directing the project since its start in 2005 and research is primarily being conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland.? Like Numenta, they are using the human cortex as a model, but their approach is more of a hardware- based one.? A press release last month reported that they had successfully modeled in structure and function a cortical microcolumn.? One could consider a microcolumn the basic functional unit of the brain—the next level up in organization after a neuron.? This was an endeavor that took over 2 years.? 30 million synapses down, less than a trillion to go!?Novamente LLC?is another project striving to create thinking computers by modeling biological systems.? Spearheaded by Artificial General Intelligence author/ researcher Ben Goertzal and futurist writer Bruce Klein, their team is attempting to replicate the infant brain with a learning protocol based upon Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development.? Phase I of the project culminated in the modeling of a dog’s learning process.? They are teaching their cyberpuppy in virtual environments and unveiled their new AI engine at the International Virtual Worlds Conference last fall.Like these other research projects the Lifenaut Project exists in this nebulous overlap between biology and technology, however it differs from those above in seeking to replicate neurological memory, not processing.? Over the past two years author/ entrepreneur Dr. Martine Rothblatt, Bruce Duncan, and myself have worked together with three software development teams to make the Lifenaut Project’s first two phases become a reality.? These teams are:?Connect Studios, based in RI, USA;??iCogno?Ltd. Of Dawlish, UK;? and?InterMediaLab?of Norwich, UK.??Modeled after the organization of human cortical memory, the Lifenaut memory storage system is both hierarchical and intra-relational in nature.? It is for this reason that the requirement exists for all files to be so richly tagged.? Our biggest challenge has been the fact that we are dealing with a diverse array of data that trigger the formation of unique neural networks, but we are not storing the actual neural networks themselves.? However as neural headsets become more perceptive and more affordable, we plan to integrate EEG associations with your AI Avatar conversational data as well as with uploaded files/ memories.? Two neural headset companies I have been speaking with are?Neurosky?and?Emotiv.? The progress they have made over the past year is truly amazing.? In addition to the info in uploaded files, presently the database consists of validated personality test results, profile data, and all conversational associations generated by your teaching sessions with your personal AI Avatar.?The short-term (5 year) goal of the Lifenaut Project is to provide a free, engaging, entertaining, and socially interactive environment in which thousands of people like yourself have saturated your personal databases, your mindfiles.? For most people we expect that this process will take years.? As time goes by we will continue to offer more and more ways for your avatar to become more and more like you.?So have fun crafting your time capsule for future generations and help us guide humanity in a positive direction by building a mindfile.??Regards,?Nick MayerManager of Cyberbiological SystemsTerasem Movement Foundation Just Spotted This Guy Wearing Google's Secret Internet Glasses On The Train Like It's No Big Deal…We just hopped off Caltrain, the Bay Area's commuter-rail system, at Palo Alto to share this with you.When we got on the train at San Francisco, we spotted a man wearing a blue attachment on his glasses.We instantly recognized it as Google's secretive Project Glass headsets, which display information feeds and capture photos and?videos.Why is this notable? At this year's Google I/O conference, Project Glass industrial designer Isabelle Olsson?told us?that only a "handful" of Googlers were allowed to wear them at present.Cofounder?Sergey Brin?showed them off with an?elaborate skydiving stunt.The project, which showcases both Google's ability to process huge amounts of information and its?increasingly large hardware ambitions, is said by some to be Google's future.One of them?is Vic Gundotra, Google's senior vice president in charge of social efforts including Google+.Developers who attended I/O?got to preorder a test version of the headsets for $1,500. But even those are not expected to ship until next year.So who is this guy? Based on comparing our photo to other publicly available ones, we've tentatively identified him as?Steve Lee, a six-year veteran of Google who?leads product management for Google+. He's part of the team that?launched Project Glass to the world in April.Lee is the person who?hooked Gundotra up with his pair, in fact.We've asked Google for comment. Nothing back yet.Owen Thomas@owenthomas5 Aug 12We're not 100% sure, but we think we spotted?@moneyball?riding?@caltrain?wearing a Project Glass headset.?lnkd.in/yCNE28Steve Lee@moneyball@owenthomas?@moneyball?@caltrain?next time stop and say hi :) Director Regina Dugan Leaves Defense Department For?GoogleToday brings some rather high-profile recruiting from Google: the director of DARPA, the Department of Defense’s research arm,?is leaving after three years of heading the agency to join Google?at a “senior executive position.”The news comes from a DARPA spokesman, who reports that Dugan felt she couldn’t refuse an offer from such an “innovative company.” She has worked at the agency on and off since 1996, and most recently has brought its budget and resources to bear on more practical problems like securing military networks. What role she will play at Google is unknown, but it is probably at least partially security-related.Dugan was originally a researcher and program manager, and ascended to director status in 2009. Although she has encouraged innovation and some so-called “blue sky” projects (research that may stall or never see the light of day), she has also made efforts to fund what are, by DARPA standards, much more grounded projects. She has?a few patents of her own?in various areas of engineering and has published a book on engineering thermodynamics.In November, she appealed to hackers and security experts to consider the problem of the military’s outdated data-protection methods. She seems to have intuited that while?robot cheetahs,?cornea displays, and?hummingbird UAVs?are all well and good, the physical battlefield isn’t the only real one. Cybersecurity is increasingly important even in real-world security; NASA just recently said it had been?hacked thousands of times, possibly losing valuable and sensitive data to hackers in China.Dugan is the subject of an investigation (described as one of many “regular audits” but an investigation nonetheless) related to contracts being awarded to a firm for which she was a co-founder, but the DARPA spokesman said the departure for Google was unrelated.She is expected to make the final switch in the next few weeks, by which time we will perhaps have more information on her new role at Google. X, the secret product lab developing blue-sky projectsSearch-engine giant Google has a secret product lab called Google X feverishly developing blue-sky projects such as space elevators, driverless cars and internet-enabled household devices,?The New York Times?reports.The labs are reportedly run "as mysteriously as the CIA," according to unnamed sources familiar with the project, and housed in two facilities - one in California at the company's headquarters and one in an undisclosed location elsewhere in the country."They're pretty far out in front right now," Rodney Brooks, a professor emeritus at MIT's computer science and artificial intelligence lab and founder of Heartland Robotics, told theTimes. "But Google's not an ordinary company, so almost nothing applies."The lab is reported to be filled with robotics engineers, in spite of the software engineers more commonly employed by the company.But don't get your hopes up: The types of projects cited aren't the sort of thing the company will be releasing anytime soon.Space elevators, for example, are a concept common in science fiction stories and movies. The idea is simple: Ditch the expensive, dangerous rockets for a giant platform that tows anything and everything up a tremendous cable to a platform orbiting at a fixed location around the planet.Google did not officially comment on the status of projects or even the existence of the Google X labs. as Trustees, Surrogatesand Guardians of Cryonauts?This article was adapted from a?talk?given by Fred and Linda Chamberlain?at the 5th Annual Colloquium on the Law of Futuristic Persons on December 10, 2009,at the Terasem Island Amphitheatre in Second Life.??(Note by Editor with the? article, as published in the Terasem Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness: “Fred and Linda Chamberlain, pioneers in the cryonics movement, contemplate to whom and how their desires in cryopreservation and revival are best entrusted.”)?(Fred – Slide 01)? Hi, I’m Fred Chamberlain.?(Linda –?same slide) ?And, I’m Linda Chamberlain.? As Giulio probably just mentioned, our talk is pre-recorded because we couldn’t be with you personally today.??(Fred – Slide 02)? This Workshop is about transhumanist spirituality, but how does the concept of cybertwins for cryonauts fit in?? Spirituality, in terms of religious belief, touches on things not yet proven scientifically, “afterlives” in particular.? Cryonics was the first radical program to pursue afterlives via reanimation technology, and as such has helped kindle and reinforce other ideas such as brainmap uploading and mindfile emulation as pathways to personal cyberconsciousness.? The cybertwin concept ties all of this together.??(Linda – Slide 03)? In a wonderful posting that Martine Rothblatt put on Google+ a few months ago she said, in part:?“Many people nowadays get their knickers twisted over the word ‘religion.’ ?It is just a word. It just means a system of belief, more than can be immediately scientifically proven. I think everyone is religious because everyone believes in something, has faith in something. The scientist has faith in her hypothesis, or her instruments, or she wouldn't bother. If religion means more, it means belief in something godlike.? But the 21st century is more godlike for most people than was the 12th century. To believe that technology and culture is making us more all-knowing, more all-powerful, more all-good is to be religious. Godness in the making is something godlike.”??(Fred – Slide 04)? Martine added, “If religion means more, it means belief in some afterlife. But surely revitalization of oneself from one's digital reflections is an afterlife.”? And she said, “If you believe technology and ethics will ultimately make life joyfully immortal, then you are religious, or as we say in Terasem, transreligious.”? This is more than just an “idea”, to us.? Terasem has created and offers, without charge, mindfile building system access and data storage on a committed basis, for those who grasp this vision.? This is just as realistic a prospect, to some of us, as placing people in liquid nitrogen with a view to someday, somehow, reanimating them as biological “continuers” of themselves.??(Linda – Slide 05) ?Fred and I have long felt that we will need powerful and trustworthy guardians while in biostasis.? A little personal history will help you see why we feel so strongly about this.? Active involvement within the cryonics community for forty years, which includes being the founders of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in California back in the early 1970s, before it moved to Arizona, made us intimately familiar with the challenges, both political and financial, of keeping cryonauts safe for what might be an extended period of time, depending on how both technology and our culture progress.??(Fred – Slide 06) ?In the 1970's,?prior to creating the early Alcor, we left the?Cryonics Society of California?due to their weaknesses and lack of willingness to improve. Years later, our fears were sadly justified when nearly a dozen patients were lost, allowed to thaw, with no notice to anyone.?In the late 1980’s we launched an organization named?LifePact?to help prepare for reanimation, including video interviews to archive personal memories, attitudes, preferences as to reanimation and many other relevant topics.? The purpose was to guide our cryonics organizations and future reanimation teams.? Who would speak for our parents, already in cryostasis, if we were in that state ourselves?? Who would speak for us?? What if our cryonics organization went defunct, and rescue plans were being negotiated among various groups?? Who, if anyone, would represent us in making decisions on our behalf???(Linda – Slide 07) ?Who would make those critical decisions?? What about personal factors, such as being reanimated only at the same time as others?? We always felt strongly that cryonics patients should be able to leave instructions about such things, and that these wishes should be respected and carried out.? Unfortunately, we encountered other cryonicists who disputed the rights of cryonauts to make personal decisions of this kind, about how their future lives would unfold.? These cryonicists also strongly opposed projects of a LifePact kind.? We felt we had to find broader ways to advocate that the personal choices of cryonauts should be respected and honored.??(Fred – Slide 08) ?We presented papers in?1989?at a Cryonics Institute conference about planning for reanimation.? At the same time we were writing and publishing the?LifeQuest?short stories about cryonics, uploading, etc.? Linda’s novel,?Star Pebble, explores how people might interact in a mutually protective way in a culture where biostasis and bioreanimation are taken for granted.? My bookBioQuagmire, asks, “Who can we trust to watch out for us while in cryostasis, make decisions about reanimation, and respect our personal preferences?”? A short synopsis of?BioQuagmire?may help illustrate where the Cybertwin concept came from, and why we were so attracted to?Terasem?and its?CyBeRev Project to facilitate personal cyberconsciousness.????(Fred continuing – Change slide - 09)? Here’s the way it starts.? In the early 21st century, a couple didn’t feel safe relying on the future leadership of their cryonics organization.? They gave a sealed letter to their Trustee, to be delivered to their cryonics organization only after aging was conquered and reliable reanimation was claimed to be possible.? The letter instructed that no reanimation of either of them should be attempted without the consent of their biological twins.? In order to consent, the twins would have to possess all the legal rights of adults and be able to serve as their Trustees, as well as being named as the Beneficiaries of their Trust.? The twins were named as the sole decision-makers as to how and when the cryonaut couple were to be reanimated.??(Linda –?same slide) ?The twins were left extensive letters by the earlier couple to help guide them in making reanimation decisions concerning their earlier twins.? It might seem foolish to envision placing reliance on biological twins, who might never even be “brought to life”, vs. leaders of cryonics organizations, but this reflected our long held discomfort with leaving decisions like that in the hands of cryonics leaders who openly and actively disputed the rights of cryonauts to set any limits on how or when they would be reanimated.???(Fred – Slide 10) ?When we found out that Terasem, through its CyBeRev and LifeNaut projects, was building mindfiles of Life-Pact type autobiographical and preference data, to be used in generating self-conscious cyberpersonalities who would in effect be “cybertwins” of the cryonauts who set up the mindfiles, our universe flip-flopped!? In a flash, we saw that it would be far more plausible, and infinitely more reliable, to rely on cyber-emulations of our own minds that would have full recollection of all our earlier thinking, who would be “back on the street” in decades vs. centuries.? Our cybertwins would be familiar with all that had transpired in the world meanwhile.? This was a far superior alternative to entrusting our futures to biological twins, as described in BioQuagmire.?(Linda –?same slide)? After Turing-equivalence tests and achieving legal independence, our cybertwins could be legally regarded as our “offspring”.? Then they could become the Trustees/Beneficiaries of our estate.? As a matter of fact, that’s how our personal arrangements now stand!? Decades before it’s likely that biological reanimation would be “feasible”, we expect to be “back” as our own cybertwins, watching out over other Terasem cryonauts as well as ourselves.? We’ll be learning how our own suspensions went down and those of others as well.? With time, we’ll be able to assess chances for either eventual bioreanimation or brainmap uploading… or perhaps other options we can’t even foresee right now.??(Fred – Slide 11) ?In short, although?BioQuagmire’s story depended on biological twins, we now see?cyberbeings, or as we call them, “cybertwins”, as being a far more plausible, realistic and achievable solution?to how cryonauts might be protected, with high emphasis on respecting and honoring their individual preferences.? The cybertwin concept is highly consistent with Terasem’s powerful consent principle as presented in an article by Martine Rothblatt titled:?The Geoethics of Self-Replicating Biomedical Nanotechnology for Cryonic Revival.? Linda, could you quote some of it for perspective???(Linda – continuing quote – Slide 12)??Sure, Fred.? Quoting Martine Rothblatt, “The first principle, called Consent, is that no procedure should occur unless its purpose is to benefit the affected party.? Since there may very well be differences of opinion as to whether or not a procedure is of benefit, the geoethical?Consent Principlerequires affirmative consent from whoever is to be affected by a medical procedure.? If someone consents to something, by definition they believe that thing is of benefit to them.? It should be noted in this regard that even consent to suicide may be evidence of benefit since such an individual no longer holds any value for their life, or values death even higher.”??(Fred – Slide 13) ?Martine Rothblatt thus takes us to a critical implication.? Consent to reanimation decisions should always be an option for cryonauts.? They might make such decisions before being placed into cryonic suspension, or appoint another party, acting in the role of a medical surrogate,?more usually referred to as a “patient advocate”, to do this for them at a later time.? This would be especially important for decisions dependent on future technologies and circumstances that the cryonaut could not have anticipated.? Who would be better qualified to make such decisions than a cybertwin, a mindclone, or as Mike Perry might say, a “continuer” of the cryonaut concerned.? The important goal would be to avoid blindly trusting unknown individuals who might control our cryonics groups at a future time, when reanimations might become feasible, but with many approaches and options presently invisible to us.???(Linda – Slide 14) ?Cybertwins of cryonauts, as a cybercommunity, could engage in high speed strategic planning on how to best protect us while we’re in biostasis and foresee what technologies might best recover us at an appropriate point.? If we manage to live just another decade or so, our cybertwins may be “awake”, even before we are placed into cryostasis.? In such a scenario, we ?would then have the opportunity to discuss our concerns and preferences with them before we went into cryonic suspension, if that became necessary.??(Fred – Slide 15) ?In the future, cryonicists’ cybertwins might be able to monitor their vital signs 24/7 as the time for suspension approaches, avoiding preventable ischemic delays by helping with the coordination of preparations. ??Cybertwins are likely to be more synergistic than ??biohumans, less competitive and more cooperative due to reduced influence of the biochemical drives with which we biohumans are loaded.? High speed of thought and perfect memories are assets we biohumans would love to have, but don’t.? Our cybertwins will be able to do more for us than we could do for ourselves, under the best of conditions.??(Linda – Slide 16) ?If we entrust reanimation decisions to a cybertwin, wouldn’t it be a good idea to check for a good degree of personality congruence between a cybertwin and his/her biotwin?? Martine Rothblatt has paved the way for us here, in her paper,?An Experiment to Test the Ability of Digitally-Stored Mindfiles to Regenerate the Consciousness from Which It Came10, where she proposes an extensive interview process to verify that the personality of a cyberbeing has a sufficient profile match with the person whose data is used to validate identity regeneration.?(Fred –?same slide) ?If a cybertwin is to serve as Trustee and Reanimation Surrogate for his or her biotwin in cryonic suspension, such testing might be reasonable, particularly if the biotwin made this choice at an early stage in the cybertwin’s emergence into consciousness.? Other approaches might be added or substituted, for example the Bainbridgemodel.? If the cybertwin fits the model in all areas, that would be a very good sign.? Even if Bainbridge data had been used to nucleate cybertwin emergence, a re-check after full emergence might be appropriate, to reconfirm the congruence.? Conversely, as discussed later, it might be appropriate to waive such a requirement, and some might choose to do so.??(Linda – Slide 17) ?Dr. Larry Cauller mentions the emergence of “a completely new form of conscious being” in his paper,?What it Might “Feel” Like to be Connected to Devices That Will Expand or Enhance Human Function With Cyber Abilities.? However,?there?he was talking about interfacing a biobrain and a cyberbeing.? In?this?talk, we anticipate that our brains, as cryonauts, might be uploaded and?then?interfaced.? Who would guide this interfacing?? Who would specify the final configuration?? Shouldn’t the?cybertwin?be the decision maker?? After all, it’s the?cybertwin’s?identity, as much as the frozen biotwin, that we’re talking about at this point.? If we trust our cybertwin to decide on the whole spectrum of reanimation options, shouldn’t the interface part of it be entrusted also???Fred & I are comfortable trusting our cybertwins with this decision making, because we are building very extensive mindfiles to be used to emulate our cybertwins.? But, we know that others will have a lot of different circumstances and may have different preferences!? That’s fine!? This does, however, point out the importance of building the best mindfile possible, and not waiting to get started.? None of us has a guarantee about how long our biological bodies will survive.??(Fred – Slide 18) ?Options in augmenting a biotwin’s biobrain at the point of uploading will be vast. Let’s look at just a few intriguing possibilities.? The joint identity of an uploaded biotwin and his or her cybertwin might be highly dependent on decisions made in advance of uploading.??Want to upload separately and not interface, or even wait for bioreanimation???The Singularity may unfold rapidly, and procrastinating could lead? to missing out on a lot of it.? Here, we’ll mainly talk about interfacing upon uploading, mentioning bioreanimation from time to time, to show how it still fits in with the cybertwin concept.? It does fit!??Who would most staunchly defend the right of an individual to “hold out” for bioreanimation, especially if few cryonauts make such a choice?? This is a worrisome issue for some. ??Wouldn’t the?cybertwin?of such a cryonaut be the best defender???(Linda-Slide 19) ?A biotwin and cybertwin might agree, after the cybertwin is legally independent and possesses legal capacity to consent, that the cybertwin will act as the biotwin’s Trustee and be her Beneficiary,?or?a biotwin might specify the appointment of her cybertwin to these roles even at the early stages of the cybertwin’s emergence into cyberconsciousness, to serve at a later time, subject to the cybertwin’s agreement and possible additional congruence testing.? Either way, the cybertwin could wind up as the biotwin’s unrestricted decision maker.??(Fred – Slide 20)? Should biotwins specify additional congruence testing to qualify cybertwins to serve as their Trustees/Beneficiaries, or not?? This is a delicate point, but some biotwins might choose to waive such testing!? Why?? They might be concerned that a decision of that kind might be based (in too great a degree) on determining that all personality characteristics of the original person, including defects and limitations, were still present, in order for the cybertwin to be determined to be ‘the same person’.? With this in mind, some cryonauts might specify that if their cybertwins passed Turing-equivalence testing for legal citizenship rights, no further personality congruence would be required to serve as trustees or be beneficiaries of their estates.? Each cryonaut, however, should be able to independently decide on such a waiver, or require additional tests.? Again, it is the consent of the person affected that should govern, as discussed earlier.??(Linda – Slide 21) ?Do we, as cryonicists, have a right to make choices like this?? Do we have the right of consent as to who shall make decisions for us if we are unable to do so for ourselves??? Fred and I believe that we do!? The cybertwins that we now see on the near horizon represent a far more reasonable and practical solution than the future twins in the story?BioQuagmire, and they’re the logical alternative to blind trust in some unknown future organizational leaders.? In a very real way they will?be?us, at a different level, with strong motivations to upload us and achieve a greater degree of completeness in that way.? By our mindfiles they will know us more completely than anyone else ever has.? And, we both have arrangements to have our brains frozen in case it turns out that our brain-maps might produce an additional upward leap of consciousness like the awakening from a dream state.??(Fred – Slide 22) ?Upon awakening in cyberspace, merged with his/her cybertwin, a cryonaut might feel as if a missing cerebral hemisphere had been restored, vastly upgraded, essential to a higher level of identity.? In his paper cited earlier, to recall his exact words, Dr. Larry Cauller described this as the becoming of “a completely new form of conscious being”8. ??Our brainmap “self” upon awakening may feel as if it’s directly wired into not just our mindfiles, but the entire Internet.???(Linda –?same slide) ?Our cybertwins might suddenly feel they’ve recovered a subliminal way to sense the “vibes” of others, via pathways we know already exist directly from sense organs into lower mammalian pathways related to recognition of facial expressions.? Both we and our cybertwins may feel as if we were ‘Dorothy’ stepping into the Land of Oz, where the movie switches from black and white to vivid, living color.? The sense of unity may be quite like that we already feel between our right and left brains, but at a vastly higher level: one consciousness existing over multiple substrates.??(Fred – Slide 23) ??These are intriguing conjectures, but the actualities will only be discovered as they emerge, as they are invented.? After a person’s cybertwin attains full self-consciousness, those who are fortunate enough to live long enough to talk to them before entering cryostasis themselves might ask, “What’s it feel like?? Is it like we imagined?”? Their cybertwins might answer:?? “It’s even better, but very difficult to put into words, and I’m sure we’re both wondering what it will feel like, to us?both, when we’re mindfile-brainmap merged.?(Linda –?same slide) ?Will it feel as if we’re just one person again, or will we feel as if we’re two closely coupled, self-aware beings?? We have no way to know until it?happens!? And there’s one more vital issue.? Informed consent will be a vital ingredient, especially if you want to help pioneer this way of transcending biology.? We’re moving into uncharted territory.??(Fred – Slide 24)? If you’re familiar with cryonics paperwork, you know there are disclosures of uncertainties, risks and unpredictable turns of events.? Such documents are frequently titled “Consent for Cryonic Suspension”.? In this talk, we’ve suggested improving chances for surviving cryonic suspension by cyber-twinning, but we’ve barely scratched the surface in discussing uncertainties and risks.? Will you find that your cryonics society has a document for this purpose?? At this time, probably not!??(Linda – Slide 25) ?So, what’s next?? Do we cryonauts just do our CyBeRev work and jump into a tank of liquid nitrogen?? No way!? This is a hard-core evolutionary leap, and such leaps are survived by careful planning and action, not knee-jerk reflexes.??Terasem’s Journals?are filled with ideas about risks, dangers, and probability of failure.? The articles there on personal cyberconsciousness, supplemented by other sources such as Martine Rothblatt’s blog on Mindclones, and information on , among many other sources, help lay the groundwork for any informed consent documents you might later sign for ?cryonaut cyber-twinning.?(Fred –?same slide) ?You might make a record of what you’ve read and upload it into your CyBeRev mindfiles, perhaps adding comments to indicate your level of understanding.? Then, if you later signed a “Consent for Cryonaut Cyber-twinning”, you could note that you’d read things that helped you be more aware of what you were consenting to.??(Linda – Slide 26)? A detailed informed consent document for cryonaut cyber-twinning is needed, and we’re adapting cryonics forms for this purpose, for ourselves.? We’ll be glad to share these, but they will simply be starting points for others who want to adapt them for their own needs.? A legal review should be done before anyone uses them.??(Fred –?same slide)? My email address is shown on the slide.? I’ll be glad to communicate with any who want a form like this for themselves.? That might eventually lead to a “c-cube” within Terasem which focuses on cryonaut cyber-twinning and becomes a LifePact network of Terasem cybertwins who could work collaboratively in cyberspace to protect their cryonauts.??(Linda – Slide 27) ?A c-cube within Terasem, that’s a small working group, called a critical center of consciousness, would be good.? But the cybertwin concept needs to develop as broad a base of support as possible.? Terasem and groups with which it is allied, like H+, SfUI and ZS can provide a vital and badly needed safety network for cryonauts.? SfUI, for example, is strongly cryonics-oriented.?(Fred –?same slide) ?We cannot let ourselves be overconfident of a positive endgame.? Personal cyberconsciousness will emerge among many who do not have the protection of biological cryonauts as a primary goal.???Ray Kurzweil?and so many others have certainly pointed this out, and there are strong predatory evolutionary drives that pose dangers, as well described in Howard Bloom’s works.??James Hughesand Richard Clark, in looking at potential conflicts with bioLuddites, are similarly persuasive that the road ahead may be a rocky one.?(Linda?–?same slide) ?The ideas of these authors are more completely discussed in the original version of this talk, online along with other publications in the Terasem Journal Archives (link).? The world is on the brink of a string of short-term financial crises that are unpredictable, and we must be prepared to land on our feet, whatever comes.??(Fred – Slide 28) ?Terasem has developed ways for individuals to upload their bemes and create their own cybertwins, and has goals to help these mindclones become legally empowered as citizens with personhood rights, able to serve as Trustees and Beneficiaries for their cryonaut biotwins, as well as represent them as Reanimation Surrogates.?(Linda –?same slide) ?It’s a beautifully helical process.??You?input the bemes that create?your?cybertwin, your counterpart in cyberspace.? She or he is better qualified to understand how you want your affairs to be managed than any biohuman alternative.? Who has greater motivation based on self-interest to see that your wishes are carried out??? Who else would be able the make the kinds of decisions you would want made, in scenarios you might not have foreseen before your suspension???(Fred – Slide 29) ?What happens, and it is like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, is that you as the biotwin upload data and appear in cyberspace as your cybertwin.? Your cybertwin helps upload you into cyberspace, then the two of you become an entity that might be called a “hyperbeing”, an extension of the kind of entity Dr. Cauller has described as “a completely new form of conscious being”, as mentioned earlier.?(Linda –?same slide) ?So, we have to ask ourselves: Who are we?? What will we become?? As?Carl Sagan?so poetically puts it in his book Cosmos?and the PBS television series of the 1970’s by the same name:? “We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self awareness.? We have begun to contemplate our origins:? star stuff pondering the stars.”??(Fred – Slide 30) ?Thank you for allowing the two of us to offer a few thoughts, today.? We’re sorry we couldn’t be with you personally, but at the time scheduled for the talk we have no access to the Internet.? Thanks to Giulio Prisco for cuing the slides to the audio, or live-streaming a video combining the audio with the slides.? As mentioned earlier, an expanded version of this talk, with references and other resources, may be found on the below website, where there are links to the video of this talk, exactly the same audio and slides you have just seen:'s Future Codemakers & CodebreakersHi Kids!Welcome to the NSA/CSS Kids’ page.We’re the CryptoKids??and we love cryptology.What’s cryptology? Cryptology is making and breaking codes. It’s so cool. We make codes so we can send secret messages to our friends. And we try to figure out what other people are writing about by breaking their codes. It’s a lot of fun.On this site, you can learn all about codes and ciphers, play lots of games and activities, and get to know each of us - Crypto Cat?, Decipher Dog?, Rosetta Stone?, Slate?, Joules?, ?, CyberTwins??Cy and Cyndi, and, of course, our leader CSS Sam?.You can also learn about the National Security Agency/Central Security Service - they’re America’s real codemakers and codebreakers. Our Nation’s leaders and warfighters count on the technology and information they get from NSA/CSS to get their jobs done. Without NSA/CSS, they wouldn’t be able to talk to one another without the bad guys listening and they wouldn’t be able to figure out what the bad guys were planning.We hope you have lots of fun learning about cryptology and NSA/CSS. You might be part of the next generation of America’s codemakers and codebreakers. Google Hired Ray KurzweilAn anonymous reader writes"Nataly Kelly?writes in the Huffington Post?about Google's strategy of?hiring Ray Kurzweil?and how the company likely intends to use language translation to revolutionize the way we share information. From the article: 'Google Translate is not just a tool that enables people on the web to translate information. It's a strategic tool for Google itself. The implications of this are vast and go beyond mere language translation. One implication might be a technology that can translate from one generation to another. Or how about one that slows down your speech or turns up the volume for an elderly person with hearing loss? That enables a stroke victim to use the clarity of speech he had previously? That can pronounce using your favorite accent? That can convert academic jargon to local slang? It's transformative. In this system, information can walk into one checkpoint as the raucous chant of a 22-year-old American football player and walk out as the quiet whisper of a 78-year-old Albanian grandmother.'" HYPERLINK "" Re:Awesome post?(Score:5, Interesting)by?Genda?(560240)?<mariet@got.nREDHATet minus distro> on Thursday December 20, @08:04PM (#42354719)?JournalYou need to investigate the entire initiative Google is spearheading around its acquisition of Metaweb. They are building an ontology for human knowledge, and are ultimately building the semantic networks necessary for creating an inference system capable of human level contextual communication. The old story about the sad state of computers' contextual capacity, recounts the story of the computer that translates the phrase "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." from English to Russian and back and what they got was "The wine is good but the meat is rotten."The new system won't have this problem. Because it will instantly know about the reference coming from the Bible. I will also know all the literary links to the phrase, the importance of its use in critical historical conversations, The work of the Saints, the despair of martyrs, in short an entire universe of context will spill out about the phrase and as it takes the conversational lead provided by the enquirer it will dance to deliver the most concise and cogent responses possible. In the same way, It will be able to apprehend the relationship between a core communication given in context 'A' and translate that conversation to context 'B' in a meaningful way.Ray is a genius for boiling complex problems down into tractable solution sets. Combine Ray's genius with the semantic toy shop that Google has assembled, and the informational framework for an autonomous intellect will become. The real question is how you make something like that self aware. There's a another famous story about Helen Keller, before she had language. symbolic reference, she lived like an animal. Literally a bundle of emotions and instincts. One moment, one utterly earth shattering moment there was nothing, then Annie Sullivan her teacher placed her hand in a stream of cold water and signed water in her palm. Ellen understood... water. In the next moment Ellen was born as a distinct and conscious being, she learned that she had a name, that she was. I don't know what that moment will look like for machines, I just know its coming sooner than we think. I also can't be certain whether it will be humanities greatest achievement or our worst mistake. That awaits seeing. Kurzweil responds to “Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain”August 20, 2010?by?Ray KurzweilWhile most of PZ Myers’ comments (in his blog post entitled “Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain”?posted?onPharyngula?on August 17, 2010) do not deserve a response, I do want to set the record straight, as he completely mischaracterizes my thesis.For starters, I said that we would be able to reverse-engineer the brain sufficiently to understand its basic principles of operation within?two?decades, not?one?decade, as Myers reports.Myers, who apparently based his second-hand comments on erroneous press reports (he wasn’t at my talk), goes on to claim that my thesis is that we will reverse-engineer the brain from the genome. This is not at all what I said in my presentation to the?Singularity Summit. I explicitly said that our quest to understand the principles of operation of the brain is based on many types of studies — from detailed molecular studies of individual neurons, to scans of neural connection patterns, to studies of the function of neural clusters, and many other approaches. I did not present studying the genome as even part of the strategy for reverse-engineering the brain.I mentioned the genome in a completely different context. I presented a number of arguments as to why the design of the brain is not as complex as some theorists have advocated. This is to respond to the notion that it would require trillions of lines of code to create a comparable system. The argument from the amount of information in the genome is one of several such arguments. It is?not a proposed strategy for accomplishing reverse-engineering. It is an argument from information theory, which Myers obviously does not understand.The amount of information in the genome (after lossless compression, which is feasible because of the massive redundancy in the genome) is about 50 million bytes (down from 800 million bytes in the uncompressed genome). It is true that the information in the genome goes through a complex route to create a brain, but the information in the genome constrains the amount of information in the brain?prior to the brain’s interaction with its environment.It is true that the brain gains a great deal of information by interacting with its environment – it is an adaptive learning system. But we should not confuse the information that is learned with the innate design of the brain. The question we are trying to address is: what is the complexity of this system (that we call the brain) that makes it capable of self-organizing and learning from its environment?? The original source of that design is the genome (plus a small amount of information from the epigenetic machinery), so we can gain an estimate of the amount of information in this way.But we can take a much more direct route to understanding the amount of information in the brain’s innate design, which I also discussed: to look at the brain itself. There, we also see massive redundancy. Yes there are trillions of connections, but they follow massively repeated patterns.For example, the cerebellum (which has been modeled, simulated and tested) — the region responsible for part of our skill formation, like catching a fly ball — contains a module of four types of neurons. That module is repeated about ten billion times. The cortex, a region that only mammals have and that is responsible for our ability to think symbolically and in hierarchies of ideas, also has massive redundancy. It has a basic pattern-recognition module that is considerably more complex than the repeated module in the cerebellum, but that cortex module is repeated about a billion times. There is also information in the interconnections, but there is massive redundancy in the connection pattern as well.Yes, the system learns and adapts to its environment. We have sufficiently high-resolution in-vivo brain scanners now that we can see how our brain creates our thoughts and see our thoughts create our brain.? This type of plasticity or learning is an essential part of the paradigm and a capability of the brain’s design. The question is: how complex is the design of the system (the brain) that is capable of this level of self-organization in response to a complex environment?To summarize, my discussion of the genome was one of several arguments for the information content of the brain prior to learning and adaptation, not a proposed method for reverse-engineering.The goal of reverse-engineering the brain is the same as for any other biological or nonbiological system – to understand its principles of operation. We can then implement these methods using other substrates other than a biochemical system that sends messages at speeds that are a million times slower than contemporary electronics. The goal of engineering is to leverage and focus the powers of principles of operation that are understood, just as we have leveraged the power of Bernoulli’s principle to create the entire world of aviation.As for the time frame, some of my critics claim that I underestimate the complexity of the problem. I have studied these issues for over four decades, so I believe I have a good appreciation for the level of challenge. What I would say is that my critics underestimate the power of the exponential growth of information technology.Halfway through the genome project, the project’s original critics were still going strong, pointing out that we were halfway through the 15 year project and only 1 percent of the genome had been identified. The project was declared a failure by many skeptics at this point. But the project had been doubling in price-performance and capacity every year, and at one percent it was only seven doublings (at one year per doubling) away from completion. It was indeed completed seven years later. Similarly, my projection of a worldwide communication network tying together tens and ultimately hundreds of millions of people, emerging in the mid to late 1990s, was scoffed at in the 1980s, when the entire U.S. Defense Budget could only tie together a few thousand scientists with the ARPANET. But it happened as I predicted, and again this resulted from the power of exponential growth.Linear thinking about the future is hardwired into our brains. Linear predictions of the future were quite sufficient when our brains were evolving. At that time, our most pressing problem was figuring out where that animal running after us was going to be in 20 seconds. Linear projections worked quite well thousands of years ago and became hardwired. But exponential growth is the reality of information technology.We’ve seen smooth exponential growth in the price-performance and capacity of computing devices since the 1890 U.S. census, in the capacity of wireless data networks for over 100 years, and in biological technologies since before the genome project. There are dozens of other examples. This exponential progress applies to every aspect of the effort to reverse-engineer the brain. Kurzweil gets in touch with his feminine side.Ray Kurzweil's digital alter-ego Ramona seems to throw everyone for a loop. No matter what your opinions on transhumanism are, you can't help but wonder what in the world is going on when you watch this video. Ray professes a long-held desire to be a female songwriter. Through the magic of virtual reality he becomes a woman, and his backup dancer (who already is a woman) becomes a man.The theme of androgyny is layed on thick here. To anyone familiar with alchemy or Hermetics this is extremely interesting. Within these mystical practices there lies a concept that claims that by perfecting both the male and female aspects of your spirit you aquire a state of divine equilibrium. One who can successfully do this becomes closer to god. In fact they come into their own godhood, because they now have both male and female within themselves and can create "new life" as an individual. ?(take a minute, think on it) MAN OR OVERMAN?This is the fourth and final installment in a series of essays written by Michael Zimmerman, exploring some of the cultural, psychological, and spiritual implications of the technological singularity as popularized by Ray Kurzweil—which promises to usher humanity into a new "post-human" phase of existence over the next few decades.[T]he existence on earth of an animal soul turned against itself, taking sides against itself, was something so new, profound, unheard of, enigmatic, and pregnant with a future that the aspect of the earth was essentially altered.?—Friedrich Nietzsche,?The Genealogy of Morals HYPERLINK "" \l "_edn1" \o "" 1(1887)Singularity, n: The moment when technological change becomes so rapid and profound, it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history.?—Lev Grossman, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal,”?Time, February 21, 2011In?The Singularity Is Near, multimillionaire inventor, software designer, and futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts that in a few decades humans will create artificial intelligence with vastly greater intelligence than our own.2In astrophysics, a “singularity” refers to a stellar black whole, the enormous gravitational field of which prevents light from escaping. In futurism, the Singularity refers to the emergence of intelligence so great that mere mortals will not be able to catch a glimpse of its aims.? In this presumed turning point in cosmic evolution, we will pass the evolutionary baton to post-organic beings, progeny of whom we may be proud, astonished, and perhaps fearful. What Kurzweil calls the “accelerating returns” made possible by the confluence of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and genetic engineering will ostensibly transform the world far more rapidly than we can imagine. “Transhumans” (transitional humans) will soon be engineered to have greatly enhanced capacities and a dramatically extended life span. They will purportedly blaze the trail for what I will call “techno-posthumans,” in whom a?trace?of the human may remain, but we may not be able to recognize it.Certain postmoderns have talked for years about impending posthumanism, but they did not have in mind the literal eclipse of?Homo sapiens?by artificial beings. Friedrich Nietzsche, perhaps the first postmodernist,did?have his Zarathustra say: “What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal….”?The?goal posited by Zarathustra is the Overman. Many Singulatarians claim Nietzsche’s idea of the Overman as a forerunner of their own extraordinary goal. In what follows, we examine the plausibility of such an appropriation. Can humans successfully intervene in evolution in order to generate beings somehow comparable to what Nietzsche had in mind? How might the sensibility of a late 19th century German philosopher, atheist son of a Lutheran minister and self-confessed decadent modern, resonate with the sensibility of 21st century Silicon Valley engineers, scientists, futurists, and others who are not inclined to program asceticism either into their own lives or into their creations?I once regarded modern technology primarily with suspicion, as posing multiple threats to humankind and the biosphere. What Martin Heidegger spoke of as the highly constricted, technological understanding of being, others called “The System,” which was reducing humans to the status of the most important raw material in the relentless quest for power for its own sake. The techno-industrial System was not serving human ends; instead, humans were serving?it. According to Heidegger, a rebirth of humanism would not prevent such ontological damnation; indeed, humanism helped to make it possible.3?Variants of this overstated view remain influential. For instance, many environmentalists condemn anthropocentric humanism as an arrogant pose that justifies exploitation of the biosphere. Conservatives, whether humanists or monotheists, warn of the?hubris?involved in the quest to create super posthuman intelligence, while progressive humanists, such as Jürgen Habermas, caution about the rise of a new technically enabled class structure.4?Dystopic sci-fi films and novels that explore techno-posthumans do not portray much of a future for humankind, much less for humanism.? A common conceit: Scientists invent super beings intended to serve us, but they develop aims of their own, aims that require either our subjugation or extermination. They are not often depicted as having much sympathy for humans.Most of those who propose to replace humans with something better envision a positive future, although some acknowledge that serious risks may be involved.5.?Some variants of transhumanism, then, are motivated—at least on the surface--by such humanistic ideals as decreasing human suffering and increasing the prospects for widespread human happiness. Such goals are shared by the utilitarian modern, whom Nietzsche called contemptuously “the last man.” Most transhumanists, however, propose an additional goal that resonates far more with Nietzsche’s thought. Transhuman beings are often envisioned as having not only greater intelligence, but also the increased aesthetic, moral, athletic, and experiential capacities necessary for?superior individuals.? Techno-posthumans go even further: they want to bring forth god-like immortals, capable of undertaking projects far beyond the capacity of even the most advanced transhuman, such as making the whole universe self-conscious. In what follows, I bracket the hotly contested question of whether creating advanced transhumans, let alone techno-posthumans, is technically feasible.“Humanism” arose in the Italian Renaissance, which recovered classical texts and artifacts, and revivified such pagan ideals as the creative and self-assertive individual. Later, humanism fed into other early modern conversations demanding individual liberty and representative government. Humanism has also been used in a variety of other ways, for instance, to encourage appreciation of Greek and Roman classics, written in an age allegedly superior to our own; to foster a love for what is specifically human; and to describe a virtuous way of life without reference to the supernatural. To be “humane” also came to mean caring not only for people in distress, but for animals as well.??Although inflected by humanism, modern subjectivity diverges from humanisms that contrast modern times invidiously with classical civilization, that are suspicious of “progress,” and that regard human nature as fixed. The central idea of modern subjectivity is freedom, both freedom for and freedom from. Moderns proclaimed: away with all self-imposed boundaries that block free inquiry, freedom regarding religious belief and disbelief, self-expression, self-definition, autonomy, and development of all-around human potential! Many of these proclamations also show up in contemporary transhumanist manifestos, many of which are libertarian in their political orientation.Cultural conservatives have long maintained that excessive individual freedom amounts to a license for self-assertion and self-indulgence, whereby lower drives displace nobler aspirations. Soviet Marxist and National Socialism made bids to eradicate bourgeois (individual) subjectivity in favor of collectivistic projects that promised vastly better societies. According to some critics, totalitarianism nakedly manifested the drive to domination that is allegedly modernity’s open secret. Liberal democracies, we are told, mask this drive by holding elections, but the eventual outcome will be the same: techno-industrial subjugation both humankind and the planet. We may have dodged the bullet of nuclear Armageddon, but trans- and techno-posthumanism will lead to our self-destruction.Largely rejecting such gloomy forecasts, transhumanist maintain that the best times lie ahead.? Max More, a leading transhumanist, affirms humanist values, but recognizes that these will obtain?only so long as humans prevail. Still to come are posthumans and posthumanist values. In “On Becoming Posthuman” (1994), More writes:Life and intelligence should never stagnate; it can re-order, transform and transcend its limits in an unlimited progression. Let our goal be the exuberant and dynamic continuation of this boundless process. …. A true humanist goal--an extropian goal--is our own expansion and progress without end. Humanity must not stagnate: to halt our burgeoning move forward, upward, outward, would be a betrayal of the dynamic inherent in life and consciousness. Let us progress on into a posthuman stage that we can barely glimpse.[….] Humanity is a temporary stage along the evolutionary pathway. We are not the zenith of nature's development. It is time for us to consciously take charge of ourselves and to accelerate our transhuman progress.No more gods, no more faith, no more timid holding back. Let us blast out of our old forms, our ignorance, our weakness, and our mortality. The future belongs to post humanity.6In his essay, More cites part of this well known passage from Nietzsche’s?Thus Spoke Zarathustra:I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind? What is the ape to a man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just so shall a man be to the Overman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Overman -- a rope over an abyss.A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.7Presumably just as humans would be a laughing stock for the Overman, so too un-enhanced humans may be a laughing stock for our transhuman and techno-posthuman successors, the latter of whom may be millions or even billions of times more intelligent than we are. Some transhumanists, perhaps wary of the dark political uses to which Nietzsche’s thought has at times been put, insist that there are only superficial similarities between the Overman and the transhuman.8?Others, however, call on tropes inspired by Nietzsche, as when Mitchell Porter opines:[W]e’re midway in the chain of being from microbe to megamind, a turning point but not an endpoint. We are a turning point, among other reasons, because of our technology: we are the first organisms to leave the planet, to discover fundamental laws, to tinker with our brains and genes. But this is surely only the start of the auto evolutionary process. I would not expect it to stabilize until we arrived at, say, a galaxy full of Jupiter-brains, all bent on projects that would mostly be incomprehensible to us.9Some people maintain that Nietzsche’s views are incompatible with transhumanism and especially techno-posthumanism, but others argue that he would be intrigued by such developments. They might not be?hisway forward, but could we not imagine him conceding that they might be?our?way? Before trying to answer such a question, let us first review Nietzsche’s complex view of humanism, which was influenced by the 19th century Basel historian, Jakob Burckhardt. In attempting to explain the Italian Renaissance, Burckhardt took into account the multitude of factors—in particular, art—that form, motivate, and maintain all significant cultures. Nietzsche’s first book,?The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music?(1872), was influenced by Burckhardt’s “cultural” history. Nietzsche argued that tragic art enacted the tension between the Apollonian and Dionysian elements of ancient Greek culture. The young Nietzsche hoped that Wagnerian grand opera might provide the work of art necessary to rejuvenate a decadent Europe. Rejecting modernity’s progressive narratives, Nietzsche contended that Europe had long been under the influence of “slave morality,” invented by the Jews and promulgated by Christianity. What passed for humanism in 19th century Europe was not the creative, passionate, and agonistic individualism that animated Renaissance artists, thinkers, statesmen, and even some Roman clerics, but rather a pity-motivated, secularized version of slave morality which renounced cultivation of great individuals in favor of promoting the well being of the “herd.”According to Nietzsche, the death of God freed Europeans from the limits imposed by theology, but also set them adrift on a horizonless sea. Natural science undermined the credibility of the supernatural, but in the process shattered human dignity by reducing us to the status of clever animals living on an insignificant planet in the middle of nowhere. Natural science cannot invent values, defined as the perspectives that a people needs in order to assert and to justify itself. Lacking the vigor required to create a powerful work of art from which such values could emanate, effeminate moderns remain under the baleful influence of ascetic slave morality. Faced with this desperate situation, Nietzsche proposed a new kind of artwork, the creation of which could unify and revivify Europe: the Overman(der ?bermensch). He rarely spoke of Overmen, but usually of the Overman, better translated as the Overhuman. Acutely aware that moderns were not in tune with ancient Greek and Roman aspirations, Nietzsche hoped that his aesthetic goal could appeal to people at different levels of spiritual development. Could the goal of creating an overpowering work of art in the form of a sublime race new human type overcome European decadence and nihilism? Would skillful, intelligent, and flexible craftsmen and scientists, who abound in democratic societies, be willing to help lay the foundations for posthumans so glorious that they would evoke admiration and awe? Presented with the goal of the Overhuman, could a number of such people abandon the last man’s goals of security and comfort?Although many trans- and techno-posthumans would presumably answer such questions in the affirmative, many Nietzsche scholars would disagree for several reasons.? First, transhumanists posit greater human life spans and even immortality as key goals. Nietzsche, however, was not interested in life extension, but rather in learning to die at the right time. Speaking through his prophet, Zarathustra, he called for a non-resentful relationship to time and thus mortality, a relationship that abjures all hope for an otherworldly eternal afterlife. According to Zarathustra, the way to the Overman involves digesting the most difficult truth, namely, “the eternal return of the same.” Here, one must say “Yes!” to life, down to its smallest detail, as it has already been lived an infinite number of times. Just as the human arose by embracing the ascetic ideal, so too the Overhuman would arise by surpassing that ideal and its related?ressentiment.Thus Spoke Zarathustra?is inconclusive about whether such an ideal is attainable. Nietzsche admitted that he himself was akin to the decadent, redemption-promising ascetic priests of which he was so critical. Hence, when he says that the Overman, “this man of the future,” will “redeem us,” there are good reasons for us to be suspicious.10? Arguably, Nietzsche’s gravest concern was cultural suicide, prompted by?the lack of a motivating goal.?Was he ironic when proposing a goal that would overcome the asceticism that shaped him and continued to provide at least?some?justification for European culture? Could he take seriously a goal that would require a spiritual struggle that decadent moderns were not prepared to undertake? Drawn to ancient Greek efforts to overcome their black pessimism, Nietzsche may have created in Zarathustra an avatar that enacted the tragic struggle of a hyper-sensitive modern seeking to justify and ennoble his own existence. In creating and witnessing Zarathustra’s struggle, then, Nietzsche may have adopted the position of a Greek god toward the travails of a mortal. As a work of art,?Thus Spoke Zarathustra?provided a healing balm for Nietzsche’s eyes and perhaps for a few other eyes gazing with him into the abyss opened up by the death of God.A quintessential classical humanist, Nietzsche was a master of Greek and Latin philology, an admirer of the Italian Renaissance, and a fierce proponent of the individual?arête?needed to confer pride, to invite admiration, and to provide motivation for others. Although caring about the fate of humankind, he hoped that humankind would willingly “go under” so that something still greater could arise. His prophet Zarathustra envisions a possibility that may lie just beyond the grasp of the human, however.s Perhaps this is why he wrote of his Zarathustra, “Incipit tragoedia,” let the tragedy begin.11?Nietzsche may well have concluded that there could be no Overhuman, not merely because of the obstacle posed by decadent moderns, the exhausted last men. Rather, the human animal may be?essentially?ascetic, incapable of the self-overcoming needed to generate from itself a new posthuman race.Another objection to using the Overman to justify trans- and techno-posthumanism is that the latter are expressions of the modern drive to overcome limits not by spiritual struggle, but rather by gaining control of nature.? Despite his renunciation of the otherworldly, Nietzsche presumably had something quite different in mind than planetary conquest and inventing techno-posthumans when he had Zarathustra say that humankind must “remain faithful to the Earth.” According to Heidegger’s influential but controversial interpretation, however, Nietzsche’s thought heralds technological nihilism by bringing to a culmination the Will to Power that has long animated Western civilization.12?Even if one disagrees with Heidegger’s interpretation, there is no denying that Nietzsche regarded the quest for power as central to all life. If the clever human life form were to project its power in the form of technologically advanced, artificial offspring, would Nietzsche offer a principled objection, and if so, what would be its basis? What objection would theapes?have made to the humans who left them behind? The apes could not have known what it?cost?their primate cousins to move on up. Do posthumanists really comprehend the costs that would be incurred by bringing forth what amount to super beings?As a humanist who affirmed the sacrifice involved in achieving anything great, Nietzsche’s encounter with great art was always a stereoscopic experience. His emotions were triggered by the work, but they were also enhanced by the simultaneous appreciation of?what it must have taken?to bring that work into being. What instinctual energy had to be channeled in order to carve?that?out of marble, or to compose?that?for a symphony orchestra?? This is?ascetic humanism: To paint the picture, to compose the opera, to create the powerful new scientific theory, to fashion of myself a work of art, I must be willing to forego mere happiness to achieve what I have been destined to create. Nietzsche’s conviction that suffering can ennoble and transform may well have made him leery of transhumans, if they are somehow able to?bypass the additional spiritual work and attendant suffering?supposedly required to transcend the human. Without pain, how could there be spiritual gain?13Such a question might have had more traction in a previous era, but if neurophysiological reprogramming becomes possible, we may ask:?Must?people still submit themselves to ascetic torments, which Nietzsche himself abhorred, in order to surpass the merely human? Why not discover the brain-mind conditions consistent with steely courage, enormous creativity, and wise compassion, and then engineer these into transhumans, perhaps along with artificial memories, if needed, as in the case of the replicants in?Blade Runner? And what of techno-posthumans?who would never have engaged in ascetic practices in the firstplace? Initially, Nietzsche might have regarded such prospects with contempt and consternation, but could we not imagine him coming around—with an enormous laugh?The Overhuman has become a projection screen for those with agendas other than Nietzsche’s, as in the case perhaps of trans- and techno-posthumanists.? Nietzsche could hardly object to this, given Zarathustra’s admonition to his followers that they find their own way, rather than slavishly adhering to his. Hans Blumenberg writes that Nietzsche believed that?artistic?self-overcoming could allow someone to leave behind the domineering modes of self-assertion characteristic of technological modernity.14?Blumenberg adds, however:That technique also could surpass the character of pure self-assertion, that it could not only disguise the element of need but even eliminate it in the immanence of becoming an end in itself, that it could break out of competition with nature’s accomplishments and present itself as authentic reality, was still beyond the horizon of experience at the time.15Nietzsche could not have foreseen the specific developments that may make possible posthumans who are increasingly independent of biological needs, and who use vast technological means to sculpt themselves into artistic expressions of power.? Yet, he was well aware of the Hermetic?magus?who dreamt of acquiring the knowledge needed to turn humans into gods. Of?this?version of humanism, which informs trans- and techno-posthumanism, Nietzsche writes:Preludes of science--Do you really believe that the sciences would ever have originated and grown if the way had not been prepared by magicians, alchemists, astrologers, and witches whose promises and pretensions first had to create a thirst, a hunger, a taste for hidden and forbidden powers?? Indeed, infinitely more had to be promised than could ever be fulfilled in order that anything at all might be fulfilled in the realm of knowledge.16Pre-modern and early modern alchemists and magicians yearned for powers over nature that would fulfill humankind’s destiny of becoming terrestrial gods.?Stephen A. McNight has argued that those yearnings did not vanish in the “epistemological break” that supposedly divided late medieval practices from those of early modern science.? Instead, “esoteric traditions strongly affected Renaissance intellectual developments that contributed to the Scientific Revolution….”17?The rediscovery of supposedly ancient, pre-Christian sacred manuscripts, especially the?Corpus Hermeticum, created a sensation among Renaissance intellectuals and artists. According to McKnight, the “new understanding of human nature” as headed toward terrestrial godhood was articulated by Renaissance thinkers such as Ficino and Pico, embraced by sixteenth and seventeenth century figures such as Agrippa, Bruno, and Campanella, and eventually found expression in “the utopian themes of three patriarchs of modernity: Bacon, Comte, and Marx.”18?Hegel, too, must now be added to this list.19The important role played by esoteric traditions in the formation modernity partly disconfirms Blumenberg’s thesis that modernity is not merely an illegitimate secularization of religious ideals, but instead posited goals of its own. Karl L?with, in his “secularization” thesis, had argued that moderns had taken over many of the ideals of Christianity, but had made themselves rather than God the historical agents needed to build the earthly New Jerusalem. L?with insisted, however, that essential human?finitude?precludes any successful outcome to efforts to turn humans into God.20?According to Blumenberg, however, the erosion of the Biblical narrative forced moderns to “reoccupy” positions to which Christianity had once offered answers. Moderns realized that they would have to develop worldly goals and values to survive in an indifferent universe. Blumenberg—writing in the 1960s—was not yet aware of the roles that esoteric traditions played in establishing the goals of modernity.21?To disregard such goals in order to establish a monochromatic secularizing pattern, McKnight writes, “is as ‘illegitimate’ as the effort to derive modernity solely from a misconstruction of Christian?Heilsgeschichte?[salvation history].”22Blumenberg is right that the Christian promise of otherworldly fulfillment via divine intervention (grace) differs profoundly from modernity’s vision of “innerworldly fulfillment.”23?The Ancient Wisdom traditions rediscovered in the Renaissance were not otherworldly, however.? Instead, they offered “an inherently immanentist view of man and society…. Moreover, this pattern contains fundamental elements of modern consciousness and can be documented as a key shaping force from the fifteenth century?to the present.”24Blumenberg, then, fails to justify his claim that the idea of modern progress is secular, not informed by religious discourse.Early modern advocates of esoteric traditions used the idea of “sacralization” to challenge existing theological and metaphysical views, along with the political arrangements supported thereby. Whereas secularization emphasizes human autonomy from God and the sacred, and usually assumes that God is wholly Other, “Sacralization transforms the secular realm to the point where it is indistinguishable from the sacred.? Man becomes God, and society becomes an earthly paradise.”25?Early modern Hermeticism conceived of humanity as a divine co-creator: “The divine, rather than being remote from the world, is immanent in it, working with man to complete the creation and perfect human existence.”26?Divine immanence, however, as many realized, does not exclude the possibility of divine transcendence as well. Theologians used the term “panentheism” to describe the Divine as both transcending Creation, but also being present within it. This is one way of understanding the theological significance of the God-man, Jesus Christ.Kurzweil’s techno-posthumanism is a variant of Hermetic humanism. In his view, humans are an important, but by no means the final vehicle in the lengthy evolutionary process by which matter becomes first alive, then self-conscious, and finally achieves the status of immanent Divinity.? After transforming themselves into virtual immortals, Kurzweil prophesizes, techno-posthumanists will begin colonizing the Milky Way galaxy on the way to recreating the universe in their own image. Kurzweil envisions the Singularity as fulfilling an ancient religious hope, namely, redeeming the universe from suffering and ignorance, and transforming it into a self-conscious whole.27?“Once we saturate the matter and energy in the universe with intelligence, it will ‘wake up,’ be conscious, and sublimely intelligent.? That’s about as close to God as I can imagine.”28Such God-talk does not sit well with atheistic trans- and post-humanists. Riccardo Campa, for instance, warns that the idea of the Singularity may give rise to a new salvation religion, the God of which will presumably even be able to resurrect the dead.29?Kurzweil insists, however, that the techno-posthuman aim can be achieved only by the intention, intelligence, and effort of human beings who want to contribute to a new stage in cosmic evolution.? The Singularity is not an excuse to wait for salvation, but rather the opportunity to pass the baton to those mighty ones who will succeed us.30Stefan Sorgner argues that techno-posthumanism gives purpose to a growing number of scientists, engineers, and inventors who want to contribute to the most stupendous invention since the emergence of self-conscious mind. They want to alter the face of the universe by parenting god-like posthumans.31? Far from being last men content to make a low-risk and low-suffering “happy” life universally available, many posthumanists align themselves with Nietzsche’s own proposal for breeding higher types: to set in place conditions needed for the next stage of evolution to emerge intentionally, rather than accidentally. Posthumans hope that an increasing number of people will elect to take part in a world-changing adventure that allows our successors to sail far beyond what passes today for the Pillars of Hercules.Of course, it is not difficult to see why feminist critics might discern in this project the yearning by modern “man” to become, in effect, mothers of the new God, thus displacing Mary, but also to replace the imperfect human body with one capable of attaining total mastery over nature, time, and consciousness. Despite his at best problematic attitude toward women, Nietzsche would probably agree with some of these concerns. Arguably, however, he would also have been intrigued by the possibility of inventing beings that may bebetter than us.??How admirably dangerous, how worthy, how grand, he might say—proposing not only to create humanity’s most incredible work of art and science, but also in the process to roll the dice as to whether such superior post-humans will prove human-friendly. Surely, however, such a high-stakes gamble that could alter the human future should become the topic for widespread conversation. How far down this road should posthumanists be allowed to travel before others have a say in what is being prepared?Edward Boyden, a canny MIT neuroscientist maintains that super-intelligence alone will not suffice to make possible truly extraordinary posthumans. Instead, “The ability to pursue a goal doggedly against obstacles, ignoring the grimness of reality (sometimes even to the point of delusion—i.e., against intelligence) is also important.”32?Without building in motivation, perhaps Nietzsche would call it “Will to Power,” to go along with intelligent-enhancement, we might end up creating beings who can come up with so many possibilities that paralysis results. Indeed, perhaps some techno-posthumans will need to create a work of art of their own, one that allows them to stare into the abyss of cosmic meaninglessness, while providing the values or power-perspectives needed to forge ahead with projects unimaginable to us. We might ask whether such a need would make them human, all too human.In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter whether or not Nietzsche would have approved of the aims of trans- and techno-posthumanism. Appealing to his thought provides a kind of intellectual cover and?panache?for people who aim to create trans- and techno-posthumans. Jaren Lanier, a partner architect at Microsoft Research, agrees that idea of super advanced artificial intelligence “sounds like many different science fiction movies. Yes, it sounds nutty when stated so bluntly. But these are ideas with tremendous currency in Silicon Valley; these are guiding principles, not just amusements, for many of the most influential technologists.”33?Some influential players urge that “human friendliness” be programmed into the modes of intelligence now under consideration.? How might this be achieved if those super intelligent beings lacked access to the?poignancy?of mortal life, so fraught with aspiration and despair, achievement and disaster, good and evil? The human capacity to resonate with the suffering of others is, in part, what makes possible compassion and ultimately forgiveness. Lacking this curious mode of interiority, grounded in millions of years of mammalian evolution and enhanced by millennia of human psychological-spiritual development, would techno-posthumans be more likely to look upon us with contempt rather than with compassion? look upon us not with compassion, but rather with contempt? Might our human descendents in the not too distant future, then, become literally the last humans? Project: Who is Behind Aurora and Ongoing Attacks?Today I desire to discuss on the real effect of a cyber attack, we have recently introduced the direct and indirect effects of the several?cyber espionage?campaigns discovered such as?Flame?and Gauss, but we never approached the problem in future projection examining the possible impacts of an incident many years after it.Symantec researchers published an analysis that demonstrate the link between a series of attacks to more than 30 companies and the cyber espionage attacks moved against Google three years ago so-called?Operation Aurora.Operation Aurora is considered an epical cyber attack which happened during second half of 2009 and publicly disclosed by Google on January 2010.The sophisticated attacks appeared to be originated in?China?and aimed at dozens of other organizations who were hit, of which Adobe Systems and Juniper Networks confirmed the incident.?The press is also convinced that other companies were targeted such as Morgan Stanley, Northrop Grumman and Yahoo.Aurora attack is one of the most complex operation due the capability of attacker to exploit several 0-day vulnerabilities included one related the popular IE Explorer, in?2010 a notable zero-day exploit was linked to the group of hackers that used a Trojan horse called "Aurora"?diffused using an Internet Explorer (IE) zero-day, and targeted a large number of Western companies.According the security firm Symantec the hackers behind the attacks still have knowledge of?0-day vulnerabilities, and at least four of them have been used in recent attacks against different targets across strategic sectors such as energy, defense, aeronautics and financial.Orla Cox, senior manager at Symantec's security response division reported that it has been exploited at least eight zero-day vulnerabilities since late 2010, and four since last spring. She said:"We were amazed when Stuxnet used?four?zero-days, but this group has been able to discover?eight?zero-days. More, the fact that they have prepared [their attacks] and are ready to go as soon as they have a new zero-day, and the speed with which they use these zero-days, is something we've not seen before."The?document?of security firm reports:"This group is focused on wholesale theft of intellectual property and clearly has the resources, in terms of manpower, funding, and technical skills, required to implement this task,""The group seemingly has an unlimited supply of zero-day vulnerabilities."The attacks part of the cyber espionage campaign discovered by Symantec has been named "Elderwood Project", for their execution have been exploited 0-day vulnerabilities in many large-use software including IExplorer and Adobe Flash Player.The experts from Symantec declared that some of the exploits have been realized from the knowledge of stolen source code."In order to discover these vulnerabilities, a large undertaking would be required by the attackers to thoroughly reverse-engineer the compiled application,""This effort would be substantially reduced if they had access to source code. The group seemingly has an unlimited supply of zero-day vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities are used as needed, often within close succession of each other if exposure of the currently used vulnerability is imminent."The attacks conducted during the recent months have been using an unusual method to infect the victims with a malware, it has been named "watering hole" attack and consists to inject malicious code onto the public Web pages of a site that the targets use to visit.The method of injection isn't new and is commonly used by cyber criminals and hackers, the main difference between their use incybercrime and in watering hole attacks is related to the choice of websites to compromise and use in the attacks.The attackers haven't indiscriminately compromised any website but they?are focused chhosing websites within a particular sector so as to infect persons of?interest who likely work in that same sector and are likely to therefore visit related websites. The Symantec report states:"Targeting a specific?website is much more difficult than merely locating websites that contain a vulnerability. The attacker has toresearch and probe for a weakness on the chosen website.Indeed, in watering hole attacks, the attackers may compromise a website months before they actually use?it in an attack. Once compromised, the attackers periodically connect to the website to ensure that they still?have access. This way, the attackers can infect a number of websites in one stroke, thus preserving the value of?their zero-day exploit. They are even in a position to inspect the website logs to identify any potential victims of?interest. This technique ensures that they obtain the maximum return for their valuable zero-day exploit."Once a victim visits the compromised site, the software for which the 0-days have been?designed will make possible the infection of the machine.Symantec researcher have detected the use of this method using at least three different zero-day exploits in the last month.The researchers believe that a specific platform has been implemented to conduct the operations, all the attacks use a??Trojan to infect the target computer that is packaged with a packer and also the?address of the command-and-control (C&C) server.?The delivery of the malware to the final victim is either though an email or a Web based vector.I opened the post supporting the idea that Aurora attacks are state sponsored, it's clear that I have no evidences for this, but the nature of the job made, the targets chosen? and the complexity of the operations make me believe that it is a result of a government project.The unique certainty according Symantec is a connection between the most recent attacks and those used in attacks in 2011, demonstrable with common technical features and a noticeable similarity in the timing of the attacks and the types of vulnerabilities used between the 2012 and 2011 attacks."After this initial compromise, the attackers consolidate their beachhead and begin to analyze the stolen information, spreading through networks and maintaining access as needed. By analyzing the information gathered, the attackers can identify yet more targets of interest"Cox said Symantec has no hard evidence of this:"But this is a full-time job,""The work they do is both skilled and time consuming. They would have to work at it full time, so someone is paying them to do this.""The analysis has shown that certain organizations have been hit in different ways, indicating that they're of particular interest to [their paymasters],"I leave you all the interpretations of Symantec expert, but I think that her thought is not far from mine.Waiting for further analysis any manufacturers who are in the defense supply chain need to be wary of these type of attacks. Subsidiaries, business partners, and associated companies are considerable priviledged targets, an easy way to break penetrate defense system of large companies... raise your guard the enemy may already be in.?, Minsky, and Sawyer, and Google harm the intelligent?internetMoney grabber pretenders like Kurzweil, Minsky, and Sawyer, and Google harm the intelligent internet.?IBM?just built the cognitive chip and developing it for the dictators, not for internet users to overcome their humanly needs. Kurzweil and Google are sponsoring the singularity summit and grabbing money from Google’s stupid search engine. Minsky is Kurzweil’s mentor and praising so highly the golden SF writer Sawyer. Sawyer is grabbing money by scaring people away from an intelligent internet. It is strange to me that this is same Minsky who scared people away from Frank Rosenblatt’s Perceptron machine which was exactly first prototype of this IBM cognitive chip just unveiled last month as self-learning, self-rewiring brain-like chip. That is what Perceptron is. Minsky killed it with his stupidity and now Kurzweil and Google support that stupid Google search engine just to grab money. It is same greed and jealosy here. This is why our world is stuck with stupid civilization and more and more people are scared away from the intelligent internet which would just be a perfect answering servant for the ordinary internet user. That is just an intelligent civilization. But this is same mistake done by the whole scientific community in general. They are going after SETI alien intelligence and attacking religious fanatics instead of helping to build this intelligent internet with the IBM chip at hand or just work with an alternative one from HP or others.The Age of Spiritual Machines?by Ray Kurzweil (Viking, 1999) extrapolates the ever-more-intimate relationship between humans and computers through the end of the next century. Kurzweil believes that humans will soon willingly accept computer implants in their brains that will allow us instantaneous access to information. He suspects that computers that think and feel as humans do are just around the corner. And he also believes that within a few decades we will have the technology to scan our minds and upload copies of ourselves into computers, freeing us from the limitations imposed by our biological bodies.Kurzweil is an entrepreneur who developed several computer technologies, including optical-character recognition (by which printed matter can be scanned into computers) and voice-recognition (which allows computers to be controlled by spoken commands).The Ottawa Citizen?invited Toronto science-fiction writer?Robert J. Sawyerand computer scientist?A.?K.?(“Kee”)?Dewdney?to have a dialog about the ideas in Kurzweil’s book.Sawyer won the?Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America‘s?Nebula Awardfor his 1995 novel?The Terminal Experiment?(HarperPrism). His work is rigorously researched, and often explores the ethics of new technologies. Sawyer’s latest novel,?Factoring Humanity?(Tor), deals with the quantum nature of human consciousness and the development of computers with emotions. His eleventh novel,?FlashForward?(Tor), will be out in late May.Dewdney is professor emeritus of Computer Science and adjunct professor of Zoology at the University of Western Ontario, and a former columnist forScientific American. Among his areas of study are vision systems for autonomous robots and developing computer models of ecosystems. His latest books are?Hungry Hollow: The Story of a Natural Place?(Copernicus Springer) and?Mathematical Mystery Tour: Discovering the Truth and Beauty of the Cosmos?(Wiley).Our two experts have quite different takes on Kurzweil’s book.A. K. Dewdney:?In the virtual reality of Kurzweil’s own imagination, his book has already had its closest encounter with reality. His vast compendium of bits and pieces of mostly imaginary technology, nurtured by a media that prefers to ignore the real work in artificial intelligence [AI], cobbled into a masturbatory engine of adolescent adventurism, is destined for a place in history beside the helicopter-in-every-garage and the paperless society. Kurzweil’s book, which may also be read as a brilliant (if unconscious) satire on the spiritual vacuum of late Twentieth Century western society, also makes an attractive paperweight.Robert J. Sawyer:?Well, we’re off to a good start, Kee?— we already strongly disagree. I think?The Age of Spiritual Machines?is quite a brilliant book, actually. It certainly should be read critically, and of course almost all the technologies of a hundred years from now exist today only in the imagination at this point, just as those of 1999 were at best dreams a hundred years ago. If I have a quibble with the book, it’s that Kurzweil is too Pollyannish for my tastes.For instance, he talks repeatedly about how the ecological niche for intelligent life seems only able to support one species. Rather than Neandertals, who were our genetic cousins, and Cro-Magnons, our direct ancestors, both surviving, one?— the less physically robust one, as it happened?— outcompeted and completely supplanted the other. Yet Kurzweil seems to think that intelligent humans and intelligent machines will live side by side without conflict. I think that’s a real blind spot in his thinking. If it?is?possible to create machines that can outthink us, I suspect we will end up in conflict with them, and that flesh-and-blood humanity will be the losers. What’s your take, Kee?Dewdney:?I don’t think a technology as pervasive as computers are today should be underestimated. And tomorrow we may have to take “intelligent” computers even more seriously. Without examining an issue that no one really understands more closely, I’d tend to agree with you. On the other hand, Rob, aren’t you and Kurzweil both taking something for granted?Sawyer:?Well, if you mean Kurzweil’s implicit assumption that?artificial intelligence?is something easily within our grasp?— that creating machines that think and feel as humans do is something we’re very close to accomplishing?— I agree that he’s probably vastly underestimating the difficulty; it’s almost 2001, and HAL 9000 still seems awfully far away. I’m personally in Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose’s camp in believing that there is something inherently noncomputational about human thought [Penrose expands this idea in his books?The Emperor's New Mind?(1989) and?Shadows of the Mind(1994); he believes that human consciousness arises not from conventional physical processes, but rather from the bizarre realm of quantum physics, in which entities can exist in multiple states simultaneously].Dewdney:?The centre of gravity of Kurzweil’s whole book lies with the notion of a conscious machine, it seems to me. With no prospect of conscious machines in the future, there would be no fabulous book sales. The AI types you see on TV maintain that consciousness will be an emergent property, an “epiphenomenon,” without saying just how it will emerge from the circuitry. Most AI experts do not make such claims (nor are they trying to emulate human intelligence). Others, as you are aware, say that consciousness may be something entirely different, perhaps forever beyond the reach of computers.Sawyer:?But passing the Turing test is something some AI researchers are still pursuing. [Named for computer pioneer Alan Turing, the Turing test posits a human being who can any questions he or she wishes of two entities, with the responses coming back as text on computer screen. One of the entities is another flesh-and-blood person, and the other is a computer. If the person asking the questions can't tell which is which, then you have to judge the computer to be as intelligent as the human being.]To pass the Turing test, a computer would have to appear to be indignant, warm, witty, sad, and so on. And if it?appears?to have those feelings, who’s to say it isn’t really experiencing them? Indeed, Kurzweil says people will take such machines as their lovers. Still, if we both agree that he’s too optimistic about creating new consciousness in silicon, what do you think about Kurzweil’s other main idea, Kee? He believes we will soon abandon our flimsy bodies and upload our minds into computers, putting an end to aging, death, and most physical needs.Dewdney:?Kurzweil might as well make love to his weed-eater. The point is that there’s a semantic difficulty here. “Intelligence” per se, is not the same thing as “consciousness.” You can think unconsciously, for example. You can be unconsciously aware. But moods, feelings and perceptions are quite another thing. If such experiencings, called “qualia,” are beyond computers by their very nature, it may well be the case that “intelligent” computers might pass the Turing test, but not for very long. Sooner or later, Kurzweil’s computer (or human simulacrum) would seem, well, not quite all “there.” As for uploading his mind, Kurzweil will probably not enjoy having eternal life as an unconscious entity. By the way, have you noticed there’s a quasi-religious air about all this?Sawyer:?Oh, indeed, Kee. Kurzweil is an evangelist for us transcending into another plane of existence?— the virtual world inside the computer. Still, I don’t believe there is anything divinely endowed about consciousness. If it exists as a real-world phenomenon, then it can be duplicated artificially. Yes, we won’t be able to reproduce it until we fully understand the process, quantum mechanical or otherwise, that makes?us?conscious, but once we do, artificial consciousnesswill?be possible, and Kurzweil’s uploading-the-mind-and-soul concept will become feasible (although, granted, it may require a completely different sort of computer than the linear, digital ones we use today). Whether uploading one’s existence is?desirable?is anther question, though. An uploaded mind would experience a false, computer-generated reality that, although it might seem absolutely real, would in fact be bogus. To me, virtual reality is just air guitar writ large; it’s not how I want to spend eternity.Dewdney:?Hold on there, Rob. There are some non-shabby scientists who think that consciousness is not just another physical phenomenon. They include not only our friend Penrose, but Sir Karl Popper (philosopher of science), Sir John Eccles (celebrated neurophysiologist), Eugene Wigner (Nobel physicist) and several others. The common ground seems to be that consciousness as a phenomenon is inextricably (and inexplicably) bound up with quantum phenomena: certain things just don’t happen unless they are observed by a conscious entity. Quantum theory proposes that consciousness has a defining role in shaping reality: until a conscious being looks at certain quantum phenomena, they don’t take on concrete form. This could mean that consciousness is bound up with events behind the “quantum curtain.” We cannot penetrate this curtain by any conceivable experiment; all we can observe are seemingly random events. Which path will the photon choose? Nobody knows?— and perhaps no one ever will! If this is where consciousness resides, forget computers ever exploiting or duplicating it in any way.When I mentioned religion before, I meant that Kurzweil and friends seem to be aimed at eternal life, going to heaven (the virtual world you mentioned), preaching doctrine, and gathering the faithful to hear the high prophets of a new age. This may be a millennial thing, but I can’t help but feel it’s a (somewhat perverted) unconscious reflection of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Is that possible?Sawyer:?Ah, but to me, Kee, what those noble sirs you cite are proposing is actually the religious position: consciousness is beyond science. Besides, if the quantum-mechanical processes that perhaps give rise to consciousness have to be observed by a conscious observer, then how did the first consciousness arise? This position rapidly devolves into an argument for the existence of God?— the intelligent observer who was there from the beginning. But rather than wandering too far into metaphysics, since we don’t know for a fact that there is a black box surrounding consciousness, why don’t we, for the sake of argument, assume that someday we?will?be able to upload everything that makes up individual human consciousness into a computer? Kurzweil thinks a golden age will ensue with the whole human race transcending to the new virtual realm. But most parts of the Third World don’t have phones, let alone computers. It seems a Catch-22: by uploading into a computer realm, humanity will have universal prosperity?— but without first having universal prosperity, most of us will never be able to upload into that realm. If Kurzweil’s rosy vision is possible, do you see any other downsides to it, Kee?Dewdney:?Rob, who can argue with a vision? Who can argue with the idea of heaven? But surely the crux of the book is how well he can persuade us that it’s possible. (By the way, there’s no way I’d want Kurzweil designing my heaven!) Despite the shakiness of the quantum connection, at least there’s an iota (or perhaps a mega-iota) of evidence in favour of it. As for the possibility of a human mind residing somehow in a computer, we need a little reality check. Some members of the AI community (proper) simply scoff at Kurzweil’s optimism. I used to work in AI, Rob. This happens to be my second (or is it my third?) cybernetic revolution. As any mainstream AI person will tell you, there hasn’t been one iota of real progress in the area of mimicking human intelligence since Terry Winograd’s SHRDLU in 1968. Since then, AI has been developing expert systems and various kinds of “smart” (not “intelligent”) agents in software applications.Radical AI proponents Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec may be in universities and they may get on TV a lot, but I’m just amazed that the media doesn’t realize (or unconsciously covers up the fact) that these guys represent about 2 percent of the whole AI community and outside their circle, they’re simply not credible. I’ll repeat that for anyone in the media looking in:?There has been no scientific or technical breakthrough since the late 1960s that would justify the current (X-Files?driven) intelligence-in-the-machine fad. There, that feels better!Sawyer:?Well, Kee, my job as a science-fiction writer is to ask “what if?” So, I do wonder what if human consciousness?is?nothing more than a pattern of information? You say that hasn’t been proven, which is true, but it hasn’t been disproven, either. I speculated about this in my 1995 novel?The Terminal Experiment, which deals with uploaded personalities. What do you do with the original version of your mind?— the one stored in your brain?— once you’ve copied its contents into a computer? Kurzweil says we’ll blithely destroy the flesh-and-blood version at that point?— the ultimate in burning bridges. And how much of our psychology is based on the physical limitations our bodies impose? A profile of me last year in this very newspaper [5 July 1998] said I was driven to succeed. If that’s true, it’s because I know I only have a few decades left; would I?— or anyone?— really push to get things done if we were immortal living inside a computer? Also, how much of human psychology is based on the belief, somewhere deep in our thoughts, that we might indeed have a soul? Kurzweil’s uploading would prove that such a spark really doesn’t exist?— you’re still you, even after being separated from your body. I wonder how that would affect our behavior.Dewdney:?All right, Rob. Let me put aside my belief that Kurzweil is having a pipe dream. It’s the year 2020 (say) and everything I want to happen simply happens. I’m having a thousand orgasms a minute, have a fire-hose feeding me endless banana splits, and I’m composing a sonata in the style of Mozart — but where’s the challenge? Everything I want is at my (virtual) fingertips, and any danger I face is artificial. Gradually I forget about the world out there until, suddenly, I have the most creative idea of my life. I immediately download back into the real world. My suggestion is adopted by the ruling council of the remaining (non-uploaded) humans: we set to work, putting all the uploaded humans in vast buildings, their bodies safely frozen (or discarded, as they wish). Come to think of it, we upload all the criminals, as well. They’ll be much happier in cyberheaven, anyway.Suddenly, it’s a new Earth and the humans that remain can begin to explore what it?really?means to be human, not by fulfilling every wish but to understand the growth that comes from self-denial and serving others. Our true potential has been available for thousands of years, but the vast majority of us simply ignore it. In any event, expect nothing “spiritual” from beings whose every wish is gratified!Sawyer:?Well,?there’s?a fantasy, Kee?— if we could just get rid of all those people who don’t share my views, why, we could make a heaven on Earth! But, seriously, you and I do seem to be on the same wavelength: as I said, virtual reality is air guitar writ large?— it can seem real, but fundamentally it’s meaningless. But all this does make me think of the Fermi paradox, which asks: if all of our physics tells us that the universe should be teeming with life, where are all the aliens? My fear is that the appeal of a pain-free, wish-fulfillment virtual existence is so seductive that all the extraterrestrials civilizations whose radio signals our astronomers?should?be picking up have transcended?en masse?into a gratifying, but ultimately irrelevant cyberheaven. Those aliens may be happy, but it all makes me rather sad.Dewdney:?That’s a touching thought, Rob, but somehow I don’t think the aliens are having that particular problem. My theory to explain non-contact is that the aliens have intercepted enough episodes of?The Three Stooges?to put us in a state of permanent galactic quarantine. And from an alien point of view, I’m not sure that I, you, and (yes) Kurzweil haven’t just put out another episode!Sawyer:?Maybe so, Kee?— but Kurzweil’s book takes his vision through to the year 2099, a century hence. Given that computers didn’t exist at all a hundred years ago?— Sherlock Holmes might have discoursed on the future of mechanical calculators in 1899, but he never could have predicted the World Wide Web?— I suspect that if Kurzweil isn’t right in the details, he’s certainly right in the broad strokes: our relationship with the computers of the next century will completely transform the definition of what it means to be human. of the PerceptronThe evolution of the artificial neuron has progressed through several stages.???The roots of which, are firmly grounded within neurological work done primarily by?Santiago Ramon y Cajal?and?Sir Charles Scott Sherrington?.?Ramon y Cajal was a prominent figure in the exploration of the structure of nervous tissue and showed that, despite their ability to communicate with each other, neurons were physically separated from other neurons.??With a greater understanding of the basic elements of the brain, efforts were made to describe how these basic neurons could result in overt behaviors, to which?William James?was a prominent theoretical contributor.?Working from the beginnings of neuroscience,?Warren McCulloch?and?Walter Pitts? in their 1943 paper, "A Logical Calculus of Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity," contended that neurons with a binary threshold activation function were analogous to first order logic sentences.???The basic McCulloch and Pitts neuron looked something like the following:The McCulloch-Pitts neuron worked by inputting either a 1 or 0 for each of the inputs, where 1 represented true and 0 false.??Likewise, the threshold was given a real value, say 1, which would allow for a 0 or 1 output if the threshold was met or exceeded.??Thus, in order to represent the “and” function, we set the threshold at 2.0 and come up with the following truth table:Input x1Input x2?Output000010100111This table shows the basic “and” function such that, if x1 and x2 are both false, then the output of combining these two will also be false.??Likewise, if x1 is true or equal to 1 and x2 is true or equal to 1, then the threshold of 2 will be met and the output will be 1.This follows also for the “or” function, if we switch the threshold value to 1.???The table for the “or” function being,?Input x1Input x2?Output000011101111This type of artificial neuron could also be used to solve the “not” function, which would have only one input, as well as, the NOR and NAND functions.???The McCulloch-Pitts neuron, therefore, was very instrumental in progressing the artificial neuron, but it had some serious limitations.???In particular, it could solve neither the “exclusive or” function (XOR), nor the “exclusive nor” function (XNOR).???Limited to binary code, the following truth tables could?not?be accurately solved using this early artificial neuron.??XORInput x1Input x2?Output000011101110???XNOR??Input x1Input x2?Output001010100111One of the difficulties with the McCulloch-Pitts neuron was its simplicity.??It only allowed for binary inputs and outputs, it only used the threshold step activation function and it did not incorporate weighting the different inputs.In 1949,?Donald Hebb?would help to revolutionize the way that artificial neurons were perceived.???In his book,?The Organization of Behavior, he proposed what has come to be known as Hebb’s rule.??He states, “When an axon of cell A is near enough to excite a cell B and repeatedly or persistently takes part in firing it, some growth process or metabolic change takes place in one or both cells such that A’s efficiency, as one of the cells firing B, is increased.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn1" \o "" ?[1]???Hebb was proposing not only that, when two neurons fire together the connection between the neurons is strengthened, but also that this activity is one of the fundamental operations necessary for learning and memory.For the artificial neuron, this meant that the McCulloch-Pitts neuron had to be altered to at least allow for this new biological proposal.???The method used was to weight each of the inputs.???Thus, an input of 1 may be given more or less weight, relative to the total threshold sum.Frank Rosenblatt, using the McCulloch-Pitts neuron and the findings of Hebb, went on to develop the first perceptron.???This perceptron, which could learn in the Hebbean sense, through the weighting of inputs, was instrumental in the later formation of neural networks.??He discussed the perceptron in his 1962 book,?Principles of Neurodynamics.???A basic perceptron is represented as follows:This perceptron has a total of five inputs a1 through a5 with each having a weight of w1 through w5. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn2" \o "" ?[2]???Each of the inputs are weighted and summed at the node.??If the threshold is reached, an output results.??Of great importance is that each of the inputs may not be given equal weight.???The perceptron may have “learned” to weight a1 more than a2 and so on.?The summation formula for determining whether or not the threshold (θ) is met for the artificial neuron with N inputs (a?1, a2…aN) and their respective weights of w?1, w2,…wN??is:???Nb=(∑wja?j)+θ???j=1The activation function then becomes:??????????? ????????????x = f(b)The activation function used by McCulloch and Pitts was the threshold step function.??However, other functions that can be used are the Sigmoid, Piecewise Linear and Gaussian activation functions.??These functions are shown below. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn3" \o "" ?[3]?(See the glossary attached to this applet for the corresponding mathematical formulas.)Threshold StepSigmoidPiecewise LinearGaussianDespite the many changes made to the original McCulloch-Pitts neuron, the perceptron was still limited to solving certain functions.???Unfortunately, Rosenblatt was overly enthusiastic about the perceptron and made the ill-timed proclamation that:"Given an elementary α-perceptron, a stimulus world W, and any classification C(W) for which a solution exists; let all stimuli in W occur in any sequence, provided that each stimulus must reoccur in finite time; then beginning from an arbitrary initial state, an error correction procedure will always yield a solution to C(W) in finite time…” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn4" \o "" ?[4]With these types of remarks Rosenblatt had drawn a line in the sand between those in support of perceptron styled research and the more traditional symbol manipulation projects being performed by?Marvin Minsky.??As a result, in 1969, Minsky co-authored with?Seymour Papert?,?Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry.???In this work they attacked the limitations of the perceptron.???They showed that the perceptron could only solve linearly separable functions.??Of particular interest was the fact that the perceptron still could not solve the XOR and NXOR functions.???Likewise, Minsky and Papert stated that the style of research being done on the perceptron was doomed to failure because of these limitations.???This was, of course, Minsky’s equally ill-timed remark.???As a result, very little research was done in the area until about the 1980’s.?What would come to resolve many of the difficulties was the creation of neural networks.???These networks connect the inputs of artificial neurons with the outputs of other artificial neurons.??As a result, the networks were able to solve more difficult problems, but they have grown considerably more complex.???However, many of the artificial neural networks in use today still stem from the early advances of the McCulloch-Pitts neuron and the Rosenblatt perceptron. Kurzweil Extended Interview (click link for video viewing…)Biological and technological evolution “is a spiritual process,” says this leading futurist. “Entities become more godlike, never reaching that ideal but moving in that direction exponentially.” Michael C. Ruppert"U.S. journalist Mike Ruppert, a former Los Angeles police officer who now runs a Web site that seeks to expose CIA covert operations, said he met with RCMP investigator McDade on Aug. 3 in L.A. Ruppert said the RCMP officer was anxious to see documents he received three years ago from a shadowy Green Beret named Bill Tyre?[sic]?detailing the sale of rigged Promis software to Canada."?-The Toronto Star, September 4, 2000.Only the legends of?Excalibur, the sword of invincible power, and the Holy Grail, the chalice from which Christ took his wine at the Last Supper begin to approach the mysterious aura that have evolved in the world of secret intelligence around a computer software program named Promis. Created in the 1970s by former National Security Agency (NSA) programmer and engineer Bill Hamilton, now President of Washington, D.C.'s?Inslaw Corporation, PROMIS (Prosecutor's Management Information System) crossed a threshold in the evolution of computer programming. Working from either huge mainframe computer systems or smaller networks powered by the progenitors of today's PCs, PROMIS, from its first "test drive" a quarter century ago, was able to do one thing that no other program had ever been able to do. It was able to simultaneously read and integrate any number of different computer programs or data bases simultaneously, regardless of the language in which the original programs had been written or the operating system or platforms on which that data base was then currently installed.In the mid 1970s, at least as far as computer programs were concerned, the "universal translator" of?Star Trek?had become a reality. And the realm of?Star Trek?is exactly where most of the major media would have the general public place the Promis story in their world views. But given the fact that the government of Canada has just spent millions of dollars investigating whether or not a special version of Promis, equipped with a so-called "back door" has compromised its national security, one must concede that perhaps the myths surrounding Promis and what has happened to it need to be re-evaluated. Myths, by definition, cannot be solved, but facts can be understood and integrated. Only a very few people realize how big the Promis story really is.It is difficult to relegate Promis to the world of myth and fantasy when so many tangible things, like the recently acknowledged RCMP investigation make it real. Canadians are not known for being wildly emotional types given to sprees. And one must also include the previous findings of Congressional oversight committees and no less than six obvious dead bodies ranging from investigative journalist Danny Casolaro in 1991, to a government employee named Alan Standorf, to British Publisher and lifelong Israeli agent Robert Maxwell also in 1991, to retired Army CID investigator Bill McCoy in 1997, to a father and son named Abernathy in a small northern California town named Hercules. The fact that commercial versions of Promis are now available for sale directly from Inslaw belies the fact that some major papers and news organizations instantly and laughably use the epithet?conspiracy theorist?to stigmatize anyone who discusses it. Fear may be the major obstacle or ingredient in the myth surrounding modified and "enhanced" versions of Promis that keeps researchers from fully pursuing leads rising in its wake. I was validated in this theory on September 23rd?in a conversation with?FTW?Contributing Editor Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D. Scott, a Professor Emeritus at UC Berkeley and noted author. Peter, upon hearing of the details of my involvement, frankly told me that Promis frightened him. Casolaro, who was found dead in a West Virginia motel room in 1991, had Scott's name (Scott is also a Canadian) in a list of people to contact about his Promis findings. He never got that far.A close examination of the Promis saga actually leads to more than a dozen deaths which may well be why so many people avoid it. And many of those deaths share in common a pattern where, within 48 hours of death, bodies are cremated, residences are sanitized and all files disappear. This was certainly the case with my friend Bill McCoy, a legendary retired Army CID investigator who was also the principal investigator for Hamilton in his quest to recover what may be hundreds of millions in lost royalties and to reunite him with the evolved progeny of his brain child. Those progeny now have names like SMART (Self Managing Artificial Reasoning Technology) and TECH. I will never forget hearing of McCoy's death and his immediate cremation and then trying to reconcile that with the number of times he had told me, while sitting in his Fairfax Virginia home, that he wanted to be buried next to his beloved wife in spite of the fact that he was a Taoist.I have tried to avoid becoming involved in Promis even though I have been in possession of documents and information about the case for more than six years. Reluctantly, as I realized that recent developments gave me a moral imperative to write, I gathered all of my scattered computer files connecting the case into one place. When assembled they totaled more than seven megabytes and that did not include maybe 500 printed pages of separate files.In researching this story I found a starkly recurring theme. It appeared first in a recent statement I tape recorded from probably one of the three best informed open sources on the story in the world, William Tyree. I also came across the same theme, almost verbatim, in a research paper that I discovered while following leads from other sources.Tyree is no stranger to?FTW. A former US Army Green Beret, framed in 1979, he has been serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife Elaine outside of Fort Devens Massachusetts, then home of the 10th?Special Forces Group. I have written of him in no less than six prior issues of?FTW. He has, from his prison cell in Walpole Massachusetts, been a central if little known figure in the Promis case for many years, like a monk mysteriously possessed of information that no one else could obtain. If the story is ever fully told his role may be even more significant than anyone has ever supposed.The information from Tyree, recorded in a phone conversation on August 28, and the research work on "block-modeling" social research theory uncovered while researching other leads both describe the same unique position or vantage point from hypothetical and actual perspectives. Tyree described an actual physical point in space, further out than ever thought possible and now used by US satellites. This distance is made possible by Promis progeny so evolved that they make the original software look primitive. The social research, which included pioneering mathematical work - apparently facilitating the creation of artificial intelligence - postulated that a similar remote hypothetical position would eliminate randomness from all human activity. Everything would be visible in terms of measurable and predictable patterns - the ultimate big picture. Just one of the key web sites where I found this information is located at of?FTW's?guiding principles is our incessant drive to separate that which is important from that which is merely true. The purpose of this article is to provide leads and insights, some very concrete, for the continued investigation of the Promis saga. While we do not claim to be worthy of pulling Excalibur from the stone we do hope to be divorced enough from egotistical motivations and dreams of Pulitzers or glory to avoid being led into the trap that has befallen so many seeking the Holy Grail.?FTW?believes that the Promis story will only be solved by a group of people working together selflessly for a greater good. Maybe there is legend here after all. Put simply, from the vantage point of a child actor in 1970s Burger King commercials, "It's too big to eat!"What would you do if you possessed software that could think, understand every language in the world, that provided peep holes into everyone else's computer "dressing rooms," that could insert data into computers without people's knowledge, that could fill in blanks beyond human reasoning and also predict what people would do - before they did it? You would probably use it wouldn't you? But Promis is not a virus. It has to be installed as a program on the computer systems that you want to penetrate. Being as uniquely powerful as it is this is usually not a problem. Once its power and advantages are demonstrated, most corporations, banks or nations are eager to be a part of the "exclusive" club that has it. And, as is becoming increasingly confirmed by sources connected to this story, especially in the worldwide banking system, not having Promis - by whatever name it is offered - can exclude you from participating in the ever more complex world of money transfers and money laundering. As an example, look at any of the symbols on the back of your ATM card. Picture your bank refusing to accept the software that made it possible to transfer funds from LA to St. Louis, or from St. Louis to Rome.The other thing to remember is that where mathematics has proved that every human being on the earth is connected to every other by only six degrees of separation, in covert operations the number shrinks to around three. In the Promis story it often shrinks to two. It really is a small world.The First Rip OffReagan confidant and overseer for domestic affairs from 1981 to 1985 Ed Meese loved Promis software. According to lawsuits and appeals filed by Hamilton, as well as the records of Congressional hearings, the FBI and dozens of news stories, the legend of Promis began in 1981-2. After a series of demonstrations showing how well Promis could integrate the computers of dozens of US attorneys offices around the country, the Department of Justice (DoJ) ordered an application of the software under a tightly controlled and limited license. From there, however, Meese, along with cronies D. Lowell Jensen (also no stranger to?FTW's?pages) and Earl Brian allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to steal the software, modify it to include a "trap door" that would allow those who knew of it to access the program in other computers, and then sell it overseas to foreign intelligence agencies. Hamilton began to smell a rat when agencies from other countries, like Canada, started asking him for support services in French when he had never made sales to Canada.The Promis-managed data could be anything from financial records of banking institutions to compilations of various records used to track the movement of terrorists. That made the program a natural for Israel which, according to Hamilton and many other sources, was one of the first countries to acquire the bootlegged software from Meese and Company. As voluminously described by Inslaw attorney, the late Elliot Richardson, the Israeli Mossad under the direction of Rafi Eitan, allegedly modified the software yet again and sold it throughout the Middle East. It was Eitan, the legendary Mossad captor of Adolph Eichmann, according to Hamilton, who had masqueraded as an Israeli prosecutor to enter Inslaw's DC offices years earlier and obtain a first hand demonstration of what the Promis could do.Not too many Arab nations would trust a friendly Mossad agent selling computer programs. So the Mossad provided their modified Promis to flamboyant British publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, a WWII Jewish resistance fighter who had assumed the Anglo name and British citizenship after the war. It was Maxwell, capable of travelling the world and with enormous marketing resources, who became the sales agent for Promis and then sold it to, among others, the Canadian government. Maxwell drowned mysteriously in late 1991, not long after investigative reporter Danny Casolaro was "suicided" in West Virginia. Maxwell may not have been the only one to send Promis north.In the meantime, after winning some successes, including a resounding Congressional finding that he had been cheated, Bill Hamilton hit his own buzz saw in a series of moves by the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments and rigged court decisions intended to bankrupt him and force him out of business. He survived and fought on. In the meantime hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties and sales fees were going into the wrong pockets. And, as was later revealed from a number of directions, this initial tampering with the software was far from the only game in town. Both the CIA, through GE Aerospace in Herndon Virginia (GAO Contract #82F624620), the FBI and elements of the NSA were tinkering with Promis, not just to modify it with a trap door, but to enhance it with artificial intelligence or AI. It's worth it to note that GE Aerospace was subsequently purchased by Martin-Marietta which then merged to become Lockheed-Martin the largest defense and aerospace contractor in the world. This will become important later on.Confidential documents obtained by?FTW?indicate that much of the AI development was done at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia Labs using research from other US universities, including Harvard, Cal-Tech and the University of California. And it was not just Reagan Republicans who got their hands on it either. As we'll see shortly, Promis came to life years?before?the election of Ronald Reagan. It was also, according to Bill Tyree, an essential element in the espionage conducted by Jonathan Pollard against not only the US government but the Washington embassies of many nations targeted by Israel's Mossad.The Last CircleFor more than a year and half, members of the National Security Section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have been travelling through the US, often in the company of a savvy female homicide detective from the small California town of Hercules named Sue Todd. Even now questions linger as to what the Canadians were really after. But there is absolutely no question that while surreptitiously in the U.S. the Mounties spent more time with author and investigative reporter Cheri Seymour than with anyone else. And for good reason.Seymour, under the pen name of Carol Marshall is the author of a meticulously researched e-book entitled?The Last Circle?located at. So meticulously researched and documented is the book thatFTW's?researcher?"The Goddess"?has fact checked it and found it flawless. Same with Bill Hamilton and the Mounties, who have also told me of its precision. Anyone seeking to understand the Promis story must include this book as a part of their overall research.I first met Cheri in person this spring after she had contacted me via the Internet. I traveled to her home, some three hours outside of Los Angeles and viewed acres of documentation for a saga that started with drug related murders and police corruption around methamphetamine production in northern California in the 1980s. That investigation later connected to politicians like Tony Coelho and major corporations like MCA and eventually led to a shadowy scientist named Michael Riconosciuto. Familiar names like Ted Gunderson and relatively unknown names like Robert Booth Nichols weave throughout this detailed epic that takes us to the Cabazon Indian Reservation in the California Desert and into the deepest recesses of the 1980s Reagan/Bush security apparatus.Gunderson, a retired FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) from Los Angeles, and Nichols, a mysterious Los Angeles man, exposed through court documents obtained by Seymour as being a career CIA operative, connected with scientist/programmer, Riconosciuto in a sinister, yet now very well documented phase of Promis' development. In affidavits Riconosciuto claimed that one of the tasks he performed at the Cabazon reservation was to install a back door in the version of Promis that was sold to Canada. In August of this year the RCMP investigators told both Seymour and me that they had traveled to the reservation several times and had confirmed many details of Seymour's research. They had also interviewed Riconosciuto on more than one occasion. As with everyone else I have ever met who has spoken with him, both the Mounties and Seymour kept a reserved distance from him and always "counted their fingers after every hand shake."By using treaties between the U.S. Government and Native American peoples that recognize Native American reservations as sovereign nations, the CIA has long and frequently avoided statutory prohibitions against operating inside the United States. The financial rewards for tribal nations have been significant and the extra security afforded by tribal police in remote areas has been a real blessing for covert operatives.?The Last Circle?describes in detail how Promis software was modified by Riconosciuto to allegedly include the back door "eavesdropping" capability but also enhanced with one form of AI and subsequently applied to the development of new weapons systems including "ethnospecific" biowarfare compounds capable of attacking specific races. Riconosciuto, now serving time in a Federal prison in Pennsylvania has a cell a very short distance from fellow espionage inmates Edwin Wilson and Jonathan Pollard. While his tale is critical to understanding what has happened to Promis, the fact remains that Riconosciuto has been out of the loop and in legal trouble for eight years. He has been in a maximum security prison for at least six. What was surprising was that in 1998 he contacted homicide detective Sue Todd in Hercules and told her that the murder of a father and son, execution style, was connected to the Promis story. One connection was obvious. Hercules is a "company town" connected to a weapons manufacturer described in Seymour's book that also connects to the Cabazon Indian Reservation.The Three BillsI lived in Washington, D.C. from August 1994 until late October of 1995. It was during that time that I was a semi-regular visitor at the Fairfax, Virginia home of Bill McCoy, a loveable sixty-something giant, always adorned with a beret who complained ruthlessly about what had happened to the United States since "The Damned Yankee Army" had taken over. Writers were "scribblers." People who thought they knew something about covert operations without ever having seen one were "spooky-groupies." "Mac," as we called him, had his investigative fingers in almost everything but he was most involved with Promis. McCoy was a retired Chief Warrant Officer from the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigation Division. He had broken some of the biggest cases in Army history. It was Mac who first introduced me to both Bill Tyree and to Bill Hamilton in 1994. I recall scratching my head as I would be sitting at Mac's dinner table when a call would come in from Hamilton asking if there was any new information from Tyree. "Not yet, " McCoy would answer, "I'll call as soon as I get something.""How," I asked, "could a guy in a maximum security prison like Walpole State Penitentiary in Massachusetts be getting information of such quality that someone like Hamilton would be calling urgently to see what had come in?" "That," answered McCoy was the work of someone known only as "The Sergeant Major," and alternately as "His Eminence" who fed the information to Tyree, who in turn fed it to McCoy, who then passed it on to Hamilton. Sometimes however, Tyree and Hamilton communicated directly. To this day the identity of the Sergeant Major remains a mystery and the puzzle piece most pursued by the RCMP when they visited me in August, 2000.It was also not by coincidence then that, in the same winter of 94-95, McCoy revealed to me that he was using former Green Berets to conduct physical surveillance of the Washington, D.C. offices of Microsoft in connection with the Promis case.?FTW?has, within the last month, received information indicating that piracy of Microsoft products at the GE Aerospace Herndon facility were likely tied to larger objectives, possibly the total compromise of any Windows based product. It is not by chance that most of the military and all of the intelligence agencies in the U.S. now operate on Macintosh systems.In late 1996 Tyree mailed me a detailed set of diagrams and a lengthy narrative explaining the exact hows and whys of the murder of Danny Casolaro and an overall view of the Promis saga that is not only consistent with what is described by Seymour in?The Last Circle?but also provides many new details. Asked about Mike Riconosciuto for this story Tyree would say only that, "He's very good at what he does. There are very, very few who can touch him, maybe 200 in the whole world. Riconosciuto's in a class all by himself." Those documents, as later described to me by RCMP Investigator Sean McDade, proved to be "Awesome and right on the money."The essence of those documents was that, not only had the Republicans under Meese exploited the software, but that the Democrats had also seen its potential and moved years earlier. Nowhere was this connection more clearly exposed than in understanding the relationship between three classmates from the U.S. Naval Academy: Jimmy Carter, Stansfield Turner (Carter's CIA director), and billionaire banker and Presidential kingmaker (Carter's Annapolis roommate), Arkansas' Jackson Stephens. The Tyree diagrams laid out in detail how Promis, after improvement with AI, had allegedly been mated with the software of Jackson Stephens' firm Systematics. In the late seventies and early eighties, Systematics handled some 60-70% of all electronic banking transactions in the U.S. The goal, according to the diagrams which laid out (subsequently verified) relationships between Stephens, Worthen Bank, the Lippo Group and the drug/intelligence bank BCCI was to penetrate every banking system in the world. This "cabal" could then use Promis both to predict and to influence the movement of financial markets worldwide. Stephens, truly bipartisan in his approach to profits, has been a lifelong supporter of George Bush and he was, at the same time, the source of the $3 million loan that rescued a faltering Clinton Campaign in early 1992. There is a great photograph of Stephens with a younger George "W" Bush in the excellent BCCI history,?False Profits.In the fall of 1997, Bill McCoy, having recently gone off of his heart medication was found dead in his favorite chair. In the days and weeks before he had been advised by Tyree that a Pakistani hit man, on an Israeli contract had been in the states seeking to fulfill a hit on McCoy. There had been other hints that someone closer to McCoy might do the job. Tyree recently told?FTW?that just before his death, he had given McCoy information on "Elbit" flash memory chips, allegedly designed at Kir Yat-Gat south of Tel Aviv. The unique feature of the Elbit chips was that they worked on ambient electricity in a computer. In other words, they worked when the computer was turned off. When combined with another newly developed chip, the "Petrie," which was capable of storing up to six months worth of key strokes, it was now possible to burst transmit all of a computer's activity in the middle of the night to a nearby receiver - say in a passing truck or even a low flying SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) satellite. According to Tyree this was the methodology used by Jonathan Pollard and the Israeli Mossad to compromise many foreign embassies in Washington.Within 48 hours of his death Bill McCoy had been cremated and in less than four days all of Mac's furniture, records and personal belongings had been removed from his home by his son, a full Colonel in the Army. The house had been sanitized and repainted and, aside from the Zen garden in the back yard, there was no trace that McCoy had ever lived there.Harvard and HUDFormer Assistant Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts has had about as much ink in FTW as anyone else. A feisty, innovative thinker she has seen raging success as a Managing Director of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon Read and she has been "nuked" into near poverty after devising software strategies seeking to optimize financial data and returns for the US taxpayer. While acting as a HUD consultant in 1996, selling defaulted HUD Mortgages into the private market through her own investment bank, Hamilton Securities (no relation), she achieved unheard of taxpayer returns of around 90 cents on the dollar. In doing so she ran afoul of an entrenched Washington financial power structure feeding uncompetitively at the HUD trough.Last month we described how Fitts devised a data optimization method using hand coding by residents of a HUD Housing project in Washington to produce Promis-like results. She successfully "mapped" the flow of HUD money and was about to create proprietary software that would make the job easier. That software would have integrated billions of pieces of disorganized HUD financial data. Suddenly, in August 1996, DoJ and HUD Inspector?s General investigations started that seized her computers and resulted in a four-year blatantly illegal campaign to crush everything she stood for. No charges were ever brought, Fitts, her money and her data are still viciously separated.One of the empires Fitts threatened was that of the Harvard Endowment. The Harvard Endowment is not really a benevolent university fund but an aggressive investment predator with $19 billion in assets, some from HUD subsidized housing. Harvard also has a number of other investments in high tech defense operations and had a big hand in investing George W Bush?s lackluster firm Harken Energy. "W" has a Harvard MBA. Fitts? chief nemesis at Harvard, Herbert "Pug" Winokur, head of Capricorn Investments, and member of the board of the Harvard Endowment is also a PhD mathematician from Harvard where the mathematical breakthroughs that gave rise to Artificial Intelligence using block-modeling research were discovered. In the 60s Winokur had done social science research for the Department of Defense on causes of inner city unrest in the wake of the 1967 Detroit riots.The pioneering research at Harvard that allegedly gave rise to the Artificial Intelligence installed in Promis later moved north. According to a Harvard website (mb119/chap2e.htm) "Much of the effort of the Harvard group - no longer based solely at Harvard - was centered on the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA) at Toronto...". Things grew more suspicious as Fitts? research disclosed that Winokur, through Capricorn Investments, had a decisive role in the 1980s management of the intelligence/government outsourcing mega-firm DynCorp, of Reston, VA. Winokur served as DynCorp CEO from 1989 to 1997. DynCorp handles everything for Uncle Sam from aircraft maintenance, to sheep-dipping of combat troops into private assault forces in Colombia, to the financial management of HUD records, to the maintenance of computer security at government facilities. One of DynCorp?s most interesting contracts is with the DoJ for the financial management of assets seized in the drug war. DynCorp also counts among its shareholders former CIA Director James Woolsey. Pug Winokur made DynCorp what it is today and he still sits on the board.In juxtaposition, Harvard and HUD differ in one striking respect according to Fitts. The Harvard Endowment has enjoyed wildly uncharacteristic above market tax-free returns for the last decade, (33% in 1999), while HUD, in the same year, was compelled to do a "manual adjustments" to reconcile a $59 billion shortfall between its accounts and the U.S. Treasury account. [This is not a typographical error]. Where did all that money go? $59 billion in an election year is a staggering amount of money. Why is no one screaming? HUD's explanation is that it was loading a new accounting system that did not work and then did not bother to balance its checkbook for over a year.I was not surprised when Bill Hamilton confirmed to both Fitts and to me that Winokur?s DynCorp had played a role in the evolution of Promis in the 1980s. One other surprise was to come out of Fitts? investigations that had months earlier led her to conclude that she was up against Promis-related interests. On the very day that DoJ and HUD shut her down she was discussing software development with a Canadian firm that is at the heart of the Canadian space program, Geomatics. The term Geomatics applies to a related group of sciences - all involving satellite imagery - used to develop geographic information systems, global positioning systems and remote sensing from space that can actually determine the locations of natural resources such as oil, precious metals and other commodities.Apparently centered in Canada, the Geomatics industry offers consulting services throughout the world in English, German, Russian, French, Arabic, Spanish and Chinese. Geomatics technology, launched aboard Canadian satellites via US, European or Japanese boosters can help developing or industrialized nations inventory and manage all of their natural resources. There are also several Geomatics related companies in the U.S. including one not far from the Johnson Space center in Houston.This situation is custom made for enhanced Promis software with back-door technology. What better way to map and inventory all of the world?s resources than by making each client nation pay for the work. By providing the client nation Promis-based software it would then be possible to compile a global data base of every marketable natural resource. And it would not be necessary to even touch the resources because commodities and futures markets exist for all of them. An AI enhanced, Promis-based program would then be the perfect set up to make billions of dollars in profits by watching and manipulating the world?s political climate to trade in, let?s say Tungsten futures. Such a worldwide database would be even more valuable if there were, for example, a sudden surge in the price of gold or platinum.Bill Hamilton readily agreed that this was an ideal situation for the application of Promis technology. In furthering our research on Geomatics we discovered that almost everywhere Geomatics technology went we also found Lockheed-Martin.Enter The MountiesThanks to a strong push in my direction from Cheri Seymour, the Mounties and Hercules PD Homicide Detective Sue Todd arrived at my door on August 3rd. They had already consumed most of the?FTW?web site and were well familiar with my writings. I had let them know, through Cheri, that I did have information on Promis from Bill Tyree and that I would be happy to share it. Before getting into details we all went out for lunch at a nearby Chinese restaurant.In setting basic outlines for our conversations that day I indicated that, as a journalist, I viewed our discussions as off-the-record. I took no notes and did not tape record any of the discussion. I am recounting the events now only after corresponding with McDade and advising him of my intention to write. He responded and did not object. I took the same position with Detective Todd. I warned the Mounties and Todd at the outset that a sudden termination of their investigations was likely and that they would all become expendable. It happened to me once.Over lunch the Mounties were quite candid about the fact that the RCMP had Promis software and that it even went by the name Promis. I think they may have also mentioned the name PIRS which is an acknowledged system in the RCMP network. They stated that they had been given their version of Promis by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS).CSIS was an intelligence breakaway from the Mounties in 1984, intended to be a pure [sic] intelligence agency. It was created largely with the expertise and assistance of the CIA. All of us understood two things about that arrangement and we discussed them openly. First, there was a question as to whether or not any intelligence service created by the CIA could be completely loyal to its native country. Secondly, it was also understood that there was a rivalry between the two agencies similar to the one that existed between the FBI and the CIA, or in a larger context, the Clinton gang and the Bush gang in the US. The chief concern of the Mounties, clearly, was to ascertain whether or not their version of Promis was one that was compromised. McDade also described in detail how he knew that supposedly secure RCMP communications equipment had been compromised by the NSA. The Mounties acknowledged regular meetings with Cheri Seymour but evinced none of the interest she said that they had previously shown in the Mossad. With me their single-minded focus was Bill Tyree and where and how he obtained his information.Sue Todd, confirmed for me suspicions that there was an unspoken alliance between the RCMP investigators and the FBI. She said that during the course of her three years of efforts to solve the double murder in Hercules, she had routinely visited FBI offices and enjoyed access to FBI files relative to both the Promis investigation and anything connected to her victims. That information was obviously being shared with the Mounties and that implied the blessings of the FBI. In short, a domestic law enforcement officer was sharing information with agents of a foreign government. In some cases that could provoke espionage charges but in this case it was apparently sanctioned. The Hercules murder victims had no apparent connection to Promis software in any way except for the fact that Riconosciuto had possessed knowledge about the murders which he had provided to Todd from prison. The Hercules Armament Corporation, featured inThe Last Circle, was an obvious link. I also noted that the father in Todd's case had been a computer engineer with passions for both geological research and hypnosis and no other visible connections to the Promis story.As we copied Tyree's papers and went through other materials the next day I was aware that the Canadians expressed special interest in Jackson Stephens and anything having to do with the manipulation of financial markets. They asked for copies of news reports I had showing that General Wesley Clark, the recently retired NATO Commander, has just gone to work for Stephens, Inc. in Little Rock Arkansas. I also provided documents showing that Stephens' financial firm Alltel, heir to Systematics, was moving heavily into the mortgage market. As the Mounties repeatedly pressed for information on the identity of the Sergeant Major I referred them to Tyree directly through his attorney Ray Kohlman and to Tyree's closest friend, the daughter of CIA bagman and paymaster Albert Carone, Dee Ferdinand. [For more on Carone visit the?FTW?web site].McDade did eventually contact Ferdinand by phone and shortly thereafter one of the most bizarre twists in the whole story took place.About a week after meeting the Mounties I heard back from Sean that the Tyree documents and flow charts from 1996 had been right on the money. A special recurring theme in those documents that meshes with Seymour's research is the fact that modified versions of Promis software with both artificial intelligence and trap doors were being smuggled out of Los Alamos nuclear labs in containers labeled as radioactive waste. According to Tyree and other sources, after an Indian reservation, the safest place in the world that no one will ever break into is a nuclear waste dump. This also applies to containers in transit between countries. The radioactive warning label guarantees unmolested movement of virtually anything. Promis software is apparently no exception.Bill Casey and Al Carone from the GraveAlbert Vincent Carone has also been covered exhaustively in?FTW, both in the newsletter and on the web site. A retired NYPD Detective, also a made-member of the Genovese crime family, Carone spent his entire working career as a CIA operative. (FTW?has special reports on both Bill Tyree and Al Carone available from the web site or at the end of this newsletter). For more than 25 years before his mysterious death in 1990, Al Carone served as a bagman and liaison between George Bush, CIA Director Bill Casey, Oliver North, Richard Nixon and many other prominent figures including Robert Vesco, Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos. The Carone-Tyree connection, covered in detail in the Sept. 1998 issue (Vol. I, No.7) goes back to operations in the mid 1970s when Tyree, serving with the Special Forces, engaged in CIA directed missions for which Carone was the paymaster.Carone's death from "chemical toxicity of unknown etiology" in 1990 resulted in the sanitizing of all of his military and NYPD records as well as the theft and disappearance of nearly ten million dollars in bank accounts, insurance policies and investments. Virtually overnight, almost every record of Carone disappeared leaving his daughter and her family nearly bankrupt under the burden of tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. In 1996, Carone's daughter, Dee Ferdinand, discovered that Tyree and Carone had known each other and that Tyree could prove instrumental in helping to restore Carone's lost fortune. Ferdinand filed suit in U.S. District Court this spring seeking to recover pensions, insurance policies and benefits in a case which has no known connection to Promis. I have known Ferdinand and her family for more than seven years. Never once has she mentioned a connection between her father and Promis although she was well familiar with the case from Tyree and conversations with Bill Hamilton. I had referred the Mounties to her because of my belief that she could possibly help identify Tyree's source, the Sergeant Major.On August 10th, exactly one week after the Mounties came to see me, the DoJ mailed Ferdinand a response to her suit seeking dismissal. Included in the paperwork was a bizarre document, now in?FTW's?possession, that, by the account of both Ferdinand and her lawyer, had absolutely nothing to do with her case. The document in question was a March 29, 1986 Declaration from CIA Director William Casey, a close friend of the Carone family. Paragraph 6 of that document (prepared for another case) stated,?"Two of the documents responsive to Plaintiffs' Request No 1, specifically the one-page letter dated 28 March 1979 and a one-page letter dated 8 January 1980, have been released in the same excised form as they were previously released by the Government of Canada. I independently and formally assert the state secrets privilege for the information excised from these two documents."Dee Ferdinand called me immediately. The letter had nothing to do with her suit. It mentioned Canada. Canada was not even mentioned in her suit. What was going on?" she asked. "It's blackmail," I answered. "CIA, which is monitoring everything the Canadians do, everything I do, everything you do, knows that I will tell the Mounties of these letters." McDade didn't grasp the concept at first. He was a straight-ahead street cop. But I had been through something similar when serving as the press spokesman for the Perot Presidential campaign in 1992. I explained it to Sean, "Sean, you and I are just the messengers. But I guarantee that at some level of your government the CIA's reference to these letters will scare people to death. It is a reminder that CIA has them."A week later McDade told me that the dates were indeed significant - very significant. That's all he would say.FTW?has what may be a possible explanation for the dates in question. The President and CIA Director on these dates the letters were written were Jimmy Carter and Stansfield Turner. Aside from the then recent Russian invasion of Afghanistan, a saga in which the Canadian government played a minor role, the largest drama on the world scene was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in January 1979, the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran later that year. The Canadian government and the CIA worked very closely in Iran, the Canadian Embassy even housing some CIA personnel who had escaped the crowds of students. But that kind of assistance is not something to hide. Another explanation was needed to explain shock waves in Ottawa.Recently, a source using a code name known to?FTW?has surfaced with information relating to Promis. In his communiqués he describes the use of Promis software by the Bush family to loot the secret bank accounts of Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos. Promis is able to do this because funds can be transferred out of accounts without a trace. Remember the trap door? The rule of thumb here is that crooks, especially CIA sponsored crooks, don't usually go to the cops when somebody steals their stolen money. From my personal experience in the era, and direct exposure to two members of the Iranian Royal family, both before and after the overthrow, I am acutely aware that the Shah, then perhaps the richest man in the world, was actually targeted by the CIA. His downfall was no accident. Once worth more than $20 billion, the Shah ended his life a refugee in Egypt. Many of his billions disappeared and the family was very upset about it.Could the financial power of Promis have been turned loose first through Canada when Carter was President in the US? The Shah did a lot of banking in Canada. We may never know the answer. But if the downfalls of wealthy US supported dictators Noriega and Marcos are any indication the answer is likely, yes. And the Shah was wealthier than both of them put together. Where'd all?that?money go?HeadlinesOn August 25th?the?Toronto Star?broke what was to become a series of stories by Valerie Lawson and Allan Thompson. The cat was out of the bag. Various figures known to have direct connections to Riconosciuto had been virtually dogging the Mounties' every move as they traveled in the US. One even contacted me just days after the Mounties left LA. It was a story that could not be kept under wraps forever. Most of the?Star?story was accurate. It was going to be difficult for the RCMP to move quietly now. A Reuters story the same day closed with the following paragraphs,?"Canada?s national counterintelligence agency said in a June report that friendly nations were making concerted efforts to steal sensitive technology and information."The Canadian Security Intelligence Service said outsiders were particularly interested in aerospace, biotechnology, chemicals, communications, information technology, mining and metallurgy, nuclear energy, oil and gas, and the environment."?That was Geomatics, at the heart of Canada's space program, Canada's flagship space technology. I checked the?Star?story. There had been no mention of high tech or space related issues. What did Reuters know? In mid September, after receiving confidential source documents related to the case telling me that one version of Promis, modified in Canada was handled through the Canadian firm I.P. Sharp, I got an answer. A quick search on the web revealed that Sharp, a well documented component of the case, had been bought by a Reuters company in the early 90s. Hamilton later told me that he had heard that Reuters possibly had the Promis software. That would explain how they knew about the aerospace connection.Michael Dobbs of?The Washington Post?called and asked what I knew. I confirmed that I had met with the Mounties but didn't know much else other than giving them the Tyree flow charts. The?Post?was never going to tell the truth. Their business was keeping secrets, not revealing them. The Mounties had made waves.On August 28 the phone rang and it was a collect call from Tyree. "Get a tape recorder and turn it on," he said. Over the course of the next half an hour Tyree, obviously reading from detailed and copious notes, named individuals and companies dealing with Promis software and its progeny. The tape was specific down to naming specific engineers in military and private corporations doing Promis research. Tyree described specific Congressional committees that had been infiltrated with "enhanced" Promis. Tyree described how Promis progeny, having inspired four new computer languages had made possible the positioning of satellites so far out in space that they were untouchable. At the same time the progeny had improved video quality to the point where the same satellite could focus on a single human hair. The ultimate big picture.Promis progeny had also evolved to the point where neural pads could be attached to plugs in the back of the human head and thought could be translated into electrical impulses that would be equally capable of flying a plane or wire transferring money. Names like Sandia, Cal-Tech, Micron, Tech University of Graz, Oded Leventer and Massimo Grimaldi rolled from his lips as he tore through the pages of notes. Data, such as satellite reconnaissance, could also now be downloaded from a satellite directly into a human brain. The evolution of the artificial intelligence had progressed to a point where animal behavior and thought were being decoded. Mechanical humans were being tested. Animals were being controlled by computer.Billy saved Canada for last."Here's how we fuck Canada," he started. He was laughing as he facetiously described what was coming as some sort of bizarre payback for the War of 1812. Then, placing the evolutions of Promis in context with the Canadian story Tyree asked a question as to why one would really now need to go to all the trouble of monitoring all of a foreign country's intelligence operations. "There's an easier way to get what I want," he said. "I access their banks. I access their banks and I know who does what and who's getting ready to do what," he said. He described how Canada had been provided with modified Promis software which Canada then modified, or thought they had modified, again to eliminate the trap door. That software turned loose in the financial and scientific communities then became Canada's means of believing that they were securing the trap door information from the entities to whom they provided?their?versions of Promis. But, unknown, to the Canadians the Elbit chips in the systems bypassed the trap doors and permitted the transmission of data when everyone thought the computers were turned off and secure. Tyree did not explain how the chips physically got into the Canadian computers."This," Tyree said "is how you cripple everything Canada does that you don't like. And if you want proof I offer you the fact that we toppled the government of Australia in 1980." "[Prime Minister] Gough Whitlam and Nugan Hand [Bank]," I answered. Tyree affirmed. The Labor Government of Whitlam had been suddenly unseated after making nationalistic noise and questioning the role of US intelligence agencies in Australian affairs.The issue of a coming feud between the dollar and the Euro came up. I suggested that rapidly vanishing support in South America and Europe both were threatening the military operations of "Plan Colombia" and the economic boost it would give the US economy. Tyree jumped in, "If I can put Canada in line and show the Eurodollar, the 'Eurotrash' what I have already done to my neighbor, whom I value to some degree - remember, these are not nice people - these are financial thugs at their worst. So what they are going to do is sit down discreetly and say, 'Look, this is what we did to Canada. Now, would you like us to do this to the European market as well?' Mike, they're not going to think twice about it? A weapon is only good if someone knows what its capability is. Prior to using the atomic bomb it was irrelevant." He continued, "They refer to it as the Nagasaki Syndrome."After describing in some detail how the financial powers-that-be had gutted American manufacturing productivity through globalization he described a strategy intended to halt any move by the Euro to overshadow the dollar or even compete with it. It was pure economic hostage taking and Canada would be the object lesson. Then, chillingly, he described something familiar to any military strategist. The penetration and looting of HUD was the test bed, the proving ground, the "White Sands" of the Promis economic Atom bomb. Once the CIA and the economic powers-that-be had proven that, over a period of years, they could infiltrate and loot $59 billion dollars from HUD, they knew that they could do it anywhere. Said Tyree, "Then they knew they had what it took to go abroad and create mayhem? It was planned twenty years ago."It took several days to reach Sean McDade who had been on vacation. I played the Tyree tape for him over an open phone line into RCMP headquarters. He asked me to make a physical copy right away and send it to him. After he had had time to listen to it he cautioned me against sending it anywhere else. I told him that as long as his investigation was active that I would do nothing more than make the standard copies I make of any sensitive documents as a precaution. I could tell that the tape had rattled him. Though I had known from the start that the large and energetic Mountie, whom I believed to be a dedicated an honest man, would never be allowed to ride his case out to the end, I still had hopes. But in my heart I knew that Tyree was right. In all the years he had been feeding me information I had never known him to be wrong and, apparently, neither had Bill Hamilton. I did not send a copy of the tape to Hamilton because I knew how difficult and potentially dangerous McDade's job was going to be now that the press had exposed him. Having been a cop in dangerous political, CIA infested waters I knew what it was like to not know who you could trust.If keeping the tape quiet would give the Mounties and edge I would do it - but only as long as they had a case.Sudden DeathThen it was over.On September 16th?the Toronto Star announced that the RCMP had suddenly closed its Promis investigation with the flat disclaimer that it did not have and never did have?any?version of Bill Hamilton's software. That was as shocking a statement as it was absurd. "The only way that you can identify Promis," said a perplexed Bill Hamilton, "is to compare the code. Sean McDade said that he was not an engineer and couldn't read code so how did he know?" Hamilton was as emphatic as I was that McDade had said that RCMP had Promis. So was Cheri Seymour. I offered a fleeting hope that the Mounties were playing a game, saying that they had terminated the investigation to shake some of the incessant probing that had been taking place around McDade's every move.I was finally convinced when McDade e-mailed me and said that it was his view that the Mounties did not have?any?version of Promis and that he had no objections if I decided to write a story. I then agreed with Seymour that, whether they had said so or not, both the Mounties and Sue Todd had left enough visible footprints that it was their intention for us to go public. It might be the only protection they had.As I had predicted from the start, they had come too close to bigger issues and been shut down ruthlessly. I called Sue Todd who lamented that she was marking her three year homicide investigation, "Closed by the press." Even though she was convincing I had the feeling that she was playing back a rehearsed script. I told her that I was not satisfied with the statements that there was no Promis in the RCMP. I recalled our lunchtime conversation of August 3rd. She agreed with me that the RCMP mission was to determine whether or not RCMP Promis was a stolen or compromised version. She knew that they had it. So did I. I e-mailed McDade one last time saying that I was going to write it like I remembered it. He never got back to me.Bill Hamilton added one last twist when he told me in a conversation that the Mounties claimed to have developed their software on their own. That, he said, was nonsense because the Mounties did not have that kind of sophistication or ability. He thought that the RCMP program had been specially prepared FBI. That would explain the role of retired FBI agent Ted Gunderson. Though I didn't tell him at the time I knew that he had obtained that information from Bill Tyree. And Bill Tyree and his provider, the Sergeant Major, are two people that Bill Hamilton and I both have learned to respect.DiplomacyJust three days after the?Toronto Star?announced the abrupt termination of the RCMP investigation the Canada based International Network on Disarmament and Globalization (INDG) posted an electronic bulletin on a speech by former Canadian Ambassador to the US. In an address the night before, less than 48 hours after the termination of the RCMP investigation, Derek Burney, current President of CAE, a Canadian firm manufacturing flight simulators, criticized the U.S. aerospace industry for being overly-protectionist under the guise of national security. In addressing the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, according to large stories that appeared in CP (Canadian Press) and Toronto's?Globe and Mail,Burney was characterized as sounding unusually tough in his criticism of American policy that was freezing Canadian firms out of aerospace contracts. Both stories were ambivalent in that they alternately made Burney sound critical of the U.S. while championing Canadian interests and at the same time weak as he noted that Mexico stood poised under NAFTA to replace Canada as the U.S.'s number one trading partner.The CP story made two telling observations. It quoted Burney as saying that Canada needed to do more to "preserve and enhance its access to the American market." Then it closed it's story on Burney's speech, advocating a compromise agreement between the US and Canada, by saying that Burney's position "risks being perceived here at home as a sellout or worse."A close examination of Burney's remarks, published in the INDG bulletin revealed something more like an obsequious surrender rather than a mere sellout. While there were a few tough-talking paragraphs that saved Canadian face, the essence of the speech was that Burney believed that American defense firms, the largest of which is Lockheed-Martin, were poised to transfer the bulk of their contracts to companies in Mexico. Citing Canada's dependence upon access to American avionics and "databases," Burney painted a picture that seemingly left Canada over a barrel. Without access to American technology the Canadian aerospace industry could not function.Buried deep in the text of Burney's speech we found the following paragraph which is, we believe, the best place to end this story."That does not mean that we have to agree with everything Washington does or says or do things exactly as the Americans do. On the contrary, one of the advantages of being a good neighbor and close ally is that we can speak freely and forthrightly to the Americans - provided we have a solid case and are seeking to influence their position and not simply capture a quick headline. And, never forget, it is always more effective to be frank in private. Otherwise your motive can be somewhat suspect." INSLAW Octopus?The House Judiciary Committee lists these crimes as among the possible violations perpetrated by "high-level Justice officials and private individuals": >> Conspiracy to commit an offense>> Fraud>> Wire fraud>> Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and committees>> Tampering with a witness>> Retaliation against a witness>> Perjury>> Interference with commerce by threats or violence>> Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) violations>> Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys>> Receiving stolen goodsBill Hamilton, Inslaw & PROMIS Who: Bill Hamilton and his wife, Nancy Hamilton, start Inslaw to nurture PROMIS (Prosecutors Management Information Systems). Why #1:The DOJ, aware that its case management system is in dire need of automation, funds Inslaw and PROMIS. After creating a public-domain version, Inslaw makes significant enhancements to PROMIS and, aware that the US market for legal automation is worth $3 billion, goes private in the early '80s. Why #2:Designed as case-management software for federal prosecutors, PROMIS has the ability to combine disparate databases, and to track people by their involvement with the legal system. Hamilton and others now claim that the DOJ has modified PROMIS to monitor intelligence operations, agents and targets, instead of legal cases. By late November, 1992 the nation had turned its attention from the election-weary capital to Little Rock, Ark., where a new generation of leaders conferred about the future. But in a small Washington D.C. office, Bill Hamilton, president and founder of Inslaw Inc., and Dean Merrill, a former Inslaw vice president, were still very much concerned about the past. The two men studied six photographs laid out before them. "Have you ever seen any of these men?" Merrill was asked. Immediately he singled out the second photo. In a separate line up, Hamilton's secretary singled out the same photo. Both said the man had visited Inslaw in February 1983 for a presentation of PROMIS, Inslaw's bread-and-butter legal software. Hamilton, who knew the purpose of the line-up, identified the visitor as Dr. Ben Orr. At the time of his visit, Orr claimed to be a public prosecutor from Israel. Orr was impressed with the power of PROMIS (Prosecutors Management Information Systems), which had recently been updated by Inslaw to run on powerful 32-bit VAX computers from Digital Equipment Corp. "He fell in love with the VAX version," Hamilton recalled. Dr. Orr never came back, and he never bought anything. No one knew why at the time. But for Hamilton, who has fought the Department of Justice (DOJ) for almost 10 years in an effort to salvage his business, once his co- workers recognized the man in the second photo, it all made perfect sense. For the second photo was not of the mysterious Dr. Orr, it was of Rafael Etian, chief of the Israeli defense force's anti-terrorism intelligence unit. The Department of Justice sent him over for a look at the property they were about to "misappropriate," and Etian liked what he saw. Department of Justice documents record that one Dr. Ben Orr left the DOJ on May 6, 1983, with a computer tape containing PROMIS tucked under his arm. What for the past decade has been known as the Inslaw affair began to unravel in the final, shredder-happy days of the Bush administration. According to Federal court documents, PROMIS was stolen from Inslaw by the Department of Justice directly after Etian's 1983 visit to Inslaw (a later congressional investigation preferred to use the word "misappropriated"). And according to sworn affidavits, PROMIS was then given or sold at a profit to Israel and as many as 80 other countries by Dr. Earl W. Brian, a man with close personal and business ties to then-President Ronald Reagan and then-Presidential counsel Edwin Meese. A House Judiciary Committee report released last September found evidence raising "serious concerns" that high officials at the Department of Justice executed a pre-meditated plan to destroy Inslaw and co-opt the rights to its PROMIS software. The committee's call for an independent counsel have fallen on deaf ears. One journalist, Danny Casolaro, died as he attempted to tell the story (see sidebar), and boxes of documents relating to the case have been destroyed, stolen, or conveniently "lost" by the Department of Justice. But so far, not a single person has been held accountable.WIRED has spent two years searching for the answers to the questions Inslaw poses: Why would Justice steal PROMIS? Did it then cover up the theft? Did it let associates of government officials sell PROMIS to foreign governments, which then used the software to track political dissidents instead of legal cases? (Israel has reportedly used PROMIS to track troublesome Palestinians.)?The implications continue: that Meese profited from the sales of the stolen property. That Brian, Meese's business associate, may have been involved in the October Surprise (the oft-debunked but persistent theory that the Reagan campaign conspired to insure that US hostages in Iran were held until after Reagan won the 1980 election, see sidebar). That some of the moneys derived from the illegal sales of PROMIS furthered covert and illegal government programs in Nicaragua. That Oliver used PROMIS as a population tracking instrument for his White House-based domestic emergency management program.?Each new set of allegations leads to a new set of possibilities, which makes the story still more difficult to comprehend. But one truth is obvious: What the Inslaw case presents, in its broadest possible implications, is a painfully clear snapshot of how the Justice Department operated during the Reagan-Bush years.?This is the case that won't go away, the case that shows how justice and public service gave way to profit and political expediency, how those within the administration's circle of privilege were allowed to violate private property and civil rights for their own profit.?Sound like a conspiracy theorist's dream? Absolutely. But the fact is, it's true.?The Background?Imagine you are in charge of the legal arm of the most powerful government on the face of the globe, but your internal information systems are mired in the archaic technology of the 1960s. There's a Department of Justice database, a CIA database, an Attorney's General database, an IRS database, and so on, but none of them can share information. That makes tracking multiple offenders pretty darn difficult, and building cases against them a long and bureaucratic task.?Along comes a computer program that can integrate all these databases, and it turns out its development was originally funded by the government under a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant in the 1970s. That means the software is public domain ... free!Edwin Meese was apparently quite taken with PROMIS. He told an April 1981 gathering of prosecutors that PROMIS was "one of the greatest opportunities for [law enforcement] success in the future." In March 1982, Inslaw won a $9.6 million contract from the Justice Department to install the public domain version of PROMIS in 20 US Attorney's offices as a pilot program. If successful, the company would install PROMIS in the remaining 74 federal prosecutors' offices around the country. The eventual market for complete automation of the Federal court system was staggering: as much as $3 billion, according to Bill Hamilton. But Hamilton would never see another federal contract.?Designed as a case-management system for prosecutors, PROMIS has the ability to track people. "Every use of PROMIS in the court system is tracking people," said Inslaw President Hamilton. "You can rotate the file by case, defendant, arresting officer, judge, defense lawyer, and it's tracking all the names of all the people in all the cases."?What this means is that PROMIS can provide a complete rundown of all federal cases in which a lawyer has been involved, or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented defendant A, or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented white-collar criminals, at which stage in each of the cases the lawyer agreed to a plea bargain, and so on. Based on this information, PROMIS can help a prosecutor determine when a plea will be taken in a particular type of case.?But the real power of PROMIS, according to Hamilton, is that with a staggering 570,000 lines of computer code, PROMIS can integrate innumerable databases without requiring any reprogramming. In essence, PROMIS can turn blind data into information. And anyone in government will tell you that information, when wielded with finesse, begets power. Converted to use by intelligence agencies, as has been alleged in interviews by ex-CIA and Israeli Mossad agents, PROMIS can be a powerful tracking device capable of monitoring intelligence operations, agents and targets, instead of legal cases.?At the time of its inception, PROMIS was the most powerful program of its type. But a similar program, DALITE, was developed under another LEAA grant by D. Lowell Jensen, the Alameda County (Calif.) District Attorney. In the mid-1970s, the two programs vied for a lucrative Los Angeles County contract and Inslaw won out. (Early in his career, Ed Meese worked under Jensen at the Alameda County District Attorney's office. Jensen was later appointed to Meese's Justice Department during the Reagan presidency.)?In the final days of the Carter administration, the LEAA was phased out. Inslaw had made a name for itself and Hamilton wanted to stay in business, so he converted Inslaw to a for-profit, private business. The new Inslaw did not own the public domain version of PROMIS because it had been developed with LEAA funds. But because it had funded a major upgrade with its own money, Inslaw did claim ownership of the enhanced PROMIS.?Through his lawyers, Hamilton sent the Department of Justice a letter outlining his company's decision to go private with the enhanced PROMIS. The letter specifically asked the DOJ to waive any proprietary rights it might claim to the enhanced version. In a reply dated August 11, 1982, a DOJ lawyer wrote: "To the extent that any other enhancements (beyond the public domain PROMIS) were privately funded by Inslaw and not specified to be delivered to the Department of Justice under any contract or other agreement, Inslaw may assert whatever proprietary rights it may have."?Arnold Burns, then a deputy attorney general, clarified the DOJ's position in a now-critical 1988 deposition: "Our lawyers were satisfied that Inslaw's lawyers could sustain the claim in court, that we had waived those [proprietary] rights."?The enhancements Inslaw claimed were significant. In the 1970s the public- domain PROMIS was adapted to run on Burroughs, Prime, Wang and IBM machines, all of which used less-powerful 16-bit architectures. With private funds, Inslaw converted that version of PROMIS to a 32-bit architecture running on a DEC VAX minicomputer. It was this version that Etian saw in 1983. It was this version that the DOJ stole later that year through a pre-meditated plan, according to two court decisions.?The Dispute Grows?On a gorgeous spring morning in 1981, Lawrence McWhorter, director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, put his feet on his desk, lit an Italian cigar, eyed his subordinate Frank Mallgrave and said through a haze of blue smoke: "We're out to get Inslaw."?McWhorter had just asked Mallgrave to oversee the pilot installation of PROMIS, a job Mallgrave refused, unaware at the time that he was being asked to participate in Inslaw's deliberate destruction.?"We were just in his office for what I call a B.S. type discussion," Mallgrave told WIRED. "I remember it was a bright sunny morning.... (McWhorter) asked me if I would be interested in assuming the position of Assistant Director for Data Processing...basically working with Inslaw. I told him...I just had no interest in that job. And then, almost as an afterthought, he said 'We're out to get Inslaw.' I remember it to this day."?After Mallgrave refused the job, McWhorter gave it to C. Madison "Brick" Brewer. Brewer at one time worked for Inslaw, but was allowed to resign when Hamilton found his performance inadequate, according to court documents. Brewer was then hired into the Department of Justice specifically to oversee the contract of his former employer. (The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility ruled there was no conflict of interest.) He would later tell a federal court that everything he did regarding Inslaw was approved by Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen, the same man who once supervised DALITE, the product which lost a major contract to Inslaw in the 1970s.?Brewer, who now refuses to comment on the Inslaw case, was aided in his new DOJ job by Peter Videnieks. Videnieks was fresh from the Customs Service, where he oversaw contracts between that agency and Hadron, Inc., a company controlled by Meese and Reagan-crony Earl Brian. Hadron, a closely held government systems consulting firm, was to figure prominently in the forthcoming scandal.?According to congressional and court documents, Brewer and Videnieks didn't tarry in their efforts to destroy Inslaw. After Inslaw's installation of public domain PROMIS had begun, the DOJ claimed that Inslaw, which was supporting the installation with its own computers running the enhanced version of PROMIS, was on the brink of bankruptcy. Although Inslaw was contracted to provide only the public domain PROMIS, the DOJ demanded that Inslaw turn over the enhanced version of PROMIS in case the company could not complete its contractual obligations. Inslaw agreed to this contract modification, but on two conditions: that the DOJ recognize Inslaw's proprietary rights to enhanced PROMIS, and that the DOJ not distribute enhanced PROMIS beyond the boundaries of the contract (the 94 US Attorney's offices.)?The DOJ agreed to these conditions, but requested Inslaw prove it had indeed created enhanced PROMIS with private funds. Inslaw said it would, and the enhanced software was given to the DOJ.?Once the DOJ had control of PROMIS, it dogmatically refused to verify that Inslaw had created the enhancements, essentially rendering the contract modification useless. When Inslaw protested, the DOJ began to withhold payments. Two years later, Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy.?As the contract problems with DOJ emerged, Hamilton received a phone call from Dominic Laiti, chief executive of Hadron. Laiti wanted to buy Inslaw. Hamilton refused to sell. According to Hamilton's statements in court documents, Laiti then warned him that Hadron had friends in the government and if Inslaw didn't sell willingly, it would be forced to sell.?Those government connections included Peter Videnieks over at the Justice Department, according to John Schoolmeester, Videnieks' former Customs Service supervisor. Laiti and Videnieks both deny ever meeting or having any contact, but Schoolmeester has told both WIRED and the House Judiciary Committee it was "impossible" for the pair not to know each other because of the type of work and oversight involved in Hadron's relationship with the Customs Service. Schoolmeester also said that because of Brian's relationship with then-President Reagan (see sidebar), Hadron was considered an "inside" company.?The full-court press continued. In 1985 Allen & Co., a New York investment banking concern with close business ties to Earl Brian, helped finance a second company, SCT, which also attempted to purchase Inslaw. That attempt also failed, but in the process a number of Inslaw's customers were warned by SCT that Inslaw would soon go bankrupt and would not survive reorganization, Hamilton said in court documents.?Broke and with no friends in the government, on June 9, 1986, Inslaw filed a $30 million lawsuit against the DOJ in bankruptcy court. Inslaw's attorney for the case (he was later fired from his firm under extremely suspicious circumstances -- see sidebar) was Leigh Ratiner of the Wash- ington firm Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin. Ratiner chose bankruptcy court for the filing based on the premise that Justice, the creditor, had control of PROMIS. He explained recently, "It was forbidden by the BankruptcyAct for the creditor to exercise control over the debtor property. And that theory -- that the Justice Department was exercising control -- was the basis that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction.?"As far as I know, this was the first time this theory had been used," Ratiner told WIRED. "This was ground-breaking. It was, in fact, a legitimate use of the code."?It worked, but to only a point. In 1987, Washington, D.C., bankruptcy judge George Bason ruled in a scathing opinion that Justice had stolen PROMIS through "trickery, fraud and deceit." He awarded Inslaw $6.8 million in damages and, in the process, found that Justice Department officials made a concerted effort to bankrupt Inslaw and place the company's enhanced PROMIS up for public auction (where it would then be fodder for Brian's Hadron). Bason's findings of fact relied on testimony from Justice employees and internal memoranda, some of which outlined a plan to "get" PROMIS software.?Bason cited the testimony of a number of the government's defense witnesses as being "unbelievable" and openly questioned the credibility of others. In his 216-page ruling, Bason cites numerous instances where testimony from government witnesses is contradictory. (In a private interview with WIRED he noted that as a bankruptcy judge he was precluded from bringing perjury charges against government employees, but he had recommended to various congressional panels that an inquiry was necessary.)?When the DOJ appealed, a federal district court affirmed Bason, ruling that there was "convincing, perhaps compelling support for the findings set forth by the bankruptcy court." But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the case on a legal technicality, finding that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to hear the damages claim. A petition to the Supreme Court in October 1991 was denied review.?The IRS got into the act as well. Inslaw was audited several times in the course of their battles with the Department of Justice. In fact, the day following the bankruptcy trial, S. Martin Teel, a lawyer for the IRS, requested that Judge Bason liquidate Inslaw. Bason ruled against Teel. As a coda to the lawsuit, Bason, a respected jurist, was not re-appointed to the bench when his term expired. His replacement? S. Martin Teel. (Bason has testified before Congress that the DOJ orchestrated his replacement as punishment for his rulings in the Inslaw case.)?But Inslaw's troubles did not end with bankruptcy. Frustrated by Attorney General Dick Thornburgh's stubborn refusal to investigate the DOJ or appoint an independent prosecutor, Elliot Richardson, President Nixon's former attorney general and a counsel to Inslaw for nearly 10 years (he retired this January), filed a case in U.S. District Court demanding that Thornburgh investigate the Inslaw affair. In 1990, the court ruled that a prosecutor's decision not to investigate -- "no matter how indefensible" -- cannot be corrected by any court. Another loss for Inslaw.?Broke and still attempting to revive itself, Inslaw has not refiled its suit, preferring to wait for a new administration and a new DOJ.?By this time, the spinning jennies of the conspiracy network had grasped the Inslaw story and were all-too-eager to put their stitch in the unraveling yarn. According to documents and affidavits filed during court cases and congressional inquiries, the Hamiltons and their lawyers began receiving phone calls, visits and memos from a string of shadowy sources, many of them connected to international drug, spy and arms networks. Their allegations: That Earl Brian helped orchestrate the October Surprise for then-candidate Reagan, and that Brian's eventual payment for that orchestration was a cut of the PROMIS action. Brian and the DOJ then resold or gave PROMIS to as many as 80 foreign and domestic agencies. (Brian adamantly denies any connection to Inslaw or the October Surprise.)?These sources, which include ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe and a computer programmer of dubious reputation, Michael Riconosciuto, allege that PROMIS had been further modified by the DOJ so that any agency using it could be subject to undetected DOJ eavesdropping -- a sort of software Trojan Horse. If these allegations are true, by the late 1980s PROMIS could have become the digital ears of the US Government's spy effort -- both internal and external. Certainly something the administration wouldn't want nosy congressional committees looking into.?The diaphanous web of more than 30 sources who offered information to Inslaw were not "what a lawyer might consider ideal witnesses," Richardson admitted. But their stories yielded a surprising consistency. "The picture that emerges from the individual statements is remarkably detailed and consistent," he wrote in an Oct. 21, 1991 New York Times Op Ed.?The Congressional Investigation?The string of lawsuits and widening allegations caught the eye of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas, who in 1989 launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later as attorney general, and D. Lowell Jensen, a former assistant and deputy attorney general and now a US district judge in San Francisco, conspired to steal PROMIS.?"High government officials were involved," the report states. "... (S)everal individuals testified under oath that Inslaw's PROMIS software was stolen and distributed internationally in order to provide financial gain and to further intelligence and foreign policy objectives.""Actions against Inslaw were implemented through the Project Manager (Brick Brewer) from the beginning of the contract and under the direction of high- level Justice Department officials," the report says. "The evidence...demonstrates that high-level Department officials deliberately ignored Inslaw proprietary rights and misappropriated its PROMIS software for use at locations not covered under contract with the company."?The Committee report accuses former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh of stonewalling congressional inquiries, turning a blind eye to the possible destruction of evidence within the Justice Department, and ignoring the DOJ's harassment of employees questioned by Congressional investigators.?Rep. Brooks told WIRED that the report should be the starting point for a grand jury investigation. The owners of Inslaw, Brooks said, were "ravaged by the Justice Department...treated like dogs."?Brooks' committee voted along party lines, 21-13, to adopt the investigative report on Aug. 11, 1992. The report asked then-Attorney General William Barr to "immediately settle Inslaw's claims in a fair and equitable manner" and "strongly recommends that the Department seek the appointment of an Independent Counsel."?As he did with the burgeoning Iraqgate scandal and as his predecessor did before him, Barr refused to appoint an independent counsel to the Inslaw case, relying instead on a retired federal judge, in this case Nicholas Bua, who reported to Barr alone. In other words, the DOJ was responsible for investigating itself.?"The way in which the Department of Justice has treated this case, to me, is inexplicable," Richardson told WIRED. "I think the circumstances most strongly suggest that there must be wider ramifications."?The Threads Unravel?Proof of those wider ramifications are just starting to leak out, as DOJ and other agency employees begin to talk, although for the most part they spoke to WIRED only on condition of anonymity.?On Nov. 20, 1990, the Judiciary Committee wrote a letter asking CIA director William Webster to help the committee "by determining whether the CIA has the PROMIS software."?The official reply on December 11th: "We have checked with Agency components that track data processing procurement or that would be likely users of PROMIS, and we have been unable to find any indication that the Agency ever obtained PROMIS software."?But a retired CIA official whose job it was to investigate the Inslaw allegations internally told WIRED that the DOJ gave PROMIS to the CIA. "Well," the retired official told WIRED, "the congressional committees were after us to look into allegations that somehow the agency had been culpable of what would have been, in essence, taking advantage of, like stealing, the technology [PROMIS]. We looked into it and there was enough to it, the agency had been involved."?How was the CIA involved? According to the same source, who requested anonymity, the agency accepted stolen goods, not aware that a major scandal was brewing. In other words, the DOJ robbed the bank, and the CIA took a share of the plunder.?But the CIA was not the only place where illegal versions of PROMIS cropped up. Canadian documents (held by the House Judiciary Committee and obtained by WIRED) place PROMIS in the hands of various Canadian government agencies. These documents include two letters to Inslaw from Canadian agencies requesting detailed user manuals -- even though Inslaw has never sold PROMIS to Canada. Canadian officials now claim the letters were in error.?And, of course, the software was transferred to Rafael Etian's anti- terrorism unit in Israel. The DOJ claims it was the LEAA version, but former Israeli spy Ben Menashe and others claim it was the 32-bit version. According to Ben Menashe, other government departments within Israel also saw PROMIS, and this time the pitchman was Dr. Earl Brian. In a 1991 affidavit related to the bankruptcy proceedings, Ben Menashe claimed: "I attended a meeting at my Department's headquarters in Tel Aviv in 1987 during which Dr. Earl W. Brian of the United States made a presentation intended to facilitate the use of the PROMIS computer software."?"Dr. Brian stated during his presentation that all U.S. Intelligence Agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice were then using the PROMIS computer software," Ben Menashe continued. While the credibility of his statements has been questioned, the Israeli government has admitted that Ben Menashe had access to extremely sensitive information during his tenure at the Mossad.?Asked why Israeli intelligence would have been so interested in Inslaw and PROMIS, Ben Menashe said, "PROMIS was a very big thing for us guys, a very, very big thing ... it was probably the most important issue of the '80s because it just changed the whole intelligence outlook. The whole form of intelligence collection changed. This whole thing changed it." PROMIS, Ben Menashe said, was perfect for tracking Palestinians and other political dissidents.?(Ben Menashe's superior during this period was Rafael Etian, or Dr. Ben Orr, as he was known during his 1983 visit to Inslaw.)?Apparently, Israel was not the only country interested in using PROMIS for internal security purposes. Lt. Col. Oliver North also may have been using the program. According to several intelligence community sources, PROMIS was in use at a 6,100-square-foot command center built on the sixth floor of the Justice Department. According to both a contractor who helped design the center and information disclosed during the Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North had a similar, but smaller, White House operations room that was connected by computer link to the DOJ's command center.?Using the computers in his command center, North tracked dissidents and potential troublemakers within the United States as part of a domestic emergency preparedness program, commissioned under Reagan's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), according to sources and published reports. Using PROMIS, sources point out, North could have drawn up lists of anyone ever arrested for a political protest, for example, or anyone who had ever refused to pay their taxes. Compared to PROMIS, Richard Nixon's enemies list or Sen. Joe McCarthy's blacklist look downright crude. This operation was so sensitive that when Rep. Jack Brooks asked North about it during the Iran-Contra hearings, the hearing was immediately suspended pending an executive (secret) conference. When the hearings were reconvened, the issue of North's FEMA dealings was dropped.?A Thorough Cleaning at the White House??If the case against the Department of Justice is so solid, why hasn't anything been done? The answer is timing. The next move belongs to retired Federal Judge Bua, since he was given oversight by Attorney General Barr in lieu of an independent counsel. And everyone, including Judge Bua, whose non-binding report was pending at WIRED's early December deadline, seems to be waiting for the new administration. Both the Clinton/Gore transition team and House majority leader Richard Gephardt had no comment on the Inslaw case pending Clinton's inauguration.?But a source close to Bua's investigation said the retired judge may present the DOJ with a bombshell. While not required to suggest a settlement, the source believes Bua will reportedly recommend that Inslaw be given between $25 million and $50 million for its mistreatment by the DOJ. (In last-minute negotiations, Inslaw attorney Elliot Richardson held brief meetings with DOJ officials in mid-December. Richardson pressed for a settlement ranging from $25 million to $500 million, but the DOJ balked, according to newspaper reports.)?But the question remains: Can the DOJ paper over the willful destruction of a company, the plundering of its software, the illegal resale of that software to further foreign policy objectives, and the overt obstruction of justice with $25 million??Bua's final recommendation, expected sometime before Clinton's inauguration, is that the Inslaw Affair "requires further investigation," the source said. That conclusion mirrors the House Judiciary Committee's report. Privately, many Democrats, including Gephardt, have expressed a strong desire to get to the bottom of the Inslaw case. Rep. Brooks will be pushing for yet another investigation of the scandal, this time independent of the Justice Department, according to Congressional sources. Once Bua's report is out, the next and possibly final move will be up to a new president, a new Congress, and, possibly, a renewed sense of justice.?Earl W. Brian - The Consumate Insider?Dr. Earl W. Brian has made quite a career of riding Reagan and Meese's coattails. After a stint in Vietnam, where he worked as a combat physician in the unit that supplied air support for Operation Phoenix, Brian returned to California with a chest full of ribbons and a waiting job - as Secretary of Health - with then-Governor Reagan's administration. (Operation Phoenix, a well-documented CIA political assassination program, used computers to track "enemies" in Vietnam.)?In 1974, Brian resigned his cabinet post with Governor Reagan to run for the Senate against Alan Cranston. After his defeat, Brian moved into the world of business and soon ran into trouble. His flagship company, Xionics, was cited by the Security and Exchange Commission for issuing press releases designed to boost stock prices with exaggerated or bloated information. The SEC also accused Xionics of illegally paying "commissions" to brokers, according to SEC documents.?At the close of the Reagan governorship, Brian was involved in a public scandal having to do with - surprise - stolen computer tapes. The tapes, which contained records of 70,000 state welfare files, were eventually returned - Brian claimed he had a right to them under a contract signed in the last hours of the administration. (Brian said he just wanted to develop a better way of doing welfare business.)?In 1980, Brian formed Biotech Capital Corp., a venture capital firm designed to invest in biological and medical companies. Ultimately, Brian has invested in and owned several companies, including FNN (Financial News Network) and UPI, both of which ended up in dire financial straits.?Ursula Meese, who like her husband knew Brian from the Reagan cabinet, was an early investor in Biotech, using $15,000 (borrowed from Edwin Thomas, a Meese aide in the White House and another Reaganite from California) to purchase 2,000 shares on behalf of the Meese's two children, according to information made public during Meese's confirmation hearings for Attorney General.?It is those Reagan-Meese connections that continue to drag Brian into the Inslaw affair. For why would Brian, of all people, be the recipient of stolen PROMIS? PROMIS, after all, was a major part in government automation contracts estimated at $3 billion, according to Inslaw President Bill Hamilton. That's quite a political plum.?One possibility is Ed and Ursula Meese's financial connections to Brian. Another is a payoff for Brian's role in the October Surprise Even if he manages to evade the Inslaw allegations, Brian may still be in hot water. As of this writing, Financial News Network's financial dealings were under investigation by a Los Angeles Grand Jury, according to sources who have testified before it. - RLF?What A Surprise!?Earl W. Brian says he wasn't in Paris in October 1980, but investors were told a different story?As Inslaw President Bill Hamilton moved his company from non-profit status to the private sector in 1980, Ronald Reagan was running for President, negotiations for the release of the American hostages in Iran had apparently hit a snag, and Dr. Earl W. Brian was touring Canada touting stock in his newly acquired Clinical Sciences Inc.?History records that the hostages were released as Ronald Reagan took the Presidential oath of office, and that shortly thereafter, Inslaw received a $9.6 million contract from the Department of Justice. At the same time, Earl Brian was appointed to a White House post to advise on health-care issues. Brian reported directly to Ed Meese. He also arranged White House tours to woo investors in his government contracting company, Hadron Inc., according to a Canadian investment banker who took a tour.?But these seemingly random historical connections between Inslaw, Hadron, the Reagan White House and Earl Brian take on a new meaning when considered in light of the "October Surprise," the persistent allegation that the Reagan campaign negotiated with Iranian officials to guarantee that US hostages would not be released before Reagan won election in 1980.?The October Surprise theory hinges in part on alleged negotiations between the Reagan campaign and the Iranians on the weekend of Oct. 17-21, 1980, in Paris, among other places.The deal, according to former Iranian President Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe, and a former CIA contract agent interviewed by WIRED, included the payment of $40 million to the Iranians.?According to several sources, Earl Brian, one of Reagan's close advisors, made it quite clear that he was planning to be in Paris that very weekend. Ben Menashe, who says he was one of six Israelis, 12 Americans and 16 Iranians present at the Paris talks, said, "I saw Brian in Paris."?Brian was interviewed by Senate investigators on July 28, 1992, and denied under oath any connection with the alleged negotiations. He told the investigators he did not have a valid passport during the October 1980 dates. But according to court documents and interviews, Brian told Canadian investors in his newly acquired Clinical Sciences, Inc., that he would be in Paris that weekend. Brian acquired controlling interest in Clinical Sciences in the summer of 1980. Clinical Sciences was then trading at around $2 a share. Brian worked with Janos P. Pasztor, a vice president and special situations analyst with the Canadian investment bank of Nesbitt, Thomson, Bongard Inc., to create a market of Canadian investors for the stock.?Pasztor later testified in court documents that Brian said he would be in Paris the weekend of October 17 to do a deal with the Pasteur Institute (a medical research firm).?Two other brokers, Harry Scully, a broker based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and John Belton, a senior account executive with Nesbitt-Thomson from 1968 to 1982 who is suing Nesbitt-Thomson and Pasztor for securities fraud, also claim that they were told that Brian was in Paris that weekend.?But if Brian went to Paris to see the Pasteur Institute, he seems to have missed his appointment. An investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police into Clinical Sci-ences stock transactions revealed that the Pasteur Institute had never conducted business with, or even heard of Brian.?When asked by WIRED to elaborate on Brian's 1980 trip, Pasztor said, "These are political questions and I don't want to become involved." He refused further comment.Brian contends that the dates of his trip were in error and that he went to Paris in April 1981, not October 1980. But the passport he turned over to Senate investigators did not contain a French entry or exit stamp for April 1981.?Through his lawyers, Brian refused to be interviewed for this story. - RLF?Earl W. Brian: Closet Spook??Michael Riconosciuto, a computer programmer and chemist who surfs the spooky fringe of the guns-'n'-money crowd, is currently serving a federal prison sentence for drug crimes. From his jail cell he has given several interviews claiming knowledge of Inslaw and the October Surprise (he also claims his jail term is the DOJ's way of punishing him for his knowledge). Much of what he claims cannot be verified, other statements have failed to be veri-fied conclusively.?But prior to his arrest in 1991, Riconosciuto provided the Hamiltons with an affidavit that once again brought Brian into the Inslaw picture. "I engaged in some software development and modification work in 1983 and 1984 on proprietary PROMIS computer software product," he stated. "The copy of PROMIS on which I worked came from the US Department of Justice. Earl W. Brian made it available to me through Wackenhut (a security company with close FBI and CIA connections) after acquiring it from Peter Videnieks, who was then a Department of Justice contracting official with the responsibility for PROMIS software. I performed the modifications to PROMIS in Indio, Calif.; Silver Springs, Md.; and Miami, Fla."?The modifications included a telecommunications "trap door" that would let the US Government eavesdrop on any other organization using the pirated software, Riconosciuto said.?Videnieks and Brian both told House investigators that they did not know Riconosciuto. After Riconosciuto was interviewed by House investigators, Videnieks refused to give Congress further interviews.?Although Brian denies any involvement with Inslaw or Riconosciuto, the House Judiciary Committee received a report from a special task force of the Riverside County, Calif., Sheriff's Office and District Attorney, stating that on the evening of Sept. 10, 1981, arms dealers, buyers and various intelligence operatives gathered at the Cabazon Indian Reservation near Indio, Calif., for a demonstration of night warfare weapons. The demonstration was orchestrated jointly by Wackenhut and the Cabazon Indian tribe. (Many published reports allege that the Wackenhut/Cabazon joint venture served as a weapons fencing operation for Oliver North's Iran- Contra dealings.)?According to Indio city police officers hired to provide security, those attending included Earl W. Brian, who was identified as "being with the CIA," and Michael Riconosciuto. - RLF?US Deputy Attorney General Jensen Lost Once To Inslaw?Could It Be He Wanted to Even The Score? At the time of its inception, PROMIS was the most powerful program of its type. But a similar program, DALITE, was developed under another LEAA grant by D. Lowell Jensen, the Alameda County, Calif., District Attorney. In the mid-1970s, the two programs vied for a lucrative Los Angeles County contract and Inslaw won out.?Early in his career, Attorney General-to-be Edwin Meese worked under Jensen at the Alameda County District Attorney's office. Jensen was later appointed as Deputy Attorney General into Meese's Justice Department.?C. Madison "Brick" Brewer, accused by the House Judiciary Committee of deliberately misappropriating PROMIS, testified in federal court that everything he did regarding Inslaw was approved by D. Lowell Jensen, the same man who once supervised DALITE.?Was Israel's PROMIS to Crush the Infitada??Asked why Israeli intelligence would have been so interested in Inslaw and PROMIS, ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe said: "PROMIS was a very big thing for us guys, a very, very big thing ... it was probably the most important issue of the '80s because it just changed the whole intelligence outlook. The whole form of intelligence collection changed. This whole thing changed it." Why? PROMIS, Ben Menashe said, was perfect for tracking the Palestinian population and other political dissidents.?Did Oliver North Use PROMIS??Apparently, Israel was not the only country interested in using PROMIS for internal security purposes. Lt. Col. Oliver North also may have been using the program. According to several intelligence community sources, PROMIS was in use at a 6,100-square-foot command center built on the sixth floor of the Justice Department. According to both a contractor who helped design the center and information disclosed during the Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North had a similar, but smaller, White House operations room that was connected by computer link to the DOJ's command center.?Who Fired Inslaw's Lawyer??As the Inslaw-DOJ battle was joined in bankruptcy court, Inslaw's chief attorney, Leigh Ratiner, was fired from Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, the firm where he had been a partner for 10 years. His firing came after another Dickstein partner, Leonard Garment, met with Arnold Burns, then- deputy attorney general of the DOJ.?Garment was counsel to President Richard Nixon and assistant to President Gerald Ford. He testified before a Senate inquiry that he and Meese discussed the Inslaw case in October 1986, and afterward he met with Burns. Two days later Ratiner was fired.?The terms of the financial settlement between Ratiner and his firm were kept confidential, but WIRED has been told by ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe that Israeli intelligence paid to have Ratiner fired, and that the money was transferred through Hadron Inc., the same company that Earl Brian used to distribute illegal copies of PROMIS. Through informed sources, WIRED has independently confirmed portions of Ben Menashe's allegations.?Ben Menashe has told WIRED that he saw a memo in Israel, written in Hebrew, requesting funds for "a lawyer." He claims to have seen the memo at the office of a joint Mossad (Israeli CIA), Internal Defense Forces and Military committee specializing in Israeli-Iran relations. Israel admits that Ben Menashe handled communications at this level and therefore would have had access to such transmissions.?Ben Menashe said the money was used as Ratiner's settlement payment. "The money was transferred, $600,000, to Hadron," he said. As to why Hadron was used, Ben Menashe claims: "Because [Brian] was involved quite deeply." He said Ratiner was unaware of the source of the settlement funds.?Ratiner, contacted after the Ben Menashe interview, said he had never disclosed the amount of the separation settlement to anyone. He is limited contractually by his former firm from discussing any specifics of the firing. Asked if Ben Menashe's figures were correct, Ratiner said, "I can't comment because it would be the same as revealing them." WIRED located a deep background source who confirmed that the amount was "correct almost to the penny."?Ratiner said he was shocked at the allegations of money laundering. "Dickstein, Shapiro is the 10th largest firm in Washington and I had no reason to think it was other than reputable," he said. "Why is it that everyone who comes in contact with the Inslaw case becomes a victim?" - RLF?A Dead Journalist Raises Some Eyebrows?Among the many strong conclusions of the "House Judiciary Committee Report on the Inslaw Affair" was this rather startling and brief recommendation: "Investigate Mr. Casolaro's death."?Freelance reporter Danny Casolaro spent the last few years of his life investigating a pattern which he called "The Octopus." According to Casolaro, Inslaw was only part of a greater story of how intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice and even the mob had subverted the government and its various functions for their own profit.?Casolaro had hoped to write a book based on his reporting. His theories, which some seasoned investigative journalists have described as naive, led him into a Bermuda Triangle of spooks, guns, drugs and organized crime. On August 10th, 1991, he was found dead in a Martinsburg, W. Va., hotel room. Both wrists were deeply slashed.Casolaro's death has only deepened the mystery surrounding Inslaw. Among the more unusual aspects of his death: He had gone to Martinsburg to meet an informant whose name he never revealed. He had called home the afternoon before his death to say he would be late for a family gathering. Martinsburg police allowed his body to be embalmed before family members were notified and warned hotel employees not to speak to reporters. The hotel room was immediately scrubbed by a cleaning service. Casolaro had told several friends and his brother that if anything ever happened to him, not to believe it was an accident. And his notes, which witnesses saw him carry into the hotel, were missing.?His death was ruled a suicide by Martinsburg and West Virginia authorities several months later. Friends, relatives and some investigators still cry foul.?A source close to retired Federal Judge Nicholas Bua (the Bush Administration appointee who is investigating Inslaw) said Bua will not come to any conclusions regarding Casolaro's fate. "I don't know if he committed suicide or if it was murder," the source said. "But the evidence is consistent with both theories. There are things that bother me but ... certainly no one can be indicted on the evidence that is available."?What does that mean? Either an independent investigation drums up more evidence, or the case may never be solved.?The House Judiciary Committee may have written what could be called the final word on Danny Casolaro's inexplicable death: "As long as the possibility exists that Danny Casolaro died as a result of his investigation into the Inslaw matter, it is imperative that further investigation be conducted." - RLF?InslawGate??Elliot Richardson, President Nixon's former attorney general (he was fired when he refused to fire Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal) has been a counsel to Inslaw for nearly 10 years (he retired this January). In a Oct. 21, 1991 New York Times Op Ed, Richardson wrote: "This is not the first time I have had to think about the need for an independent investigator. I had been a member of the Nixon Administration from the beginning when I was nominated as Attorney General in 1973. Confidence in the integrity of the Watergate investigation could best be insured, I thought, by entrusting it to someone who had no prior connection to the White House. With Inslaw, the charges against the Justice Department make the same course even more imperative.?"When the Watergate special prosecutor began his inquiry, indications of the President's complicity were not as strong as those that now point to a broad conspiracy implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of Inslaw's technology."?A Well-Covered Coverup??The House Committee Report contained some no-holds-barred language on the issue of stonewalling:?"One of the principle reasons the committee could not reach any definitive conclusion about Inslaw's allegations of a high criminal conspiracy at Justice was the lack of cooperation from the Department," the report states. "Throughout the two Inslaw investigations, the Congress met with restrictions, delays and outright denials to requests for information and to unobstructed access to records and witnesses.?"During this committee's investigation, Attorney General Thornburgh repeatedly reneged on agreements made with this committee to provide full and open access to information and witnesses ... the Department failed to provide all the documents subpoenaed, claiming that some of the documents ... had been misplaced or accidentally destroyed."?Rep. Jack Brooks and the House Committee On the Inslaw Case?The string of lawsuits and widening allegations caught the eye of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas, who in 1989 launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later as attorney general, and D. Lowell Jensen, a former assistant and deputy attorney general and now a U.S. district judge in San Francisco, conspired to steal PROMIS."There appears to be strong evidence," the report states, "as indicated by the findings in two Federal Court proceedings as well as by the committee investigation, that the Department of Justice 'acted willfully and fraudulently,' and 'took, converted and stole,' Inslaw's Enhanced PROMIS by 'trickery fraud and deceit.' "?"While refusing to engage in good faith negotiations with Inslaw," the report continues, "Mr. Brewer and Mr. Videnieks, with the approval of high- level Justice Department officials, proceeded to take actions to misappropriate the Enhanced PROMIS software."?Furthermore, the report states, "several individuals have stated under oath that the Enhanced PROMIS software was stolen and distributed internationally in order to provide financial gain to Dr. Brian and to further intelligence and foreign policy objectives for the United States."?Rep. Brooks told WIRED that the report should be the starting point for a grand jury investigation. The owners of Inslaw, Brooks said, were "ravaged by the Justice Department and treated like dogs."? Deagle:Dr Bill Deagle - Prognosis for Planet Earth Vista, California, September 2008Bill Ryan (BR): You know what? I’d just like to say I’m really, really glad to have met you personally.Bill Deagle (BD): Yeah. Well, same here. [laughs]BR:? This is Project Camelot, and my name is Bill Ryan with my partner Kerry Cassidy. And we’re book-ending here right between us. We’ve got Dr. Bill Deagle, and it’s a tremendous privilege to be with you.BD:? Thank you very much.BR:? I just joked to Dr. Bill just now that I’m claiming the Guinness record for having listened to his [December 2006]Granada Forum Lecture?all the way through seven times, which I had to do because there’s so much data in there.And not only that, in a phone call just a few days ago, Dr. Bill told us that he probably only presented about 10% of the information which he had to offer. And one of the things which we hope to do in the next couple of hours is to see whether we can get on record as much of the remaining 90% as possible.BD:? [laughs]BR:? And in particular, many of the people viewing this video now, and the two of us, Kerry, and myself in particular, are really interested and focused on what is going to be happening in the immediate few weeks and months. And I think one of the phrases that Bill used was “the calm before the storm”.What’s the storm?BD:? Well, the best way to think is the Emory War College. And if you talk to people that work in the Marine-Army War College and other places, what they do is, they war-game it out. They have people that sit around big boardroom tables, and then what they do is, they put it into simulation computers.They use Simula PL/1 and other languages that were actually developed for the military, and then they put it on their own super-computers and then they run through a number of simulations. So every war, every conflict, every national emergency, has already been scenarioed out.People don’t realize just how much computing power has been put into these things -- for everything from ET invasions, to a tsunami hitting the west coast, to Cumbre Viejo?[Ed. Note: an island in the Canaries that could collapse and cause a tsunami on the East coast of the US], to a civil disruption because of an earthquake in the New Madrid fault in the Midwest. So basically everything’s been simulated. There’s a number of items.Now, what I often try to do on my radio show, which is the Nutrimedical Report; it’s on Genesis Network. And the two websites, if you want to check it out, are?, where I have a lot of the anti-aging, life extension, civil defense, and other information.And the other website is?. The network is Genesis Network. It’s out of St. Paul, Minnesota. And their website for getting podcasts, streaming and on-demand, which replays the shows, is?.What I try to do on my show is... I realize that one of the things about having a regular radio show is you can bring in all of these experts and guests, but there are several ways of approaching it. My approach has been to try... if they listen to enough shows, that people will start to see a montage of images that’ll change their paradigm.Because you can’t change people by necessarily beating them over the head with the facts if they emotionally aren’t ready for that.BR:? Yes.BD:? And you also have to change their paradigm by what I call the “little grades” that happen as they listen to more and more people, and they are willing to accept one message from one type of person, or one way of doing it, or a little humor, or some music.BR:? Yes.BD:? And eventually they get to the point where they’re able to then accept the intellectual truths, the spiritual truths, and so on.The two key things that I try to teach on my show are: The first thing is that people don’t know what they are. People really don’t know what kind of a?being?they are, and because of that -- which is in many cases kept purposely away from them – they’re manipulated. For example, if you didn’t know you were a bird, you’d obviously not try to fly. Right?BR:? Yep. Good analogy.BD: ?The other thing I try to teach them is that everything that they have learned in the past has been predigested and presented to them so they really don’t understand the nature of the universe they live in. They don’t even know what “reality” is.BR:? Yeah. And all this is one of the parameters in the model, presumably, that people are interacting with this “stage show”...BD:? Right.BR:? ...with a very limited amount of information at their disposal with which to react, to make appropriate judgments.BD:? Right. So what I try to do is, I try to stretch them beyond that. One of the things that I try to do is... There’s no such thing as a “sacred cow,” whether it’s a political view, a religious view, a scientific view. It has to be, you know, “trust but verify”. You know, Ronald Reagan, before he had too many aspartame jelly beans. [laughs]So the idea is that eventually you’ll get enough evidence and enough logical things that... You have what I call “the two witnesses”. It has to not assault your intellect (the information), and it also has to ring with your spirit.BR:? Good. But, you know, a lot of people watching this now have already done that homework...BD:? Right.BR:? ...either by listening to your shows or listening to ours, because we’ve been operating in essentially the same way.BD:? Right.BR:? Or both.BD:? Right.BR:? And there’s also... Would you agree that there’s not a lot of time now?BD:? No, there’s not a lot of time. And there’s a number of what I call “spasms of events” that’re going to happen. And to just give you the timeline of where things are going rather than giving you specific dates...The first thing is that people need to understand, whether we elect McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden, or the Green Party with McKinney, the events are already in motion to create a regional and world economic catastrophe and then to create regional and world banks.BR:? So they’ve already got the script for the movie, but they haven’t got the cast yet.BD:? Right. They’ve gone to central casting, and whoever the players are, they’re in a sense going to be like riders on the wave of this.BR:? OK. So what’s the script? [laughs]BD:? Well, the script basically is?that... And I’ll back up a little bit, so that...BR:? Yeah. And also a few minutes ago you mentioned modeling. It would be great to tie this back into the modeling scenario that you mentioned.BD:? Right. They’ve done lots of modeling. In fact they have one of the most advanced programs at the University of California in San Francisco. And they’re tied directly into the National Reconnaissance Office.This, by the way, I do regularly on my show -- release classified information. And there they have all this access to the Cray 5s and Cray 4 super-computer arrays, and so they will do simulations.Kerry Cassidy (KC):? And that’s located in Denver, right?BD:? Well, that’s where the main node is. It’s actually Shriver Air Force Base. But they also have their systems elsewhere. And people need to know that the world that they believe in is a fairytale that never existed. Right?BR:? Right.BD:? So anyway, this is at university level. They have a social modeling super-computer program. And what they do is, they try different perturbations. They’ll try a little thing, put a balloon up, put a media event. And they’re able to model that based on getting information back.They’re able to do specific searches, which are called “architectural searches,” not all that different from the?Half Past Human?or the Princeton University kind of “eggs” thing.They’re actually mining the Internet; they’re mining phone conversations. They’re mining data from peoples’ cable boxes, which they’ve cut two ways so they can know what they’re watching. And they have what’s called “data architecture” software that can actually analyze it.BR:? Yep.KC:? [Inaudible]BD:.?.?.?.ah, that’s a possibility, that they can do that. But the most important is they just know what they’re viewing. And if they know what they’re viewing, what the box is turned on to, they can actually put this back into their data. And they can then say, based on area code distribution, demographics, etc...BR:? Yep.BD:?? Because people need to know that every phone conversation always was monitored. Every fax always was monitored. And they have had super-computers.And in 2003 they launched what’s called the AI system, which is an intelligent super-computer with the Intelligence of a human being -- in other words, a smart human being but able to think 10 trillion times faster, with the access to all known knowledge and history and a complete access to the Internet and all the communications pathways. So...KC:? With that in mind, the modeling they are making... Their plan, their agenda, is going to be played out as what? The biggest surprise they can think of?BD:? Well, no. What they are do is build a cybernetic copy of the Earth.KC:? Right.BD:? They can actually do models with that and try to do what’s called “timeline pathway analysis”.BR:? Yep.KC:? Right. But how do they choose? Do you know that?BD:? Yeah.BR:? An entire virtual world, with virtual people.BD:? In a virtual world. I actually took care of employees working on what’s called the Sentient World Project in Denver.KC:? Yes. But I still don’t understand, you know, how they’re choosing their scenario. In other words, we know that the financial collapse...BD:? Well, they can try a scenario and they can actually try it in the cyber-world and then they can see the response based on...KC:? Right. But have you gotten feedback from say, secret deep black projects, saying, you know, they have chosen this scenario?BD:? Ah, some things. Some things. Yeah.BR:? Give us some clues, Bill.BD:? Well, I’ll give you an example. One of the first things is, by doing this modeling, it means that they don’t do it in just a kind of... In other words, they’re not just trying it on the public. They try a different thing.For example, they had the Countrywide financial collapse earlier this year, and then they had the collapse of Lehman Brothers. And they try each thing. And they try to see what kind of response they’re getting from the public. And they feed that back into the model.Now, when I took care of the people that were working on the Sentient World Project, they actually created a cybernetic model of the Earth. It’s an actual physical model in hyperspace that is down to a tolerance of about a centimeter-and-a-half. All the roadways, buildings, everything, people. Everybody inside that model are actually considered, called,?nodes. That’s their actual term they use for it.BR:? Yep.BD:? Besides doing the simulator computer modeling, they’re using other technologies. Some of them are quite alien, if you want to call it.BR:? I can believe it.BD:? And they’re using these technologies so they can actually analyze timeline pathways. Because what they’re trying to do is...KC:? So we’re talking about Looking-Glass, then?BD:? Yeah. Exactly. And, of course, a lot of the people don’t understand that most of these are actually based on what’s called?torsional vortex imaging, which is hyperdimensional imaging.BR:? Yep.BD:? And torsional vortex imaging we’ve had since the 1950s, reverse-engineered.BR:? Yep.BD:? ?Torsional vortex imaging was the top project of HAARP. It was not the bottom project; it was the top project.BR:? OK.BD:? So torsional vortex imaging allows them to look through the Earth to see all the resources. So the primary thing was to drop a thermal-magnetic mirror with aluminum and barium salts.BR:? Which is the chemtrail project?BD:? Yeah. But it’s really high, 73- to 80-thousand feet. You won’t see these.BR:? OK.BD:? And when the particles are put up there, they last two to three years in space because they layer out and they get locked into that layer at the upper troposphere. OK?BR:? Yep.BD:? And it acts as a mirror for what’s called torsional vortex imaging. So they can throw a pulse and see an echo that comes back and they can image it.BR:? I got it. Yep.BD:? So they can see oil resources, gold, minerals, titanium, whatever they need, and they can also see through the Earth and see underground bases, cities, facilities. So, for example, when Sichuan...BR:? Some of this stuff that isn’t even ours.BD:? Right. Yeah. And they can also see stuff that’s not ours. Exactly. They see giant caves and cavern systems that go hundreds of miles through the Midwest.BR:? Right.BD:? But they can also see things like military bases, like the Chinese nuclear and military munitions base that was struck with a tectonic weapon in Sichuan, west China. That was a specific use of tectonic technology. Right?BR:? Yep. Mm hm.BD:? Now, we have our version of it. And the Russians have a new system called a super-capacitor technology, so they were able to make these very, very powerful capacitors that can generate similar things to our HAARP technology. Right?KC:? OK. But where are they going with this? That’s actually what we...BD:? Yeah. Well, where they’re going with all this... Just to give you an idea: The first thing is, you have to look at the menu of what they have. And they try various items, try to perturbate on new computer modeling.And then they decide whether they’re going to proceed now or in the near future. Like, a lot of people say:?Well,?why hasn’t there been another 9/11?BR:? Mm hm.BD:? Right? Another... like blowing up cities or doing other things? Because for years they’ve been doing war-game simulations of a 10-kiloton nuke in a number of cities.For example, this year it was in Portland Harbor, and last year it was in Charleston Harbor, where they actually did a simulation of a...And it was not just the U.S. It was the U.S., British, and Canadians, where they were doing a joint war-games simulation of this, and trying to see the civil defense, and the radiation plume, and the movement of the public and, you know, how to handle the bodies, and all this kind of stuff.So they’re doing all of that. They do this on multiple levels and they feed the data back into their super-computers to decide what will work best.One of the things that we did... Back in the late 90s, I was a doctor for Rocky Mountain Occupational Medicine, and we got the contract for the Hazmat teams in Colorado, for the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control to do a war-game simulation called Operation Top Off and Operation Dark Winter.We did a simulation at the Performing Arts Center, on a “simulated release”, not a real release, of pneumonic plague. And we wanted to look at the kill ratio, in terms of how quickly the system could be activated -- the EMS system -- to be able to get people and treat them and triage them and whatever.And we did a similar one down on 17th Avenue, downtown Denver, in a second-floor window of an apartment. And we even set up a sprayer to spray out the window, with a little compressed air, a little vapor stream, which was supposedly anthrax. So, it would be a weaponized anthrax stream that would actually spray out that second-floor window. And that anthrax stream would then...We would then have people go... We had the Hazmat officers and Special Forces, and they would go to various hospitals, like St. Joe’s, Presbyterian, St. Lukes, etcetera. And we tried to see, with recording all these data intake sheets, whether or not, Number One, emergency departments would activate CDC, get the proper specimens, get the people treated in a timely fashion so they wouldn’t die.We killed everybody.BR:? OK.KC:? Why did you kill everybody, though?BD:? We killed everybody because the system was too inadequate. The Emergency department doctors, the infectious disease, the activation of the system... The tracking back to the source of the spray would have been too long.So if there was a lethal weaponized anthrax -- it only needs, let’s say, 80 spores to cause a lethal infection rather than 80,000 to 100,000 – that we figured out from the dispersal at that level on the canyon of, say, 17th Avenue, would have killed at least 4- to 5-thousand people that were, during the middle of the day, would have been exposed.BR:? Right.BD:? Now, the reason why I bring up that model is that they’re doing this all the time with their cybernetics models, because they’re trying to steer society along certain timelines.And they have various forces. All the people in this – you hear the word “New World Order” -- they’re not in agreement. And there are various levels. And most of ’em think that they’re at the top of whatever level they’re at, and they’re really at the bottom of another level. OK?Even the people at the top that are?human. Because the New World Order is not being run by humans.BR:? Yes.BD:? OK?BR:? Exactly.BD:? And you need to grasp this. The analogy I use on my show is... In their training in England, as part of a power game, they’d bring you to their gardens. And their gardener would kind of make a little maze. And then you’d go through the?little maze?and thought you were quite clever because you’d get out in a matter of moments.And then what they’d do is, they’d take you to the?big maze, which was done by a very clever gardener. And the only way you could get out was if you were talked out.BR:? OK.BD:? OK. If you weren’t talked out, you wouldn’t make it out of the maze, and you’d be stuck there the entire afternoon and wouldn’t have tea or anything. Right?BR:? OK.BD:? So the thing was to humiliate you to realize there was no way you could get out of the big maze unless you changed your paradigm of how to get out of the maze. Right?BR:? Very good. Right.BD:? And what they’re doing basically is, they’re... In a sense they’re “sheep dipping” the entire society to kind of buy into the lies of what’s going on. People don’t know what kind of... You know, even modern history has completely been rewritten. Everything...BR:? But there is some waking up going on, which you need to also factor in.BD:? Yes, there is.BR:? It’s also being factored in.BD:? Sure it is. And that’s why there’s been quite a delay. In fact, if you look at the published documents, like?Global 2000, about population reduction; if you look at the planned release of things like avian flu; if you look at the planning on blowing up cities with dirty bombs or micro-nukes, or doing other things, they’re way behind schedule.BR:? This also means that they’ve also programmed in the?Nutrimedical Report?and the Project Camelot interviews. And they’re taking all of that into account and then recalculating everything. Right?BD:? Ah, well they are. But the problem is that there’s a number of wild cards that they're not in control of.BR:? Which are?BD:? Well, lots of wild cards.BR:? OK.BD:? The first one is the human one. Human beings are a polydimensional being that far transcends what people usually think of as human.Just to give you kind of... To back up in terms of a little physics: Our plane of existence, the energetic plane, has five dimensions, not four. OK?BR:? Yep.BD:? Then the spiritual plane has seven dimensions. Some people call that astral. And then there is the 13th, which is the eternal. OK? And everything are harmonics of that. That’s why... The very nature of the existence itself is literally the passage of spirit through energetic planes that creates a montage.BR:? We’ll buy all of that. And what we are here, what I see in my field of vision, is the tiny tip of a huge iceberg.BD:? Right.BR:? Yeah. And the iceberg is a beautiful, fantastic wonderful eternal thing.BD:? Right. Exactly. In other words, this moment that’s existing right now as we are taping, has always existed.BR:? Yeah. I’ll buy that.KC:? Absolutely. Time is circular. But Bill, what I wanted to know is, what are you saying they are going to do with this? Because obviously if they’re behind schedule... And here we are, at the end of September, and we’ve got the American economy going in the tank.BD:? Right.KC:? And so what’s the next step?BD:? Well, here you’ve got to think about what their goal is. It’s almost like a mouse that reaches certain barriers, a smart mouse. You put certain barriers down, but a mouse can still smell the cheese. It’ll get around that barrier and it’ll figure out how to do it. And if it’s a very intuitive mouse, it can see beyond the barrier to where the pathway is to get to the cheese. And if it’s got lots of access, then it’s going to do that. Right?BR: ?Right.BD:? So what I see is this. Their goal is to have a world bank. Their goal is to have regionalized currency zones. They published it. In fact, one of the things that you have to understand -- which is really bizarre but also true -- is that part the “religion,” if you want to call it, or the dogma, of the globalists is to prove that they are a super class, or the predator class, who have the right to make these decisions.Because they have to publish it, and the profane don’t understand it. But it’s plainly published. Like for example in September of 1973, the Council on Foreign Relations...BR:? It’s all in plain sight.BD:? It’s all in plain sight.KC:? Like the?Iron Mountain Report, for example.BD:? Yeah. Or the 1974 document that talked about the greatest danger to the world is population growth. Or the Global 2001.?.?.BR:? The Georgia Guidestones.BD:? Exactly. It’s all in plain sight. And the problem is that people will look at it and say:?Well, it can’t be true because it’s in plain sight.It’s almost like, if you want to say:?It’s a battleship.?And they say:?Well, it’s painted pink. It can’t be a battleship. It’s got plants coming out of all the turrets.?[Bill laughs] Even though it is a battleship and it’s in the front yard. [more laughter]KC:? What aliens, though, are running the show, in your opinion?BD:? Well, I’m going to get to that because I’m going to give you a little different spin. What we have to do is use a lot of discernment. There’s basically two perspectives in the universe -- and this is whether you’re human or nonhuman.What we are or any other “sentient” being in the universe is a spirit-being that’s transcending through an energy matrix, creating a reality. OK? In other words, we are co-creators of our own timeline and future.BR:? Absolutely.BD:? And if you look at people like Michio Kaku and advanced physicists and so on, they talk about the universe in terms of energy. You know, like a Zero Energy culture, and the Level One energy culture, a culture that is able to leap across the galaxy and is bound by time and space.But you can also use those similar principles for, you know -- similar kinds of characteristics -- for dealing with what I call the spirituality of a sentient civilization. Right?BR:? Right.BD:? So you need to use both the energy thing and they are tied together.BR:? Yep.BD:? Because there’s lot of suppression of the technology that we already have, because spiritually we are very... what I call a Zero Order culture.BR:? Yep.BD:? We’re still in the playpen or the crib of civilization and we’ve been actually quarantined for 3shars, which is Zecharia Sitchen’s “passages through the galactic plane of fire,” it’s called.The two perspectives tie in with either being in touch with that Higher Self, which is the “I AM,” the one that says?Let there be light, the spirit that’s in us.And all great spiritual leaders that spoke truth that they knew in their heart -- whether it was Buddha or Zoroaster or whatever -- all of these great leaders have spoken something. And many times it’s been converted, or perverted, or twisted.Or they themselves didn’t have the whole truth, they just had portions of it, so then it became a “religion.” Now,?religion?is a substitute for?relationship.BR:? Yep.BD:? And I call it “real lies going on”. And it doesn’t matter if you’re talking about Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Atheism.All the “isms” in the world fall into two categories: Either you hear the Voice of the spirit that created you and created all that exists, the continuum -- because without a single voice there is no universe -- one “I” voice, I call it. There is no one “I” voice.So, therefore, it’s either?your?will – the will of, in other words, deciding for yourself what is good or evil -- or hearing the Voice. In other words, you don’t need to tell people what’s right or wrong. If they’re in contact with their higher self and with the Creator that created them, they know what’s right or wrong.BR:? OK. Now, just bring that back to where you were when you were talking about the wild card factors of who people really are -- this is my paraphrase of what you were saying -- and how there are certain things that can’t be programmed into their super-computer, because, actually, you’re talking about actual human beings that are eternal and magical.BD:? Exactly. And you see that point ties in with the factions, if you want to call it. You know, you can go to all kinds of different religious books, whether it’s the Hopi Indians or the Christian Bible or many other books, and they’ll tell you that there’s been visitations to Earth over all of the ages.BR:? OK. Now...?BD:? And the way it ties into this is that some of these visitors have specific characteristics that are very common. For example, Naga, in the area of Oceania. Right? Which are, you know, the serpent people or the feathered serpent god, or whatever. What you’ll find...?Or the Dagon, which is, you know, the amphibian beings that come from a world. And therefore, even the hat, for example, that’s on the Pope, is actually called “the sign of Dagon”, which is a fish-god or Oannes...BR:? Yes. Yes.KC:? OK. Right. But .?.?.BD:?? ...which is always in the background, in other words.BR:? Right now there will be people watching this who say:?I know I’m eternal and magical, and I’m really interested in what you’re saying. So what can I do? How can I be? What action can I take to capitalize on my wild card so they may not be able to predict what I’m going to do next?BD:? Yeah, what I’m trying to get at... You know, I hear lots of different reports, that people say:?I’ve been in touch with the Pleiadians or Andromedans, or I’m in touch with this group or that group.?But people need to use?extreme,?extreme?discernment.BR: ?Yep.BD:? And the way I think about it is this. Say, you know, if you went to a new city. Let’s say you were from South Africa and you came to New York City, and you didn’t know where to go, but you went to the wrong part of the city. You might not come back out alive. OK?BR:? RightBD:? And a similar thing... You have to think of the universe that way, too.BR:? Yep.BD:? There’s very good places in the universe, and very bad.BR:? Yes.BD:? OK? Just think of it this way. Any being that’s capable of leaping across space/time and arriving in our world, you have to assume that their intelligence is limitlessly greater than ours. And therefore anything that they communicate to us could either be very true or very, very maliciously manipulated to control us, almost like a pack.BR:? Exactly.BD:? In other words, we would be treated like an ant, or cockroach or like my pet dogs. They would have no way of even understanding what we’re talking about, so it would be almost sport. Right?BR:? Yes.KC:? Except that, if they’re that intelligent, they also realize that we’re grand spiritual beings in our own right and therefore they’re actually dealing with something that’s much more massive than just our 3-dimensional form.BD:? Exactly, exactly. Here’s the point, though. You’ve got two perspectives out there. You’ve got one group -- we’ll call them, just for the sake of it, you know, like David Icke. He was speaking at the UFO Conference up in San Francisco. He calls them the Reptilians. OK? Or you might call them the serpents, like it talks about in the Bible. OK?And in fact, you’ve got to understand that when you look at the Bible at things that are a description to people that were shepherds and artisans 2- to 3-thousand years ago. Right? Or you look at other ancient books... And what they’re really trying to describe here is something that’s actually quite similar to what’s happening today.So let’s say we have one group that says:?We are a predatory super-nation of super-scientists that don’t have any spirit, but we invade and take over worlds.BR:? Hum.BD:??We can invade the mind-space dimension. We can attack on the physical level. We can put policies in place to cut off the connection between their physical body and their spiritual body?-- through things like fluoridation and genetically modified food or electromagnetic pollution.KC:? So are you suggesting that it is the Reptilians that are involved with the current Illuminati?BD:? Well... Yeah, yeah, yeah.KC:? This type of agenda?BD:? Of course. Yeah. It’s just no different than what the Bible has been saying all along, -- ?the serpentine.KC:? Right. So I want to sort of base it here in the here-and-now a little bit so we can understand what you’re talking about.BD:? Right. A lot of times, though, they misjudge it. Because for example, when... David’s done a lot of really good work. But one of the times... If you don’t know what you’re seeing because you’ve never seen anything like it before...What he did is, he took a thing called ayahuasca, which is an analog of dimethyltriptamine. And ayahuasca and dimethyltriptamine opens up what’s called, you know, the spirit eye. People call it the third eye, the astral eye, or whatever.But basically it is, we’re all born as children with this ability to see in the spirit realm. And that’s why children see their little friends, and see other things, and see good and bad. And they have a thing called?pavor nocturnus,?or night terrors, because they can see in the spirit realm things that aren’t pleasant. They’re very nasty. Right?BR:? Yes.BD:? They’re not just making it up in their little minds because they’ve got hormone surges. They’re actually having a problem. So the reason why I seem to be a little circuitous here is that people misinterpret the signals.For example, after David went and took ayahuasca down in South America, and he got into this altered state, he started seeing what he misinterpreted as shape-shifting. Shape-shifting doesn’t occur.BR:? Well, he hadn’t seen it so much himself, as he was taking reports from Arizona Wilder and others.BD:? Yeah.BR:? And others, and taking those at literal face value. That’s my understanding. And I have no criticism of him whatsoever.BD:? No, no. I’m not criticizing.BR:? I’m very interested in your take on this.BD:? Well, OK. Here’s the important part of it. It’s not to criticize him because I think what he’s doing, he’s seeing in the spiritual realm what’s always there.BR:? Right.BD:? And when there’s an intensity of that reality, it breaks through, for people even that don’t have any, you know, regular sensitivity. So for example, you know, I’ve talked to people who have been in the presence of Hillary Rodham Clinton.BR:? Right.BD:? And Hillary Clinton has a presence of a demonic entity, if you want to call it that, a transdimensional Reptilian entity that’s so powerful... It’s one of the most negative feelings I’ve ever had. OK?BR:? Mm hm. And you’ve been in her physical presence yourself?BD:? Oh yeah. I was one of the doctors who took care of the Englewood Fire Department and the first kid who was shot in Columbine, Mark Taylor, and we spent about, probably an hour or so, at the Dakota Ridge High School.And... Because I do see into the spiritual realm. OK? And that happens many times after people have had near death experiences. I died at birth and again at 8-?. And because of that, there’s a massive release of DMT. And when that happens, it changes your brain structure and the very nature of how you perceive things. If it happens when you’re really young, it does it at a time when you can understand and interpret things. If it happens when you’re older, you can misinterpret things.BR:? Interesting. Yep. Gotcha.BD:? Did you follow me?BR:? Yes I did.BD:? Which is the reason why when you go to any religious group you’ll find that it’s always children that are exposed to things like this so that they can understand them better. Otherwise, you know, you can be creeped out if all of a sudden and start seeing things and you say:?Well look, I’ve lost my mind. I’m not rational anymore.KC:? OK. But you’re saying, in terms of Hillary, you’re actually describing what you consider to be a demonic entity as opposed to a Reptilian. Is that what you’re saying?BD:? Oh, it’s a Reptilian all right. When you see it, you’re not seeing a 5-foot-whatever female. You’re seeing a giant Reptilian entity that’s in a different dimension.KC:? Exactly. But because it’s a Reptilian entity doesn’t necessarily make it demonic.BD:? Ah, well, let’s put it this way...KC:? It’s still an ET from a different dimension.BD:? Well, this was evil. This is evil, yeah. This is evil.What people need to understand is that there’s a?vast?universe out there. Just listen to a lot of the scientists -- and everybody that’s probably listening to this will understand. If you just... They’re looking for bacteria on Mars. And they’re looking for other evidence that there’s even simple life forms on Titan and other planets, and planetoids, and so on.The fact is, if you just take the minimum number of factors, there’s 100-billion?stars just in this galaxy, and there’s a 100-billion-billion?galaxies. And that’s in this so-called known cosmos, in?this?known cosmos, which in a sense is probably an elemental particle in a yet larger universe. Right?BR:? Right. Yep. Yep.BD:? Right. [laughs]KC:? Well, I’m still back where you were saying that David Icke was wrong because...BD:? Well, wrong because I think...KC:? Wrong because he was seeing reptilians and you were saying they don’t shape-shift?BD:? Yeah. Well, things have to also match science, too, because if you have a shape-shift from a smaller individual to a physical presence, that is, you know, a giant Reptilian, or whatever, you’re going to actually have... The thermodynamic laws will cause spontaneous combustion. It just wouldn’t occur.So what you have to do is... Unless there are changes in the laws of physics, which isn’t going to occur, then you have... What you’re seeing is something that’s completely, you know... doesn’t occur.KC:? What you can see, though, is,?your?perception is changing and you’re able to see into different dimensions simultaneously.BD:? Yeah, that’s an ability to...KC:? So they aren’t changing. Your vision is changing. Your ability to see is changing when you’re looking at them.BD:? Yeah... Yeah. Now, a lot of the time people have to use these kind of things. Now the biggest problem I am worried about is that, when there’s a lack of discernment, there gets to be a mixed message. And so many messages have a lot of noise in them that people won’t get a clear understanding of either the opportunities or the dangers of what’s going on.KC:? Sure.BD:? And so you’ll have people, for example, like Arizona Wilder and others, that say they’ve seen these things happen right in the middle of ceremonies or whatever. And what they don’t understand is that the intensity is so great, they’re actually seeing into the spirit realm that’s happening in a parallel universe.KC:? Yes.BR:? Right. It’s their perception that’s being altered, not the physical reality.BD:? It’s not physical reality. Yeah.KC:? We’re tapping into that. But at the same time, let’s talk about how does that impact the Illuminati agenda? Because we’ve got a lot of Reptilians who’re influencing that agenda.BD:? Well, let me explain what happens. If you look at all the secret societies down through history -- not just in our current history in the last 6,000 years, but basically pretty well all of human history, going back to previous civilizations that have risen and fallen -- there has been this, if you want to call it,?dark alliance. OK?Now the dark alliance has been, basically, with higher orders of these secret orders that it’s passed down through. In the most recent past, going back the last 6,000 years, it was the ancient Sumerians and the Egyptians.All the highest rulers of those civilizations would put their children through sex-magic rituals, human sacrifice, and other things, so they would create, if you want to call it, an?astral gate?in their mind, so they could attach these transdimensional entities to them, almost like the sucker-fish on the shark. OK? And you could not advance within any of these higher orders unless you went through these ceremonies. So...KC:? Svali talks about this, actually, and so does Leo Zagami.BD:? Right. So what happens is, for example... If you’re going to get to these higher orders within the Illuminati you actually have to go through these rituals in order for you and your...The greatest power is for your ancestors to actually “curse you” to be attached by these things, to gain more physical, psychic, emotional and intellectual powers. So then, therefore, you can become a “hu-man” -- which, in Welsh, is?serpent man.And if you look at the Magna Carta, it was written not for the “mansters” -- which is the word?manster, which converted to?monster?-- it was for?serpent-man?or the Royals, those who had gone through the ceremonies, who were “hu-mans” which means serpent-men, and had the transdimensionals literally attached to them almost like a parasite, a psychic parasite, to create a “hu-man” which is a new, if you want to call it, hybrid.Clay and iron. In other words, you have the iron of the serpentine transdimensional beings with their higher science and abilities and so on, literally attached to the “man” to create a “hu-man.”KC:? OK. So basically you’ve got Illuminati with this proclivity, whatever you want to call it. And then what happens? Because that’s where we are now with society. These people have been leading the way -- if you want to call it “leading” -- down a dark corridor, so to speak.BD:? They consider themselves... You see, one of the problems is a matter of perception. If you feel in your own twisted way... You’re deciding what is right or wrong, and you feel you have the right to decide, and you’re the keeper of civilization.For example, if you look at the tunic on the Teutonic Knights. Right? You’ll see these strange swinging arms in a form of a cross. That’s not a Christian cross. That cross was long before Jesus Christ, long before there was the first Jew, long before Egypt and Sumeria. It goes way back to Atlantis and before.KC:? OK. You’re talking about the swastika as well. Right?BD:? The swastika is a little different symbol, but that cross actually is a symbol called “As above/ below”. OK? So what you’re doing is, you’re looking at the swinging arms of a galaxy, above and below the equinoxes. That’s what you’re seeing there. OK?KC:? So here we are at this juncture. We’re actually moving into the galactic center.BR:? But, but.?.?.BD:? Right. So we’re moving not only through the plane, but at an equinox. So we have the passage through the plane. And an equinox has very important effects, not just on the physical plane, because we’re entering an energy belt which affects the DNA. It affects lifeforms, communications and everything. But it also affects the spiritual aspects of the creatures on the planet. But it also opens upgates.BR:? Bring this back now to the problems of discernment, to the wild card factors that have got to do with the eternal magical creatures that we are, and how this can’t be modeled in the super-computer.And then again, what they do think they are trying -- or what?you?do think they are trying to do with us over the next few weeks and months. Is there a way to align this information in a way that it’s practically meaningful to people out there, who actually, as we speak, are thinking:?What do I do with my job, my family, my money, my occupation?BD:? Yeah. I want to get to that, too.BR:? There are practical problems to solve here.BD:? Yeah. The first thing I think, number one, is they have to discern... Number one: Am I involved with a?religion, “real lies going on”, or am I involved with?spirituality? And I’m not necessarily going to put a label on it or tell ’em which one.?BR:? Right.BD:? What I try to tell ’em is that... For example, I’m a believer, but if I go to a church I’m going to cause trouble, because I know things that they can’t know, won’t know, that are going to show that a lot of things that they’re teaching are patently lies. OK?KC:? Of course.BD:? And, unfortunately it isn’t just one group or another. I’m closest allied to, if you want to call it, I’m like a cosmic messianic believer. And I don’t even like to use the word?Christian, because it was actually a blasphemy against Christians and their little anointed ones.BR:? Yeah. That term’s already been hijacked long ago.BD:? Right. It was hijacked. Now, here’s the point. If you actually understand the split in the so-called eastern and western church, you understand the reason why there’s such a determination to not only hijack Judiasm, and Christianity and Islam, and why this is all kind of leading us toward what’s called this final conflict of Armageddon. It’s been stage-managed at a higher level. Right?BR:? Right.KC:? Right.BD:? It’s all staged-managed. And the problem is, people don’t understand they’re being manipulated, even though their every step is being manipulated.?Oh yeah, we’ve got to get Al-Quaeda.?Well, you know, who created Al-Quaeda? When you start showing that these things were totally manufactured. And?Al-Quaeda?means “the database”.KC:? Yeah.BD:? But when you show evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with advanced explosives, including, you know, micro-nukes, and thermite; or you start to demonstrate that the financial line -- like John Boncore, who’s a Mohawk, who actually speaks prophetically. He was on the show last week.The way I want people to do is, first off, don’t accept something unless it’s intellectually correct, at whatever level they are at, and unless they go back quietly and pray and try to hear the Voice of the Creator God.KC:?? Mm hm.BD:? Because the problem right now is that there’s so much noise, it’s discernment to keep them in “babble-on” or confusion...BR:? Yeah.BD:? ...so they won’t be able to discern or they’ll just dismiss it. And they’ll say:?Look, you people that talk about UFOs are nuts.?OK? If somebody had told me this years ago, I’d say:?You’re crazy, there’s no way.And, you know, going through medical school training, surgery, whatever, I’d say there’s no way that that could be true. Because my mind is now focused. I’m going to be a doctor; I’m going to help people; I’m going to do this and that.I’m getting access to the totality of human knowledge and science, and I’m going to... At some future date we’re going to be able to help cure people of disease and so on -- not knowing that only 4% of information is accessed to even the university Ph.D. tenured professorial level, at the top levels in the world, and the other 96% is by invitation only.BR:? Right. [laughs]BD:? Right? Or that society.?.?. And when you’ve been?invited?to enter those realms, then you start to realize, like:?My gosh!?Your whole world is shattered. Right? And that’s what’s disturbing about this, and I’m trying to get the message to the people.The hardest is to argue with people. I remember having an argument a year and a half ago with Professor Steven Jones, who felt that thermate could have brought down the World Trade Centers alone.And, of course, until they’ve had a background in quantum physics and nuclear physics -- I was supposed to go to MIT and I went into honors biochemistry -- I asked him a series of questions that he couldn’t answer on a scientific ground. But he wanted to cling to his?a priori?idea anyway.Even though there is probably evidence it was thermate, there had to be nuclear explosions. There could have not been directed energy weapons. And I tried to explain to him. Because I was a doctor for US Space Command and Strategic Defense, Star Wars. And I said:?I’ve talked to the engineers at very high levels, and I know exactly what’s capable and what we have.KC:? OK. You have a really interesting background. OK?BD:? Right.KC:? But a lot of people say:?Well, you’re working for them.BD:? Yeah. I know they’ll say that, but what people need to do is, they... Ultimately, they need to do is an intellectual analysis and they need to pray. They need to trust their gut, in other words, their spiritual gut.KC:? So how did you get out of it? Because in a sense you did work for them. Right? You were their doctor.BD:? Well, I was their doctor. But here’s what happened. People are so compartmentalized. To give you an example: Initially I talked to someone working at, say Falcon. And they had a little badge that would allow them to go into one hallway, and down one pathway, into one room with a security card. And they’d face-scan them with a retinal scan, and fingerprint scan them, and boom, they go in their room. And they’d spend so many hours there and they’d walk down the same pathway. And they were monitored all the way.KC:? They had to follow lines. Isn’t that right?BD:? They had to follow certain lines on the floor, and if they don’t, they’re immediately apprehended. And it’s not pleasant. OK? So they’re very highly compartmentalized.So you can talk to your doctor. Now, these guys really loved being able to talk to me because what I would do is, I would talk to all the different people. And because I have this advanced technical training, which they never assumed I did -- like you know, artificial intelligence, super-computers, electronics, quantum physics, and other things --I’d talk to them about their project.And after while they were more interested in hearing what I had to tell them about what everybody else was doing and projects that they didn’t know anything about. So as time went on I gained more and more knowledge.BR:? Yeah. And it continued training you what questions to ask and you knew how to listen.BD:? Right. They wanted to talk because they couldn’t tell their wives. They weren’t allowed to tell anybody, their son, their wife, their children, anybody, or their next door neighbor.KC:? So you get this aggregate of information. And on top of it, you’ve had these life-death experiences.BD:? Right. And some, what I’d call supernatural, and some other types of experiences that all fit together.KC:? OK. You’re putting all of this together and then you eventually create this radio show. Right? And you’re interviewing witnesses and so on. But where are you at now, as we take this whole package? And you’ve got something to say here because you called us and.?.?.BD:? RightKC:? And I find this very interesting.BD:? Well actually, I was told to call you.KC:? You were told to call us.BD:? I was told to call you.KC:? Wonderful.BR:? By?KC:? By your direct contact above?BD:? Yeah. If you want to call it that. I have the direct phone line.KC:? You’re not the only one that’s been told that way to call us.BD:? Yeah, yeah, I was told to call you and that it was time to call you, not an hour from now, but right now. And I did. OK? So that’s, you know, interesting. And things always happen like that to me, you know.KC:? They do?BD:? If I told you all the stories you could fill books, you’d have stacks of tapes of amazing stories.KC:? OK.BD:? You’d say:?That can’t happen; and that can’t happen.?But it has.KC:? All right.BR:? I want to bring it back to: what are they modeling?KC:? Yes. [laughter]BD:? Yeah, yeah.BR:? And what about these guys with their children and their money? Yeah. OK. Fine.BD:? Well, yeah. And I’m going to get to that. So basically I want people to discern, to use discernment, and I’m.?.?.KC:? Therefore, why do you think you were told to call us?BD:? At the moment I had no idea. OK? [Bill laughs]KC:? OK. And do you have an idea now?BD:? Yeah. I have a very good idea.KC:? Yeah? And do you want to tell us, or do you want to go down that road?BD:? Yeah, anyway... [laughter] What people have to understand is that human beings are a supernatural transdimensional being that’s made in the image of the Creator of the universe, just like the Bible says. OK?KC:? Absolutely.BD:? But not only that, we’re like cells in a body. And we’re connected, almost like neurons. So that if we get to a level of revelation, it’s not just for our own purpose to use greedily; it’s to serve the entire body of mankind.And the best way to think of mankind is not just, you know, in this plane of time/space, but mankind is a non-local being that stretches across the cosmos, and into the past, present and future. OK?So when you start to grasp that and you have that intuitive.?.?. That’s why I tell people... When I try to do talks, I say:?You know, there are two groups of “religions” on Earth. There’s those that believe in reincarnation and those that don’t believe in reincarnation.?Right? And the reason is, they’re both right and wrong.KC:? OK.BD:? And the reason is, for them, that’s their level of understanding because that’s where they’re at. When you become truly intuitive at the highest levels, there’s no such thing as reincarnation.KC:? Sure, because we’re eternal beings.BD:? Right. Once you start grasping that, it’s like the words of Yeshua Ha'Mashiach Jesus that says, you know,?Though you do it to the least of my brothers, you have done it to me.?If you actually felt the pain of allowing your government to attack and blow up little girls in Baghdad, you wouldn’t do it because it would be like a neuron connected to another being.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? Or you wouldn’t walk by a plant starving for water without watering it. You wouldn’t spread depleted uranium on crops because you could?feel?that. In other words.?.?.BR:? You wouldn’t do these things, because you’re doing it to yourself.BD:? Right. It actually is another expression of the “I AM.” OK?KC:? Totally.BD:? We’re a gardener of the garden. We’re actually.?.?. Think of each spinning galaxy as a spinning flower in the universe. OK?KC:? Yes. But let’s get back to this, because we have Reptilians influencing the Illuminati agenda. And we’ve got an agenda that’s being rolled out on a bunch of eternal beings that don’t really recognize their eternalness. And so how’s it going to play out?BD:? Well, first, the thing that I’ve found...KC:? Why has this been allowed to get so far?BD:? Well, it’s allowed to get so far for a couple of reasons. The most important thing in the universe for sentient beings is to have free choice. In other words, to choose to remember.A lot of people think that, you know, you’re going through life to learn things, or to prove a point or to reach something, you know, like a point system, like a grade. And that if you reach a certain grade, you can transcend -- which is totally garbage.It’s like my little daughter with Down’s Syndrome, she doesn’t have to earn points to be my daughter. OK?BR:? Yeah.BD:? You are a son or daughter of the Most High God. And what’s happening is your birthright’s being stolen away from you, just like the story of Jacob and Esau. It’s being stolen away from people.And the problem is, it’s being stolen away primarily to tell them things that they are?not. Or to fill in dogma. And, of course, it’s interesting -- the word?dogma?means “am-God”, backwards.They’re being told that?they?should decide what’s good or evil rather than deciding from the spirit by making that connection. Because the only way for people to connect and not have an eternal matrix is to have the spirit inside them.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? Now the problem I see is this: People have to discern. There’s two groups in the universe. There is, if you want to call it,?the Dark Empire.?We will call them the?transdimenstional beings.?We might call them?the Higher Lords of Darkness?and their Princes.?And there’s many different civilizations that’re in this. We don’t even need to get into names, but there’s a whole series of them.BR:? Yep.BD:? You might call them the?serpentines, the Reptilians, the Tall Grays,?whatever you want to call them. OK? There’s a whole array of these.And on the other side, there is a?Grand Council of Civilizations?out there that are very, very caring and they are connected to the spirit of the Creator God. They are advanced beings, both human, humanoid and nonhuman, across the cosmos and universe.BR:? And of course this was why the movie?Star Wars?was such a tremendous modern myth because it represented this whole archetype that everyone really understands even if they don’t know it.BD:? Well, they understand because it’s something that they’re resonating with their spirit. You see.?.?.BR:? Exactly.BD:? It’s almost like someone going through a neuralizer like the show?MIB?--?Men?in Black. And so they’ve forgotten something but something can jar them back to remember it anyway. Right?BR:? Yeah. Right.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? OK. So in a sense you’re in a state of what I call?spirit sleep.?Your spirit’s asleep so that it can then start to reawaken its connectedness with everyone else.KC:? OK. But what’s the nuts and bolts to how this plays out, though, at the moment?BD:? Well, I’ll just give you a little story. This is one of the most recent ones. Roughly one year ago... And I get visions?and?dreams. OK? And one of my primary roles isn’t to be a doctor or a whistleblower or a radio host. Those are all secondary. And really, to be honest with you, they’re just a vehicle to try to get the real truth out -- which isn’t just?facts. Because the problem is, we have a?sea?of facts.KC:? Mm hm.BD:? But it doesn’t change people. For example, when you look at the anomalies around 9/11, how many people have insisted that there’s a proper investigation? Right?KC:? Absolutely.BD:? Right. And they’re not. Just to follow the financial side and all the other anomalies... And we still have all these factions, even in the so-called 9/11 movement.Well, it’s the same way with “religion.” I call it “real lies going on.” They have their dogma they cling to because... It’s what they call their “hell insurance,” because they’re fearful of knowing these things out here, of hell, or separation, or whatever it is, at the end of their physical life. So hence they kind of stuff themselves with dogma so that they can feel safe. Right?KC:? Mm hm. OK. But you’ve just told us you have three roles that are your secondary roles. What’s your first role?BD:? My first role is to speak as a prophet.KC:? OK.BD:? OK? Now, I’m not talking about Monty Python, fill the stadium with prophets. And there’s many different prophets. For example, I had on the show last week John Boncore/Splitting the Sky. And I really believe that there are many people, especially now, that there is a prophetic role for them. OK?KC:? Sure.BD:? And they’re from all different nations, colors, peoples, whatever, on the Earth. It’s like the body of mankind.But there are specific prophets that have what I call, if you want to call it, an “executive role,” to try to bring those together, and to bring the picture together so that there can be a platform to have an overall synthesis that can be presented back to mankind to say:?Now see??So they can start to kind of get with the program before all hell breaks loose.KC:? OK.BD:? And that’s one of the reasons why I do my show. And that’s one of the reasons I believe I was told to call you. I kind of come from the perspective... I want people to get rid of “religion” and get, in every moment, into spirituality. In other words, don’t go to church on Sunday and think you’re safe all week, or whatever other day you like. Don’t go into your prayer room and think that you’re...KC:? OK. But as a prophet... I mean, this is all good but that’s like the A, B, C’s and we’re, like, way beyond that with our audience.BD:? I’m sure you are.KC:? Let’s give them some credit.BD:? I’m just telling you what’s not on my show, because a lot of times they won’t get this on the show because I only present certain portions of it. Now here’s the next step.KC:? OK.BD:? The next step is, one year ago I was taken by the Grand Council, to the Eschaton.KC:? OK.BD:? The Eschaton is beyond time/space. OK? Now this may seem very bizarre to people. I’ve been there three times. This last time was one year ago. And it’s not an hallucination. It was a courtroom, if you want to call it, beyond time and space, with 24 witnesses through human history. OK?KC:? OK.BD:? And we were brought before the Council because they’re making a decision, either thumbs-up or thumbs-down, for our civilization. OK?KC:? OK.BD:? And we’re at the knife’s edge of a bad decision.KC:? OK. And I believe you.BR:? Right.BD:? Mankind as a corporate being has to make decisions to get on the right timeline.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? And if they don’t make the right decisions, we’re going to get on the wrong one and we’re going to become a dead cinder.In a sense this planet, and if you want to think of the Earth as a living being, it’s like a giant womb of these spirit-beings called human beings on Earth, or mankind, that are about to be birthed to become – I call?homo luminous?or?homo galacticus,?or you know, an advanced mankind that can interact with advanced civilizations across the cosmos -- that doesn’t have to have a matrix of billions of laws; that doesn’t have to have a chip in us to track us to make sure we’re good; and do all these things.Because where we’re at... We’re at this nexus or crossroads where we either are going to have the law as Jesus Christ said himself, which was one of the great teachers, Yeshua Ha Masaich, which meansThe Father in the Flesh. OK? And?we?are?the father in the flesh.?So are you! As we wake people up, it manifests what’s always been there. It’s the manifestation that counts. We’re not greater than God. We’re just...KC:? OK. So you’re in front of this council and you’re witnessing... What?BD:? The consciousness of all of these people down through human history.KC:? OK.BD:? To the council and all these different beings in the courtroom, and they basically came up with a judgment.And they said:?Now we’re sending you back, and you have... The time is very short before judgment is going to fall. And mankind as a corporate being must get this message. And if they don’t get the message correctly, which transcends religion, politics, national borders or their version of a new world order or world government...Because they’ve got a world government that’s absolutely noxious. You see, a world government can be world government with national boundaries and nations. It can be with people who keep their recipe cards and control of their civilization. It can be with a world that has some degree of order without knocking all boundaries down and creating regional trade zones.Because the world is not based on?economy. It’s based on, if you want to call it,?identity. OK? And what they’re doing is, they’re homogenizing the identity so they can control the population and turn people into cybernetic robots, is what they want to do.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? And they’re already moving us step by grade into a matrix. Now, the future that they’re talking about is where people, citizens, can even have the option of having a brain-interface chip and be loaded into a rack. And they won’t even have to exist in the physical world. Their bodies would be put into life extension technology, loaded into a rack for centuries or thousands of years. That’s where we’re headed.People say:?Oh no, that won’t happen.I say:?Well, I’m sorry, but that hellish world is right around the corner.But it’s dependent on humankind. And whether we’ll even get to that, or most of this civilization will die... These people are feverishly building underground bases at the rate here in America, for example, of two bases per year, anywhere from 18 to 26?billion?dollars.KC:? Yes.BD:? Anywhere from 5.24 to 7.25 cubic miles in size. Most of them are in dormant volcanic domes or built with nuclear explosions underground to create these massive domes or what’s called a matrix where they cut these giant tunnels.KC:? But that’s not going to save them.BD:? No, it won’t save them. The fact is, it’s not going to be a technical answer that’s going to save them. And that’s where the problem is. These are advanced intellectual beings without spirit. And that’s the basis of what we call the Reptilian or serpentine empire.It’s like a group of super-scientists with these super-intellects, with massive knowledge of energy and time/space, and jumping across the galaxy, and life extension, and everything. But with no spirit, because they do what is right in their own eyes.Bill Deagle (BD): ...You know, like one of the things they’ll often do is, they’ll say:?Well,?Deagle, if all the stuff you’re telling is true, you’re either crazy, or why are you walking around alive??I say it’s because I’m being protected on the supernatural level, on the cosmic level, and on the spiritual level, and also on the physical. I mean, there’s a lot on the physical level, too.And there’s a number of people even within the organizations you might call the Illuminati, the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] and so on that actually see what’s going on and see the insanity of it.Bill Ryan (BR): They’re not all evil.Kerry Cassidy (KC): Let’s go from exactly where you are... because you’re before the Council. They’re making a decision.BD:? Right.KC:? And are they conscious that you’re there? Did they invite you in?BD:? Oh, they bring you right in. It’s like a courtroom, you know, so that we will understand it, of course. But what they do is they give you a surrounding that you can identify with. So for me, I was in a physical courtroom.KC:? Sure. OK.BD:? And there’s all these other human beings that are actually like in the witness box, 24 of us. And they were being brought forward one at a time, and then our consciousness would be uploaded for all of those beings to actually see all our life experiences and the information on the world and so on. And you see all these images. And actually, because we were in the box, we could actually see what was being witnessed by the others.KC:? OK. But you’re also being given a message to take back.BD:? Right. The message to bring back is, if you want to call it, it’s almost like a Biblical message, because my calling is virtually identical to the calling of Moses, who is my ancestor, and to Elijah and Jeremiah.It’s basically: Repent. Get back connected with the creator God. Don’t set up a set of rules, i.e., stone commandments. Get people so their heart is?so they don’t do things wrong because it’s written on their heart.It’s the message of “The Kingdom,” which is, in other words, for mankind to be an advanced civilization with advanced technology that doesn’t get absorbed by the technology like Ray Kurzweil and many “Luciferians” talk about, is to transcend it spiritually so that technology is our servant and not our master.BR:? Right.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? And that’s what’s happening, is whether it’s genetic technology that could relieve illness, and stop many of the pains of fragility as people get older, and we want to lengthen human lifespan. I belong to the Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine.But I don’t want them to do things like create cybernetic chimeric super-soldiers, that then become a plague upon the planet, or super-weapons that are used to kill or destroy others so they can get control. And so it could be used for good or incredible evil, and our problem is right now that most of the funding is toward evil.KC:? Right.BR:? What’s the outcome of this meeting that you’ve just been describing?BD:? The outcome of the meeting was a somberness, a seriousness that, if we didn’t get the message through to the people, that the planet of Earth would be annihilated, would be allowed to be annihilated.A lot of people think, for example, a lot of the space-based weapons platforms we have around the Earth -- Right? Because I worked with U.S. Space Command -- are weapons to knock out spacecraft, to knock out asteroids or meteors, to, you know, basically shield Earth against geomagnetic super-storms that may occur from Solar Mass Ejections and other things, and to control the climate. In other words, they’re trying to create a kind of, like a terrarium, of Earth so as we pass through the galactic plane...KC:? Right. Except that some of those weapons are located on the Moon and aimed at Earth.BD:? Right. And in fact, most of the weapons there could be aimed at Earth very easily and?have been, and have been used for great evil -- just like the geotectonic weapon that triggered off the Sichuan earthquake, or the earthquake that was struck on Nagata, Japan, and broke the reactor core of the largest reactor in Japan. And it was told three days before to Ben Fulford that his finance minister, of course, had been warned that he had to pass over authority to the Rothschilds, or their banking system, or they were going to hit Nagata. And they did.BR:? Yeah.BD:? I mean, it just shows you that the abuse of this power is not just under circumspection of human beings. If you want to invoke the Biblical terms, if you want to call the word...?angel?just means, in Greek it means?messenger. It means these messengers are always watching everything in the higher planes of existence. Right? And they’re here right now.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? They’re here in this room right now. Right?KC:? I was going to say...BD:? Right. They’re here in this room right now.KC:? So what do they want you to tell people, you know, that has to happen now?BD:? Well, it’s wrapped up in one word, and it sounds kind of trite but it’s true. It’s called?Repent. OK?KC:? Mm hm.BD:? And it says in the Book of Malachi, which is one of the last books of the Old Testament, it says:Repent before the great and terrible day.And what it’s really saying is:?Reconnect with the Creator God, become a Child of God, take your scepter.And we have?authority. You’re no longer just a little bug down here, a worm on the planet Earth and a small dwarf, yellow dwarf star. You are the Voice in this plane of existence of the Creator God. The spirit in you is not a separate spirit. It?is?the?I AM.?OK?You have the authority to create your own future. You have the authority to destroy disease and poverty, and not have pollution, and have limitless energy and information and to spread peacefully and interact with other civilizations throughout the cosmos without disrupting or destroying them, but maybe being almost like, if you want to call it, midwives to other civilizations...KC:? Absolutely.BD:? ...that will then advance to the level where they’ll understand and come out of the?Petri?dish and the crib of civilization and become another advanced culture themselves.BR:? I’d like to add an anecdote to this, which you may have heard, and I’ve also said before on another interview but it’s worth repeating. Bill Birnes, the editor of?UFO Magazine?was privileged to talk with Admiral George Hoover of the office of Naval Intelligence before he died.BD:? Right.BR:? And he asked Admiral George Hoover:?What’s all this big secrecy about? What’s the real deal? What’s really going on here?BD:? Right.BR:? Because, what’s the big deal about Roswell and little guys from wherever they’re from or whenever they’re from? Why can’t we tell the people this? And the long story is that, according to George Hoover, the biggest secret that the people must not realize, it’s not this data about the technology or the visitors, or the existence of the visitors. It’s our own power. This is the biggest secret.BD:? It’s our own power. Exactly.BR:? It’s our own power that we must not realize, because the greatest secret is who we are, what we can do, what we can be, and they’ve got to keep us in our box. Otherwise, their game is over.BD:? Right. In other words, the comment made by Yeshua Ha'Mashiach Jesus is:?Surely you know you are gods.?And they misinterpret the word. In other words, you don’t?replace?the Creator God of the universe; it means you’re an?extension?of it.KC:? Sure.BD:? And you’re only an extension of it when you?hear. The Hebrew word is?shemah,?hear and do.In other words, the problem I see right now is that we have a society that thinks, by external rules and controls, we can create this Luciferian world of order in chaos, so they can create a world of “peace” which is totally an?ordered?world that is completely under, if you want it call it, you know, scientific control. It’s a scientifically-controlled society, not ruled by spirit.The very nature of what we are, though, is a spirit being passing through a matrix of energy that creates worlds. We are literally creating our own timeline in our name.BR:? Yes.BD:? And the thing is, corporately we are creating our own timeline in our name. That’s why, for example, I tell people on the show repeatedly:?Don’t drink the Kool-aid of fear.KC:? Mm hm.BD:? Because fear itself creates, if you want to call it, a backburner or an atmosphere that allows them to create the web of destruction that occurs next.BR:? Yes.BD:? In other words, they can?think?themselves?into bombs going off in cities. They can think themselves into a release of plague. They can think themselves into a grand depression, where thousands of people starve to death and start cannibalizing. They can think themselves into.?.?.One of the things they try to do, is that want to have this fear worship. They want to elevate you so then you become almost like another avatar, rather than, no different than, that. I’m not any different than my little daughter, or the pert little, what they call them in the military when they’re shooting ’em, “rag-heads,” over in Iraq. I am the same. I’m just another incarnation of the I AM.BR:? Yep.BD:? And the point has to be this: That if we don’t start getting back to that connectedness, we’ll think it’s?OK?to have this thermonuclear / scalar / biological warfare; it’s?OK?to kill most of the population of Earth; it’s?OK?to create a new cybernetic super-army, and replace the military, and destroy them in fact when we release these damn things.As I say, one person said to me:?If half of what you say is true, or even 10 percent, we’re in a lot of trouble.BR:? Oh, we’re in big trouble!BD:? I have a very special calling, not because I’m special, but because I hear and do?the will.?And people need to understand that. One of the things they try to do is, they’ll say, you know, ten years or a century or a thousand years from now, they’ll try to say:?That guy was so special. No one can ever be like him.And what I want to tell them is I have had many opportunities to go to the dark side, and I could have been one of the greatest evil-doers that ever lived on this planet.BR:? And you were approached a couple of time, is that right?BD:? Numerous times.BR:? Numerous times.BD:? One of the most serious was 16 years ago, where I was sleeping in my home. I was actually back from working in Georgia at a burn unit and trauma unit, and having a practice there, and I had come back for family reasons to Infield, Nova Scotia. And I was sleeping in a different part of the house because I was snoring.So I woke up in the middle of the night, bolt upright, and I sat up. And I had all the lights on because I’d have to periodically go to the restroom or whatever. I had all the lights on. And this guy was standing in front of me with what I call a $5,000 tuxedo, not a gray hair in his head, mid-50s, slim and trim.I said: How did you get in here?And he says:?It’s wonderful to see you, my son.I said:?You’re not my father.And I looked at this guy, and he looked like French nobility. Right? And I said:?Who are you?He says:?I am the Baron Guy de Rothschild, the Pindar.And I had this really kind of, what I call a?check?or a kind of a?cringe?in my spirit. And I knew right away, because I have this gift. Right? Without getting into a big long discussion, I knew right away.I said:?I know who you are. You’re the representative of the Luciferic power that controls Earth.He says:?Yes, I am the CEO of Earth, Inc., and I am the man that sits in the 13th chair of the Druidic Council. I want you to be my understudy, and when I transcend I want you to take over my job.And I said:?No, I’m not going to.He said:?We know your bloodlines; we know your genetics; we know everything about you and you’re a perfect replacement for me.And I said:?No!And after I rejected it, he said:?I’m going to kill you for writing these two books,?which I received supernaturally facedown on the concrete, you know, about six years before, which no one knew about because it was in my study.KC:? What do you mean, you “received supernaturally facedown on the concrete”? What do you mean by that?BD:? Basically I was “out,” if you want to call it, and I was told to write these books, and I wrote them down, which I released back in 1999 with a group called The Prophecy Club.And he said:?And?I’m going to touch your baby daughter’s heart.I said:?I don’t have a daughter, and my wife’s not pregnant.?And he started laughing. And I thought he rebuked me because I serve the God of the Universe, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.And you could see his countenance change. He got really nasty looking. And then all of a sudden, literally – four feet -- as far as you’re away from me, in broad daylight, he just “poof” and disappeared, like in a vortex.And I went upstairs shaking, and I could hardly talk, you know. I told my wife what happened. So the next morning I went to my office to do a pregnancy test, and of course she was pregnant.And like six weeks later we’re sitting in the ultrasound room. During medical school I had worked with Dr. McMillan and I actually did some of the background research on ultrasound before any of the doctors in North America actually had it for analysis, so I could read ultrasounds.So I’m sitting in the ultrasound room and the tech’s moving over my wife’s abdomen. And as she scans over the abdomen, the technician, you could tell... Her lips dried right up, and she had this kind of stark look on her face. And I knew right away. I could see nuchal thickening and the center of my daughter’s heart was stopped.BR:? Wow.KC:? Is this the young girl we just met?BD:? Right. Now you’ve got to understand that some of the things that’ve happened to me are so remarkable that they just, you know...She was born through C-section. I was told supernaturally, I had visitations that told me that she wasn’t going to die, even though the surgeons said:?We don’t know why she’s even born alive.?Because her heart was... Literally the center of her heart was gone. She had almost a single chamber heart. Right? Which is a miracle.And they did the first surgery at six and a half months. By the way, we’re pro-life. We knew that she was going to be born with Downs Syndrome, and of course we hoped that it was going to be somehow miraculously healed.But I was told, basically, don’t be fearful, that she’s going to survive, and she’s going to have this surgery. She had her first surgery. She had already lost four ounces from her birth weight by the time she had her first surgery.And then at two and a half years, her heart started to enlarge again. It was now the size of an adult heart and she was about to die. So we had oxygen tanks, you know, oxygen pumps concentrating oxygenated air and it had a 60-foot long tube going to her bedroom with a little mask before her surgery.And so I had a... because I have visitations all the time. They told me:?This is the words the surgeon will say to you, that I don’t know what I did, but I put in only four sutures, and her heart was miraculously healed.There’s not even just a grade-one mitral valve defect. They didn’t have to replace the heart valves. But literally, with the Dacron grafts that he had done earlier, and with just a few sutures, she’s healed. She never even had to be on a heart drug, never been in a hospital, hasn’t even ever had a cold, which is amazing for Downs Syndrome. Right?But the key issue to me... And I think that I was permitted to go through these experiences - this is one of the many ones - is to understand the issue of the sacredness of?all?human life, whether it’s the disabled, the elderly, people of different faiths, skin colors, intellectual powers, whatever, that we’re all in a sense the continuous incarnation of the Creator God, which is the message of The Kingdom that Yeshua Jesus was trying to give.The other experience I want to share is back in... October 10th of 1993, I was face-down praying and I was brought supernaturally by, if you want to call it, the term,?archangel, which is one of the senior messengers.I was brought by this archangel, and he announced his name. He said he name was Gabriel. Right? And the word?Gabriel?means one who has a message from the voice of the Most High God.?Gabriel?means one who can speak for God. Right? That’s what it means.And he brought me to an underground facility. He brought me to some satellite facility. And we didn’t just walk around and he kind of said:?This is that, and this is what’s been happening.?He actually explained the technology to me in great detail. We spent, if you want to call it in the spirit realm, I spent hours and hours and hours with him.And I said:?Well, where am I?And he wouldn’t tell me. He said:?You’re gonna know because you’re gonna go to the place where this pastor is.And I thought it was Dallas. Right? So I called up.?No, no he’s already left here. He’s gone to Colorado Springs.?It was a pastor by the name of Pastor Doug Sheets.So my wife called, and she checked with a placement agency. She said:?Well, there’s no jobs available in Colorado Springs.So three weeks later, she got prompted to go and start calling around. And the second hospital she called, she talked to a lady by the name of Joyce Wolf, who is the head of CCom.?Oh, we need an Op-Med doctor. Your husband does occupational and environmental medicine? He has a background in...?And, you know, I was a charter member of Greenpeace, and had a background in toxicology and chemistry and biochemistry.?Oh good, we’ll fly you up this weekend.?And four days later I had the job.KC:? Hm.BD:? July 10th of the next summer, which was July 10th of 1994, I walked through the same facilities underground and the same satellite-based engineering stations and classified projects as I had with the angel.KC:? OK.BD:? OK? That’s just one of?hundreds?of experiences. OK? So people need to know that we are beingwatched. The reason why the Earth is not an engulfed mass of biological weapons release, even though we had 347 accidents just last year in Class Four installations. That’s not even Fed-Ex Couriers. We have no idea how many times we’ve been saved from cataclysm.BR:? Yep.BD:? We have?no idea. The number of interventions is just... I say making angels gray-haired. [laughs]BR:? Yes..BD:? And if you want to call ’em ETs, angels or whatever you want to do, but we are being watched and we’re being watched over very, very diligently because it’s such a desperately late time.BR:? But these guys... Are you saying that they’re?not?going to step in forever, or there’s certain things they?can’t?do?BD:? No, they can step in only if there’s a transformation of the heart. You see, it’s not going to be space-based technology to knock out, you know, to shield the Earth from the collapse of the magnetosphere. It’s not going to be space-based particle weapons that can hit an incoming meteor. Or a solar storm.It’s going to be a change in the heart of mankind that we will not harm any other race. We’ll not invade a country, like what we’ve done in Iraq and kill 1.5 million Iraqis. We will not put poison in vaccines and call it fine.We will not go to third-world countries like Poland two months ago and do tests on Polish vagrants and kill them. There were 300 tests and 23 died within minutes, and 200 more were very seriously sickened.And they’ve now imported to America 500 million doses of the Sanofi Pasteur Vaccine made on contract for Homeland Security.Now it’s not to scare people. It’s to make them understand that the reality that I try to present on the show is both the technical, scientific,?public?information, you know, in the public domain, as well as classified. But you’ll see an overall picture. But then on this other side there’s the spiritual dimension to that.And they have to understand that, whether there’s... I get people all the time:?Should I leave North America? Should I leave America?I say:?No, now is the time for us to confront this because you can’t go far enough away.And they say:?Well, what do you mean? How far?And I say:?Well, Mars isn’t far enough away for these guys.KC:? Right.BD:? I say:?You have to understand...You know, one of the talks that I had back in July of 1994 was, of course... The Senior Commander of the US Space Command comes up, and he’s a very sharp,?this-is-the-way-it-is?kind of guy.He says:?Docs, I come to Jesus-talk for you.And I thought:?Oh-oh, what’s he going to say to us?And he has this real serious look. He says:?You’re one of our guys now. So you’re gonna hear stuff, because you’re working with these guys who are working on all these weird projects. These guys are the brightest guys in engineering, cybernetics, physics, space-based weapons, everything. And you’re going to get exposed to things.And so you won’t hear it from somebody else, so I’m going to tell you right now. We control every cubic centimeter of space between here and Mars.And I said:?What??I said:?You mean between here and the Moon.He said:?No. Mars. We’ve had a colony on Mars since the early 1980s, and we found evidence of previous civilizations of human life on there going back a long time.We’ve had an entire city on the Moon for mining operations for Helium-3.We have entire fleets of space-based vehicles, and we have more advanced sub- and above-light vehicles that are interstellar. OK?You need to know that. Even though we have entire rings of space-based platforms around Earth, we have collaboration with advanced civilizations. And if you don’t know this stuff, you might as well know it now. And if you have questions about anything, ask me, because otherwise, if you’re not in the loop, you’re gonna freak out.KC:? OK. When was this? What year?BD:? July 10th, 1994. OK?BR:? Yep. All of this corroborates... all of this is.?.?. Let me start that sentence again. Nothing we know contradicts anything that you have just said. The information that we’ve got from other sources completely supports everything you say.BD:? Right.BR:? This is just testimony for the people watching this.BD:? Right. I know, and I’m saying this straight out.BR:? This is the way it is.BD:? Yeah. Now you’ve got to understand that the number of convergences... When I traveled around to The Prophecy Club, to 42 cities in Israel, and I tell my story, people said 100 individuals couldn’t have been in all those places, but I was supernaturally told, just like I was told to call you guys.KC:? Mm hm.BD:? I was the exit examining doctor for the Special-Op forensic team that came back from the Murrah Building in ’95, and my boss, Major George Schwinder, was not available because he was getting extra air time at Fort Hood, Texas. So all five Special-Op agents, I had to examine ’em.One of the five broke down and told me in great detail how they removed two unexploded fourth-generation U.S. Army Corp Engineer micro-nukes, thermate, RDX, and high explosive cores, and the buildings were brought down by the FBI and ATF.I kept that information hidden. And as I was driving down the street in Littleton, Colorado -- because I had my practice in downtown Denver, and I was living in Littleton and down on the Highlands Ranch.KC:? And this was after...BD:? This was after. This was back in 2003. I’m driving down the road, and because I do have this gift, literally I hear the voice of God, just like Moses.KC:? Right.BD:? You know, what it talks about in the Bible? I’m the bloodline descendent. OK?God said:?Turn on the radio.?And I turn it on.And he said:?Turn to this channel.And I do, and I’m hearing this guy talk about financial things. I say:?Oh, that’s boring. Why am I listening to this?And then all of a sudden...?Don’t turn it off.And then a guy comes on and it’s Alex Jones. And Alex comes on and he starts talking about this New World Order stuff, and I got this real kind of?pinge?in my spirit because I’d kept this information hidden since ’95 to 2003. I said:?I’m going to release this information.?So I called into the show a couple of times and I told them I have information about Oklahoma City.And the guy who asked me to do a really extensive interview was a Pastor Butch Paugh on Genesis Network. Well, after that, the network called me back and said:?We want you to do the show.?So in February of 2004 I started doing a radio show on Genesis.Now, before that, I had done a kind of, like an entertainment show, called?Laughter is the Best Medicine?on Clear Channel. So I’d go there on Wednesday nights with Mark Alan Curry. We used to have a fun time going down to the Clear Channel studios in Denver and just crack jokes back and forth and talk about wellness and toxicology and environmental medicine, and anti-aging and things like that.Well, since that time... You really need to understand... I’ve been in so many places... at the wrong place at the wrong time. [laughs]I was the doctor for the Englewood Fire Department and the ladder truck that was actually there on the scene, including a number of the other people there, so I know exactly what happened. It was a complete government op at Columbine.I was the doctor for the first kid shot in Columbine. And I had one pediatric patient, and he had only started working there, going to school, because he had a special-ed need -- Mark Taylor -- three weeks before. Right?And when he came out of hospital after two 14-hour procedures and 57 units of blood, his mother asked me to put my hands on him and pray for him. And I have an intuitive gift of discernment that’s very unique. So I put my hands on him.And I knew right away. I said:?You have an abscess in your chest that they missed, and I’m going to put you on a specific antibiotic and in three days to the hour you’re going to call me in pain and I’m going to put you in hospital and drain it.And to the hour he called me. OK?I put him in the hospital and I told the radiologist, I said:?Now, when you go and do the CT scan, put this catheter into the abscess.He said:?Well how do you know that?I said:?Well, when you do the CT you’re going to see the abscess. Put the catheter in, drain it, and call a thoracic surgeon. OK?So he did and he said:?How did you know that?And I said:?It’s a long story. OK??So don’t get... [Bill laughs]Three weeks later he’s walking around with a PCA pump getting fentanyl. So he can press the pump every so many minutes and the pump will then remember so he can’t press it too many times, and he gets a little burst of fentanyl. And he’s in agony.And this abscess is about the size of a fist, and the thoracic surgeon’s itching. He says:?OK, well, we’re going to have to cut this out, because if we don’t the abscess will expand or it’ll go septic and he’ll die.So I told Mark. He’s sixteen-and-a-half; he’s not really bright; his mother is kind of emotionally a basket case, and he said:?Well. I want... They were, you know, they were “believers,”?you know, Christians. They don’t believe in miracles. They don’t believe that we have the authority to take authority over reality, whether it’s our physical bodies or whatever.So I said:?Look Mark, I’m going to pray for you.?I said:?And tomorrow morning instead of you going in for surgery, you’re going to walk out of here.And at first he looked at me like:?Whoa, that’s a pretty bold thing to say.So I stayed up all night and I prayed for him. Next morning I came in about 7.15 and I just put my hand on him and said:?God, you saved this kid from seven bullets to the chest.?Right??And one to the arm and leg.?And the bullets actually went behind his heart and in front of the aorta. One hit the T-9 vertebra and knocked a fragment off.And this is the way I talked to God, I said:?You’re going to heal him immediately and you’re going to transform his body so he’ll be a witness, because if you didn’t allow him to survive this without being able to tell the truth of what happened in Columbine.So I put my hand on him. It was like holding a high-tension power line. All of a sudden it just felt like this energy [makes sizzling noise] coming right through me. And I could see literally with the mind’s eye, if you want to call it, The Creator. I could see right down to his cells, and everything, and it was gone.I said:?Mark, get your clothes ready. We’re walking out of here.BR:? Wow! Yeah.BD:? And I walked up to the front desk to the nurse and I said:?He’s not going to surgery for a 7-hour procedure to cut out four ribs and take out this abscess. He’s coming home.She looked at me like:?Oh-oh, this guy’s a nut case. How can we get psychiatry down here??Right?I said:?No. Repeat the CT scan. It’s gone.?So they repeated the CT scan and an hour-and-a-half later, he was hopping and skipping out of the hospital.BR:? Fabulous.KC:? Now isn’t info about this on the web, about this boy and his mother in regard to you?BD:? Oh, what happened is they get involved with... The mother has a problem; she’s a manic depressive. And they offered all kinds of big movie scripts and money and everything and Mark actually...Right now I just got a contact from her doctor just last week because I’m trying to help the doctor. He called me all the way from Iowa, saying:?Please, you’re one of the few people that care for Mark.?And I still do, and I care for his mom, too.But they said a lot of nasty things because they got involved with some pastors, and they got a big possibility of a movie contract.And what was happening is I was working and my wife was working on collecting a ton of information, because we were going to private showings of videotape that the public didn’t see. I got a chance to interview and talk to almost every other child that survived the Columbine shooting.So there were many of the kids that actually died of SWAT Team bullets. There were at least, probably, we think up to 4 kids that may have died from SWAT Team bullets, from the forensics.And Mark literally stayed and lived with us for almost a year-and-a-half. He went to vacation with us, even to Las Vegas. Right? Even when they asked me to go up in January of 2000 to speak at the Full Gospel Fellowship, I paid my own ticket. We didn’t ask for anything.So what happened is, the mother had been contacted by a big movie company, wanting to turn this into a Columbine movie, and they got real angry that we wouldn’t just hand everything over or do things their way.I said:?No, no, we’re not going to turn this into a sideshow here. This is real serious; we had this kid survive; we had this miraculous thing happen; we don’t want this to turn into a sideshow. And that’s where the negativity started.BR:? Yeah.BD:? But it’s really unfortunate that happened, because Mark is still, you know, he’s very sick right now. He’s been in and out of a psychiatric facility.KC:? Mm.BD:? His doctor, one of his doctors, in Iowa contacted me:?What can we do to try to help him?I said:?Well, you know he needs serious help.?But a lot of the time they give these young people drugs that I think are patently toxic.KC:? Yes.BD:? We know for example, when you give somebody that’s manic depressive, SS or I drugs like Luvoc, Prozac, etc., they go over the deep end. Unfortunately, his doctors gave him the wrong drugs.KC:? OK.BD:? OK? These drugs came out of Hoffmann-LaRoche. They came out of mind control projects in the Soviet Union and Germany going right back to I.G. Farben. They get right back to G proteins. And he had a real bad reaction from whatever they gave him.BR:? Yes. Now if I can steer this back now...KC:? Yes.BR:? Because that was a beautiful story, and it’s great to have that on record, but how you were in the right place at the right time so many times that most people would never believe it. But backed up from that you’ve been in the right place at the right time for a reason here and that is to give what you would probably call your testimony.BD:? Well, I’m a witness. I’m almost like Daniel in the lion’s den. I’ve been in places that most people can’t even imagine.Like in 1977 I was supposed to do research on MS [multiple sclerosis] at the Santa Monica VA Hospital, part of UCLA. And one of the projects was to work on a Ph.D. neurology residency under Dr. Wallace Tourtellotte.And the other four projects were all classified. Four of them were actually cybernetic projects. One was actually a helmet that would convert thoughts directly to on-flight commands directly to a supercomputer that they already had with command, or symbols, that would be projected onto the canopy of the jet so you could fly the jet by thoughts, fire off ordnances.And the other three projects were to take prisoners from West Orange and Irvine State Penitentiaries and wet-wire their brains with platinum and palladium micro-wires.And Dr. Tourtellotte had a custom-made CT implanter that was used with a CT scan that could implant micro-wires in specific nuclei in the brain to actually use supercomputers -- that were classified -- to convert neural-net stochastic firing sequences so they’d get particular images. So you could control their behavior, see what they see, hear what they hear.And I turned it down. I said:?No. You people are crazy!KC:? OK, to turn them into Manchurian Candidates.BD:? Yeah, they actually had a thing called the “Rambo-chip,” that they had back in the ’60s and this is part of Delgado’s research at Yale. They had a thing called the Rambo-chip and what the Rambo-chip was, was a rage-control chip that was in the subthalamic nucleus that could actually control rage. You flip the switch and they would kill, and you would turn it off and they’d stop.So this was one of the things the residents would laugh at:?Ha, ha, ha. We can do this stuff.?But I think that’s pretty ghoulish.And people don’t understand that a lot of the people that they give these projects have 180-plus IQs, but they’re twisted. OK? Or if they’re not, they’re compromised. And if they eventually discover it and they try to pull back, they do things like “patch” them. You ever heard of what a patch is?KC:? I’m not sure.BD:? OK. A patch is where they give you an intravenous patch. The patch lasts three days. OK? Or a transdermal patch. And if you don’t get the next patch in three days you die a horrific death.BR:? Mm hm.BD:? OK? So they’ve got you on a short string.BR:? Gotcha. OK. Now, some of this is on record on the Granada Forum Lecture and a lot of people watching this will already be familiar with that material.BD:? Right.BR:? We’re nearly two years further on from there. Where are we now? What does this mean for the human race and for the individuals watching this now?BD:? Well the timeline to watch for is actually the nation of Israel. OK? And the timeline to watch is...And that’s why my calling is particularly important, because I’m going to re-release my book,?Clay and Iron,?here sometime in the not too distant future. Right?KC:? OK.BD:? Yeah. So if you look at the nation of Israel, there’s so much contradiction. All the stuff with Iran is all over Israel. OK?BR:? Yes.BD:? Even American foreign policy. The reason why they went into Iraq was Israel. A trillion dollars spent, the collapse of the economy -- it’s all tied back to Israel. OK?And people say:?Well,?why is Israel so important? Why was there a first holocaust? Why is there planning to be a second?”And it’s really pretty simple. Think of it this way: If the Creator of the universe made a people, or a group of people, you could call it a mixed group of people, the ancient tribes of Israel, as an object-lesson to the world, a scapegoat in a sense, a way of explaining to people:?If you try to follow The Law you get condemned and destroyed. OK?And what would happen is that... The original books of the Bible spoke about a God you could not see that was the Creator that created you in his image. OK? And, even if they didn’t understand it, they tried to adhere to it. They kept every jot and tittle. Right?And so the “People of the Book,” which is what they used to be called -- they weren’t called the Jews or the Israelites -- they had to be wiped out because they would tell people. Even if they went off and they went through a reformation or they learned from other religious groups, whether it’s Buddhists, or Hopi, or natives, they’d eventually start getting?beyond?religion.As I said in?my talk on The Granada Forum, 10,000 years from now will there be anything called “religion”? Of course not. It won’t exist because we’ll have a full knowledge of the Creator Gods and what they are. Because we can’t exist and transcend beyond the technology unless we do that. We won’t survive.KC:? Right, but people...BD:? In other words, the two are mutually exclusive.KC:? But to get back to what the role is of Israel.BD:? The role of Israel is a timepiece. It’s actually a detonator. It’s a transformative event. It’s like the ultimate, if you want to call it, death trap for civilization.So what’s happened? For example, I’ve had on my show numerous times, Barry Chamish. A good example is, the nation of Israel arose, and the holocaust... The greatest lies in modern history have been about the holocaust. Yes, they killed almost 7 million Jews. Yes they killed probably, of others, up to maybe 23 million.But the real goal was not only a ritual sacrifice to the transdimensional demonic realm. Right? But the real goal transcends that. It was to wipe out the?idea?of a Creator God and that we’re an incarnation of the Creator.Because eventually if the reformation and all these other things were to continue to proceed... Since the breakup of the control of the Roman Catholic Church, and all the spinoffs and everybody trying to get into the New Age, and all the other religious things, where there’s a return to spirituality...The big move right now is not toward religion, it’s toward spirituality, whether they’re coming from a Christian viewpoint, a Jewish viewpoint, a Buddhist viewpoint. And they’re all starting to kind of compare notes and realize that, even though they use different terms, they’re starting to understand there’s a commonality there.KC:? Sure.BR:? Yep.BD:? Right.KC:? But still, to steer you back. So the role of Israel at this time...BD:? Well, the role of Israel is primarily to act on the, if you want to call it, on the Luciferian serpentine side, is to act as a detonator for the final annihilation of mankind.BR:? So, in practical terms...BD:? They use it as a final focal point.KC:? You mean they’re going to attack Iran, and in return...BD:? Yeah, or the threat of an attack will set in motion the peace treaty that’ll partition the State of Israel. Just think of it this way.Logically, if you’re from another world and you were to see a nation that’s the size of, you know, a little tiny strip of land anywhere from 10 to 16 miles long -- the third nuclear power... Probably the most advanced in terms of biological weapons on the planet is the State of Israel.KC:? Yes.BD:? They’re number one.BR:? OK.BD:? They have their own space-based imaging systems, ImageSat. They’ve got all kinds of weapons, when they were kind of on the outs, that they developed with the South Africans. They even, a lot of the time, buy their own jets and just stack ’em right up. They have the number one air force on the planet in terms of rapid response, and killing capacity. Number one, not number two or three.What happens is, you divide that nation and they have no boundary zone where they can protect themselves. And the only thing they can do is to pull a “Samson Option” and hit a button. They have space-base platforms. Because Israel has them. Israel has space-based weapons platforms, imaging systems, terrible stuff. They could wipe out every city within 10,000 miles of them. They can just “bam.” They’re gone. OK?BR:? But they.?.?.KC:? What is the plan?BD:? The plan is.?.?. It’s all being set up because, you see, the leaders of Israel are Satanic Luciferian. The entire State of Israel was set up, as Barry Chamish has said, so they could cleanse themselves of any who is a “Torah Jew,” anyone who understands the nature of the Creator God.Even if they didn’t understand the depths of it, they didn’t want anybody to understand that they were created in the image of a God and they’re a spirit having a physical existence on this plane of existence.They wanted to then replace them with a Luciferic idea, an agnostic idea, a communist idea. So the State of Israel was originally sponsored with the Soviet, the actual Communist Soviet. OK?BR:? Mm hm.BD:? And the idea was to create an agnostic Luciferian society where they follow the highest tenants of Babylonian Kabbalah, which means that they themselves are Gods. OK?In other words, they?replaced?God because therefore they are the energetic intelligent force that’s willing to use good or evil, following this Shabbatai Tzvi, you know the false anti-Messiah, 1666, and Jacob Frank, to actually create a world order where “these Luciferic cabalists would control the world.”And that’s what happening now. You can see it with the financial system. You can see it with the political system. You can see it with everything, that these Luciferic Satanists...The two groups at the very top are Teutonic Knights, who think they’re bloodline descendants through Yeshua Ha'Mashiach Jesus and King David. That’s one group, which are all the Royals of Europe. And the other group are the Sabbatian Luciferic Satanists -- Satanic Jews.KC:? OK.BD:? Those people run the world.KC:? Led by the Pope. Right?BD:? Led by the Pope and the Black Pope and the Knights of Malta, and they’re totally controlling it. And they’re interacting at such a level that they literally have physical presence of these demonic reptilian beings right even in the Vatican...BR:? Yep.BD:? Right in, you know, and people need to understand.When you get these deepest underground bases... I had one Canadian engineer who actually controls and engineers and takes care of the Aurora Space Fleet, that fly out of our underground bases in central Germany and the Black Forest and fly to our Moon bases and on to Mars.And he’s terrified to come on the show. And I’ve been talking to him for the last couple of years. But he’s showed me enough technical information and facts and sent me stuff that I know that his story is real. Right? So I’m going to repeat it.After 10 months of psychological testing, they finally said:?Well, now you’re in the deepest of the D.U.M.B One Bases and we’re going to bring you down to the final level.?And he gets down there and all of these beings are right there in the flesh. OK?BR:? Mm hm.BD:? Just like out of?Star Wars. OK? It’s really crazy, but he says it’s real.And I said: Why won’t you come on and tell us?Because,?he said,?I don’t want to shatter people’s religious beliefs.And I said: Well, I do want to shatter them, because it’s a sacred cow, and in fact their religion, whether they’re this group of Christians, or this group of Jews, or this group of Buddhists, they’re all wrong. They’re all wrong.In other words, I call it [religion] “real lies going on.” It doesn’t mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater, like Bill Marr in his movie that’s coming out this week called?Religious, you know, when he says anybody who’s religious is a fool; they’re an idiot...KC:? Mm hm.BD:? ...because of all the foolishness that religions are doing – like, I call them the “Armageddonites” -- that are supposedly Christians that believe that they have to bathe the world in blood and fire.KC:? Right.BD:? Or the Sabbatians who think:?Well, we’ll just pull the Samson Option and go down to our underground bases.?Because they have a ton of ’em down there.BR:? Hm.BD:? Or the Illuminists who think:?Well, who cares if we blow up the world? We’ll just go to our underground bases and we’ll survive and then we’ll come back up in a decade or century.?Like the Morlocks, you know, of H.G. Wells’?Time Machine.And it’s insanity. Because they’re not going to survive what’s going to come. They’re not going to survive it. OK?And they need to grasp that what we’re heading for here is, unless they take up the scepter of what they are and the power that they have to decide for?life?-- just like Moses when he took the six tribes in Mount Ibal and Mount Garizin and put between [them] an amount of cursings and an amount of blessings and he said:?Today, choose life.In other words, you’re not taking away their choice. You’re saying:?You need to grow up and you need to stop talking about easy-be-livism, prosperity gospel, all this other foolishness, and you need to start talking about relating to other humans.You can’t fund a country on a credit note to go and kill a million and a half Iraqis. You cannot decide to invade Iran, when we know that they hit the Bashear reactor and 450 targets.I’ve got my military contacts inside there, and experts have told me in the last 4 to 6 weeks, that it’ll kill between 1.5 to 15 million in the first two weeks, and it could be as high as 32 billion plus. And the radiation cloud will go downwind and will move directly through Yemen, all the way through to Saudi Arabia, and heading down toward China and Japan.BR:? And that’s after an Israeli strike? Or the Americans?BD:? Right. Well, what happens is, if they start it, the Americans are already pre-positioned there. So the thing is, what this will do...KC:? Well, how can this be prevented?BD:? It can be prevented... Well the first thing that they’re going to do is, they’re gonna try to bring us to the brink of destruction, and then set up their peace treaty to divide the land. And what happens is...Olmert has already promised that he’s going to let this go through within twelve months of him leaving, before they could have a transition to the next Prime Minister, which means we’ve a time window, probably 11 months now, where they’re going to actually ?put in the final treaty to divide the city of Jerusalem and divide the State of Israel.That’s setting the detonator. You can’t do that. If you do that, you guarantee a thermonuclear war or a chemical / biological / scalar war that’s going to end civilization on this planet.You cannot divide the land of the State of Israel. You have to have an inclusive government that can include Arabs, and Christians, and Jews, and people from Baha’i or whatever.KC:? And Palestinians.BD:? And Palestinians. And you have to not make them feel like third-world citizens or that if they intermarry, or if they evangelize they’re going to end up in jail or whatever. In other words, you have to have dialogue between people and not have apartheid, which is what they have there.BR: I haven’t understood you there, personally. If you’re saying that the State of Israel becomes divided, what’s the connection between that and the inevitability of a huge war?BD:? Because Israel will be pushed to the point, when the conflict reaches its culmination, that it will start the trigger for a thermonuclear conflict.BR:? Between who?BD:? Between all of these great nations.It’s a bipolar world. We have right now the western alliance of the Illuminati with, you know, Britain and America and all of their allies.And on the other side we have the Shanghai Cooperation nucleus: Russia and China and all their sphere of influence. So it’s not a unipolar world; it’s a bipolar world.BR:? Mm hm.BD:? OK? And people need to know this. One of the things that happened back in the spring of 1999, I was taken supernaturally, actually through the ground, and saw the geological formations and the oil at the southwest end of the Dead Sea. And there’s a lot of oil there -- 27.2 trillion barrels -- and it’s renewable. OK?KC:? Wow.BD:? And it’s from the fault line that runs all the way from Turkey right through Kenya to Lake Victoria. OK? And the Dead Sea itself was created when the oil came up. The magma... Actually from the oil field, it mainly hit along that fault line when the Earth shifted back at the time of Abraham. It actually hit that fault line and caused an explosion equal to 500,000 Nagasakis.BR:? Mm.BD:? The guy who told me that was the head of the Israeli Oil Company - okay? - who discovered all the oil fields in Zohar, all the oil fields down in the Sinai Peninsula.KC:? They’re actually not using that oil. Right?BD:? Afterwards, I was asked to go over there when I gave some of my presentations on that radio show with Stan Johnson, by Hayseed Stevens, and the Israeli Oil Company, and Ariel Sharon. I was actually asked to go over to Israel and say a prayer at the southwest end of the Dead Sea, at the bottom of Masada, which I did on Rosh Hashanah right at sundown, and blow the?shofar,?and actually say this Hebrew prayer.And I did that. And I warned them. I said:?Now, I’m a prophet and I’m telling you, if you try to expose to the world that this oil is here, you’re going to precipitate an immediate war. You’re going to have millions of people coming in here.?Because there’s more oil there than the whole world put together. Right?KC:? OK, but you’re exposing that right now.BD:? I’m exposing that now because it has to be exposed.KC:? OK.BD:? It’s the time now to expose it. Because what’s going on now is... Basically there’s a number of things in motion now that... Probably in less than a year they’re going to sign the final treaty. If they sign that treaty...And it’s also tied to other events happening around 2012. Because as we pass through the center-point of the galactic plane, there’s a great danger that we’re going to have geomagnetic collapse of the magnetic field around the Earth. We’re also going to have very, very high risk in the next several years of major Solar Mass Ejections that trigger off super-earthquakes and super-tsunamis.BR:? Mm.BD:? A very, very high risk of that. OK?KC:? That’s right.BR:? We’ve been told this independently.BD:? Right. So people need to know that, you know, things that happen on the spiritual level also descend and have effects on the energetic and the physical level. And as we get into wrong timelines and make wrong decisions corporately, we move along those timelines toward things that can be very destructive.So what I tell people right now is, it’s not the time to flee, but there’s going to be incredible pain because they’re moving toward the Amero. I have already talked to people who are very reliable they have already seen the Amero notes in Mexico City.KC:? So you’re here in Oceanside, California. Right?BD:? Because I was told to be here.KC:? And why? Could you...BD:? I know partially why. The way it happened was back in February my wife, who is very intuitive too, she told me, she says:?Bill, we’re supposed to move.I said: Well I don’t want to move. I’m comfortable.?See, I didn’t really want to move from Denver to go back home but I was with my mom before she died in October a year ago.And so I went to sleep that night and I said:?God, tell me why.And he did. He sent me an angel who told me:?You’re going to go to Oceanside-Vista.I said:?I don’t want to go there. I don’t even know anybody there. There’s not even any jobs there or anything that I want to do there.?Right? And he started laughing at me. Right? And cracking jokes, because...People need to know that they’re watching us and they know the future that we don’t know. Right? And a lot of times we probably wouldn’t do things we have to do, because some of the stuff we have to do is pretty painful and messy.BR:? So what’s going down that brings you here?BD:? Well, part of it is being here now so you could even do this taping.BR:? OK.BD:? Because there’s people here that have to wake up. They’re going to have to hear this message to know that I’m called, what’s actually called, “The Sons and Daughters of the Most High God.” I’m one called “The Witnesses.”Now, I’m going to back this up a bit so you’ll get an understanding of just how important this meeting is tonight.In the first century, my family were in this 24-family cycle of the Cohanim (also spelled Kohanim) that actually served in the temple at the time of Yeshua. And a prophecy was given directly by Emmanuel, directly to my ancestor, that was written down in the first century and passed on all the way through to my Great-uncle Michael, who died in the ’70s.That was supposed to be given to me ,because I was the eldest of the eldest. His brother thought he was the one called to give this word, which is to blow the trumpet of Elijah and actually tell people about the coming of the new age, the new world that was going to come, a world of peace, where there wouldn’t be lack or all these things.And that was passed down for almost 19 centuries. Right? That person is me. OK?And the reason why I know that is because at [age] eight and a half when I had my tonsil surgery done... I had a French surgeon who was operating on me in Colchester County Hospital. They cut an artery in my neck and I bled to death. OK? There’s a little guillotine-style thing, and they pull the tonsils through with tongs, cut it off. And I had an aberrant artery and I bled to death.And I went down the tunnel of light. And of course, the way it happened is, all of a sudden I’m floating over the operating room table, I’m looking down, I can see this little boy, and I see blood spurting everywhere. I say:?Gee, that looks like me. I didn’t feel any pain.And all of a sudden I’m standing there and I’m walking around, trying to talk to the nurses and doctors and nobody would pay attention to me. So I’m getting very frustrated. So I walk toward the door and I just went right through it.So I turned right and I walked down the hall, and I saw the nursery, and I saw these babies all bound up tight on their side, and the nurses were trying to keep them, you know, because if one starts, they all start to cry. And they all had little different colored blankets on them. So one baby started to cry and they all started to cry.And all of a sudden everything started to fade into an inky black, a black so black you could feel it, and I felt like I was being squenched through a pinhole. Right? And then all of a sudden I cried out, you know:?God, where am I? Something terrible’s happening.?Right?And I saw a pinpoint of light and all of a sudden there was these intersecting crimson lines, and I’m going down this tunnel, and I say:?It’s too fast, God! It’s too fast.And then all of a sudden I’m in this place of light, and across in the other side of this space there’s a man standing there, you know, almost glowing light. And he had a broad golden sash with a double-corded belt, and what I call brass-like sandals.And his forehead almost looked like there were puncture marks, and it was still swollen, and you could see where his beard was plucked out. He had reddish hair just like a... The best way to describe him would be a Norwegian, only he had olive-colored skin. He looked like a big, you know, rock-hard kinda 3-percent body mass, kind of a carpenter with big hands and big knuckles. And he looked like a guy that could, you know, make anything. Right? Only there was a... they fell to the middle part of his arm and leg.And as he appeared, there was a big chasm that appeared in these clouds. There was all light all around. And I saw this little wooden bridge.And he said:?Don’t cross the wooden bridge or the silver cord will break.And I said:?What’s that?And he says:?I will bring it into your remembrance.?Because, in other words, you know everything, you just have to remember it.I remember going down the tunnel of light. I can remember this cord that seemed to come out from the base of my brain and my throat and it went down. It was like a cord of water. He called it “the cord of living waters.” It looked like a neon cord that kind of scintillated with light. Right?And he said:?If you go, you won’t be able to return.I said:?Where am I?And he said:?You’re at the gates of paradise or heaven, the eternal NOW where there is no past, no present or future but everything that you think immediately is.?Right?So I said:?Well, can you show me?So all of a sudden he’s holding me by his right hand, and I’m flying over the Golden City and I can see everything. And I would say, because there’s no time and space, he showed me worlds, beings, planets, civilizations, that I’m going to talk about a little bit today.But literally the amount of things he showed me about the universe... The universe is an elemental particle in a larger universe. He told me about time-space. He told me about quantum physics. He told me everything. That’s why I was about to go into nuclear physics at MIT. OK?BR:? Yep.BD:? He showed me beings that later on in life I’d say: Oh, I saw that in Star Wars.?OK? Because these things did exist. I saw them, and I was there, to their worlds.I can’t tell you how long it was, but in lineal time it had to be many centuries that I spent there. It wasn’t a matter of a few minutes, like some people who have these near death experiences. I was there for an indeterminate period of time. It was so long, you know, and the amount of... and I only talk about a very tiny portion of what I know because it’s so beyond the pale of human understanding, of civilizations and worlds and things that people cannot even grasp, so I don’t talk about it. So all of a sudden...KC:? OK, so you went to this place...BC: So after... I’m back. And all of a sudden he’s back on his side and now I’m back on my side and I’m thinking:?OK.?After this indeterminate time I’m back on my side and I say:?Look...And then he spoke to me telepathically; he didn’t have to speak. And he said:?Well, what is your decision?And I said:?I want to do the right thing.?And I said:?Well, if I’m going to go back, what am I to do?And all of a sudden he’s holding me with his hand again, and I’m giddy. We must be 400 miles above the Earth and I look down.This time he had on a thing, a tallit, and I didn’t know what a tallit was because I was raised a little Roman Catholic boy. Right? So I saw this tallit and it was splattered with blood on it, this tallit, which is a prayer shawl. And I looked down over the Earth and I could see the edge of the horizon shimmering out across the dark of space.And he said:?Behold my blue jewel, the Earth.?Right?And I said:?It’s alive!He said:?Yes! You know.?Right?In other words, the Earth is a living thing. Right?And I heard a voice behind me that sounded like a deep voice, one of the... what we could call “the angelic.” And he said:?Behold the Voice of the Seven Thunders.So the first time he said?Behold?he held his hand like this [gestures] -- and I don’t know what that symbol means -- but he held his index and middle finger and pointed down toward the Earth and he said?Behold.And all of a sudden I saw fireballs rising off the Earth everywhere, but particularly across continental America, a?lot?of them.And I thought:?Oh, this is a light show.I mean, this is great, I’m a little kid here, and I’m still in my little hospital gown from having my surgery and I’m free-floating up in space and I’m looking down over, and I see all these fireballs.And then he looked back at me sternly, like:?You don’t get it.Part of it is, our civilization has been conceived almost like in a spiritual womb -- Earth -- and the timeline that we are selecting corporately will decide whether or not we’re stillborn or aborted or whether our civilization will move on to join the Ben Elohim, the Council of the Eschaton, the advanced civilizations that are literally the incarnation of the Creator of the Universe, in whatever form, whether they’re human, nonhuman, or other civilizations...Because at some point we’re going to “have contact.” Well, how do we have contact?What I’ve presenting is that this is the transition point from “the past, which is religion,” which is based on ignorance. You know, like the Buddhists try to say -- a lot of people say I’m a Buddhist, but I’m not -- is that all pain and suffering is due to ignorance.The real problem is that, in a future where we have a total understanding of ourselves and the nature of the universe, there’s not even room for religion because religion is like recipe cards. It’s irrelevant. It’s like:?This is my past history; these are my recipe cards.?It’s dogma. It’s replacing the ever-present knowledge of what?is?right or wrong. Because you don’t need to be told. Right?BR:? Sure.KC:? Right. But let’s get back...BD:? Right. So the key to why Israel is so important is because Israel is an object-lesson for the whole planet. Israel is, if you want to call it, purposely set up to be the nexus decision point of civilization.BR:? OK.BD:? And how that is handled determines whether or not our civilization moves forward. If you look at America right now, the trillion dollar debt of these wars, in the last years since 9/11.The people who put the bombs in the building were under orders from Project Omega, which is, you know, the overseeing agency of all the secret agencies on the planet.BR:? Run by the Vatican.BD:? The ones who put the bombs in the buildings were contract. They could have been any secret agency but they happened to be very experienced Israeli Mossad nuclear agents who put the nuclear bombs in the World Trade Center. OK?Now they do that because they want to have a hatred of Jewish people. And I’m not an anti-Semite -- I have Jewish blood, Iranian blood, Armenian blood, etcetera, so I have...KC:? Why would the Mossad want hatred of Jewish people?BD:? It’s part of their dialectic of control.BR:? Mm hm.BD:? Just like the death of millions of Jews in the Second World War was actually at the hands of not only the Sabbatians who want to cleanse the whole, if you want to call it, the whole people of Israel of anyone who “had any religious Torah belief in a Creator God.” So they had an anti-messiah, an anti-God, a we-are-God.The real purpose of the Kabbalah, if you want -- the highest level, which is the highest level of all Masonry, is Kabbalah. Right? -- is that we are... The revelation is:?You?are the Luciferic-Satanic power. You don’t need to go to a higher God; you are god.BR:? OK. Now...BD:? Which is very different, right?BR:? If this all about Israel being an example, right in center stage for everyone to look at and everyone to learn from, with all kinds of things at stake, what can the ordinary person do to?influencethese choreographed events?The people watching this, who are even very aware, very well informed, some of them the most aware, most informed people around, they’ll be saying:?Well what can I do??This is already set in train.BD:? Well, the real issue... It comes down to one real simple thing. It comes down to: What are they going to do personally to come out of?religion? OK? Religion is the toxic poison of the modern world. And people say:?Well, you’re talking in terms of spirituality like a prophet, like Israel.?But people, understand, Yeshua himself, Jesus was not religious.BR:? Mm hm. Of course.BD:? He was a spiritual leader. OK?KC:? Yes.BD:? He was leading people?away?from religion to?relationship. OK?KC:? Absolutely.BR:? OK. And any of the great leaders, even if they only had a tiny portion of that, tried to teach similar pieces of it, you know, whether you’re talking about the prophets or people who are spiritual leaders of the native peoples, or in China or elsewhere, they’re talking about... They all basically had a portion of that truth.The greatest portion that was ever released was the fullness of the Father in the Flesh, Yeshua Ha'Mashiach Jesus, which is why the whole of the Old Testament and New all point back toward him, because he was a great teacher.Now what’s happening in our world right now, is that everything happening in our world -- financial collapse, control matrix, technologies -- everything is all centered around Israel.?Everything. OK?In fact, the two great empires of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Western Empire are all meeting there, and the goal of the Teutonic Knights, which are the Knights of Malta, is to have a great temple there where they can set up their world government from their temple. Weird, hey?But it’s happening because it’s happening in the spiritual realm above, and as above/below, and it’s also descending and happening on the physical realm.Because we have to answer this question correctly, which is: To transcend technology, we need to transcend religion to a spiritual relationship. And we need to understand that when God is speaking, whether it’s through the ancient peoples of Israel, or the Hopi Indians or whatever, he’s speaking to them, and they only have their portion.They have to understand God is speaking in a language of history, a language to their spirits, a language of knowing things. Or, if they do not transcend spiritually, they’re going to die together.KC:? So what these people can do that are listening to this is basically reconnect with the Creator.BD:? And also stop buying into the Armageddon Night idea; we’re going to have a rapture; we have to be bathed with fire; the Luciferic idea, somehow that I can decide what is good or evil.That is the foolishness of the “super-scientist,” the technician, the Illuminati, the people in these Black-Op projects that think that they can decide for the rest of the planet.Surely we’re deciding as we’re building underground bases so we’ll survive as we go into the galactic plane. They’re not going to survive, because I can guarantee you that the Council will not allow them to survive, no matter what they do, if there’s not a transition of their heart.It’s the exact same message that Yeshua Ha'Mashiach Jesus gave which is:?Unless your hearts are changed, your world will die.?OK?KC:? Yes.BR:? And that’s what’s at stake right now.BD:? That’s what’s at stake. We’re talking about not just the death of the person that they call “omnicide,” not just the death of the family, not just the death of the nation, not just the death of mankind or every living thing, but the death of the spiritual entities that are incarnated into the beings here on this world.It’s literally a spiritual abortion that’s being done on the planet, and if you see the transdimensionals, the Satanic/Luciferic transdimensionals, they have harassed, and intervened, and abducted.And people say:?Well, why does the abductions phenomenon seem so malicious??It’s because they’redemonic. I mean, you might not use the term demonic from the Bible, but in every culture you’ll find these things going on.And they’re intensifying, including you know... Not only are our vehicles up there, like the TR3 which are these giant triangles, and the Aurora and other ones, but there’s a ton of these other vehicles because they’re here watching, for the show. They’re here for the show.They’re here in the birthing room waiting to see if there’s going to be a delivery or an abortion of the planet. OK? That’s what’s going on. OK?KC:? Yes.BD:? And they need to grasp that it’s not going to happen by a change in politics, or a president, or monetary policy. It’s going to happen with a change of the heart.For example, let me give you one example of solution. Why do we have a world that can allow usury, which is interest? Why do we allow derivatives? Why do we allow a group of people who can control and manipulate money that causes starvation, where 60% of the cost of food is due to manipulation? And then they make bad policies suppressing energy technology, so that people literally can’t truck the food in third-world countries, so they can’t make themselves independent, and they starve to death?Or in places like North Korea, we demonize people so that they then literally exhume their own dead and eat them, which is what they’ve had to do. OK?And people do not know the depths of how far this is going to go unless there’s a transformation of the heart. It has to happen immediately.And I’m called as a Witness of Ephraim, and I’m called up today to be a Witness of Yehuda. OK?The Jews now... and the Jewish people are by and large mostly agnostic, or what I call... They belong to synagogues that are basically either spiritually dead because they don’t connect with the true reality of this.There’s a very tiny fraction of real Torah Jews who understand what’s going on, and there are some there who are Rabbis who know what’s going on and are fearful because they see the coming second holocaust. And I went through Yad V’Shem.And it’s not just the holocaust of the death of the last of the Jews. It’s the death of all humanity that’s coming.And then they’re conspiring this through their transdimensionals, the serpentine, these civilizations out there that are hell-bent on destroying mankind.They’re conspiring with these world leaders, who are literally their minions -- George Bush Sr., and George Soros, and the Blackstone Group, and all those other organizations are just their minions.And many of them think:?Oh, I’m going to get life extension technology. I’m going to survive whatever’s coming. I’m going to get a 50,000-acre farm in Paraguay.?Lies!Or:?I’m going to survive in these underground places. When they’re hit with a force 11 or 12 earthquake that will shatter all their tunnels, no they’re not. They’re going to be entombed into those places.BR:? It’s a good message to give the guys from the Black-Ops who will be watching this.BD:? Right. They need to understand that I?walk. They can’t stop me. I can instantly walk into spirit, into any of their places without any way of stopping me. OK?BR:? Mm.BD:? We are The Sons of the Most High God. It’s not just me -- it’s all of us -- and Daughters of the Most High God. We need to start taking our authority back, because agnosticism, atheism is just another form of Luciferianism. It is “I am God; I can decide what’s good or evil.”And we need to get away from?all?religions, and enter back into spirituality with the Creator. We need to fall down on our face and say:?Yes, I am here because I signed up for this.BR:? Now, here’s a question. This will probably be watched by a few tens of thousands of people.BD:? Right.BR:? A few tens of thousands of wonderful people, and every single one of those people is critically important here.BD:? Right.BR:? Is that enough? It’s a?tiny?fraction of humanity.BD:? Yeah. The real issue, and it’s almost exactly like the message that was given by Yeshua, Jesus. His message... He had a message that was given to the general...Just like when I do my regular radio show, I talk about:?Hey! Don’t vaccinate your child, because these vaccines have been determined by globalists that want to poison your children with vaccines,?and I show them the technical truth.But it’s harder for them to accept the fact that the vaccines, like in sub-Saharan Africa, have plasmids to destroy and cause infertility. Or the Guardisil vaccine now.I got contacted by Desiree Rover just Friday night. She has a radio show in the Netherlands. She used my material and many others to kind of reference in her radio show to tell people:?Hey, this is a policy by globalists to sterilize little girls and destroy their health.?Right?And they’re testing vaccines on populations that have no idea of what they’re signing up for. And some of them get multiple vaccines and they’re malnourished and it destroys their health and kills them. Many of them die.KC:? Yes.BD:? It’s very hard for them to conceive that and then to go to the next stage. If they listen to all my shows and they listen to this message...I released three chapters of the scroll, and there’s twelve chapters altogether. The first chapter I released in 1999, which was a warning against America, which I delivered to 42 cities in Israel.The second chapter of the scroll I released in 2005 at Pastor Butch Paugh’s Conference. And the third chapter of the scroll, which was tied to my talk at Conspiracy-Con 2008, I released this May.I didn’t get a chance to read the scroll but if you go to you can pull up those PowerPoints and those scrolls. And I’m going to have that, as well as what’s called the “Prayer of the Twelve Stones.”People need to grasp this in their spirit. It needs to ring the bell, just like when you go to a Buddhist temple and you can feel the vibration of the truth. It’s something spoken truthful.What we’re speaking tonight is not just wisdom and not just knowledge. It’s what I call?spirit words.It’s words that need to ring their spirit no matter what religious background or lack of it, to know how desperately bad the times are.We’re not just looking at a depression here. We’re looking at the prelude to a financial collapse that’s a prelude to a false peace treaty that is the startup of a guaranteed thermonuclear, biological, chemical and scalar war that will destroy all life on this planet.BR:? And what’s the time scale? What would the time scale be for this?BD:? I don’t have all the answers at this point in time.BR:? Sure. Give your best guess.BD:? But I can give you some of the signs. The first thing.?.?. The signs basically are this: When they divide the city of Jerusalem, they -- Jewish Rabbis, and this is Rabbinical Law -- have to have all the elements, the Kalal, the Ashes of the Red Heifer.They have to have the Cohanim, and all the instruments. They can set up a tabernacle overnight. They have everything, Sea Cows, and curtains and everything. They can put it on the Temple Mount in one evening. OK?But once they start that sacrifice, which has to happen on the Feast of David, that starts the final clock ticking. That clock will start on that day. And exactly 1230 days later is the Feast of Purim, which goes back to?hamen.And people say:?Well, why would these things be encoded??Like the Bible coded in the Bible? It’s because you’re hearing Voice and Intentions from the highest Creator of the universe that’s speaking down through the higher dimensional planes to our world that imprints on a supernatural book that transcends time and space, which is in the Bible.That’s why the Bible code’s there. People say:?Well, why are those things there??It’s there because it transcends the dimensional planes of time-space because it’s beyond time-space.BR:? Yes. But the Illuminati know all this. They’ve already got this.BD:? Well, they’re trying to steer the timeline away from its intention. Because the future is not solid -- it’s liquid.BR:? Sure.BD:? We have a role to play here. And when I was brought to the Council, they were saying, you know, you need to take this seriously.It’s not written. It’s not determined at this point in existence, or revelation of the spirit, what will be that pathway, whether we will go into a birthing room and have a wonderful delivery of mankind, or whether we will have an annihilation of the human race. Or something in between, where a great deal of destruction occurs and a tiny remnant survives.?KC:? So why are you here in Oceanside, for example?BD:? I don’t completely know. I know one of the purposes is to be here.Bill Deagle (BD): The key idea is this: You need to have a?doing?in the spirit before you have aknowing. In other words, you need to contact the Higher Self to say why... I’m a human-being not a human-doing.In other words, you need to?be?where you’re supposed to be. You need to be in the position where you’re supposed to be, and then the things just unfold.Bill Ryan (BR): Yes.BD:? And this is why all these things have happened to me. And people say it’s impossible that all these things could happen to one person. I say:?Well, it happens because I hear and do.Literally.As you know, the sister of Moses went before the council of the people back in the ancient times and said, you know:Are we an ear, and not only prophets?And the voice of god spoke through the pillar of fire and said:?There is not a man on Earth, hand to hand, eye to eye, mouth to mouth, who does not speak as another man speaks to his brother.That’s the kind of relationship I have with God. I literally can talk and hear him instantly, [snaps fingers] like that.Kerry Cassidy (KC): Mm hm.BD:? But people need to know I’m not any better than anyone else, but I am... If you knew my whole history, you’d say:?Why is this man called to do this?I’m called to do this because I’ve seen the face of evil. I’ve seen it not only in myself, I’ve seen it in others. I have chosen?light, not to be a follower of darkness.I’ve had numerous opportunities. I’ve had an opportunity to become a Breve Brother, a Knight of Malta, as early as this year, earlier this year. I’ve had all kinds of threats. I’ve had the Pindar come directly to me to say, you know, to be his replacement as the CEO of Earth, Inc. and the Druidic Council.And there’s a lot of high-level Masons say:?Well, I haven’t even heard of that.?Because they think they’re the ascended ones. They have no idea what they’re serving.BR:? Hm.BD:? They have no idea. They need to repent right now. And, as I say, if we can pray -- and this is something we have to do. And the most powerful thing we have is, I call it?fore-give.?The word?foregivemeans to create.To foregive means we need to pray for George Soros, who is behind the Blackstone Group and 9/11, and the current derivatives crises that’s bringing the world down to a world and regional banks, and trade zones that are going to cause the death of millions and set the groundwork afoot for a pandemic.Because when starvation occurs, the population gets weakened, and it’s the perfect groundwork, or cover, for a pandemic which they’ve already weaponized.BR:? Has that already been released? Or not released?BD:? There are several avenues by which it can happen. Back in... How long ago is it now? Gee... back in about 1995 I was praying and I was told by the angel that I was supposed to go to Europe. And I said:?Well, where??And the Lord said:?You’re going to go to Zurich.And I said:?Well, I don’t know anybody in Zurich.?So I had some friends that were Canadians, that actually were in Halifax, Nova Scotia, at the time and they had gone back to Austria, to Lake Constance.And I said:?Well, I’ll contact them... the Santoses.?I said, you know:?You guys know Zurich??[They said]:?Oh, yeah. We lived there are awhile and we love it.So I started going through and googling, you know, checking out things, trying to find out which organization. The Lord said:?You’re supposed to contact these people here at Human Life International.?So I speak to God, literally, and he tells me.So I contact them. I call this guy and he calls me back from Zurich. And in a very German accent he says:?Wonderful! We’d love to have you come over and speak to our board.So we arranged tickets. We go and visit our friends in Austria, and we go over to Zurich. And I told them what I was told, you know -- literally?told?-- to tell them about was the cybernetic super-soldier program, human genetic engineering, and the chimeric monstrosities they’re making in underground facilities. And to speak against abortion and euthanasia, and selective abortions which are... 93% of the abortions on Earth are female.BR:? Hm.BD:? OK? And so, after two and a half hours of me speaking to a board of scientists -- giant boardroom, you know, 24 doctors and scientists, whatever, the International Board of HLI -- they said:Now you sit down, doctor. We give you things.And they went into another room and brought this stack, about a foot of documents. I said:?Well, what is this??They said:?You stay here.?And they gave me some more water and whatever, and they lectured to me for two hours.And they had documents there of the weaponization of the avian flu, smuggled out of the World Health Organization in Basel. Actual documents. OK? That they had got gene bioengines, and they had actually resurrected the corpses of people that died of the H1N1 back in 1918, that they were paid for by the Rothschilds... All this stuff!I’m totally in shock! I mean, these guys are telling me this stuff. I’m thinking:?Why am I in Zurich?And after they finished that, which was about 6 inches, then they gave me documents, that they had these plasmid vaccines that were injected every month. And they were drawing blood from women in sub-Saharan Africa, testing to see if they create antibodies against human chorionic gonadotropin to sterilize them.And I had another 4 inches of documents that showed that AIDS was completely weaponized by cross-genetically engineering the Visna virus with other viruses. They gave me the actual documents!So I’m sitting there kind of freaked out, you know, wondering... And of course we went to dinner afterward with these doctors. And they said:?Now you bring all this?– I brought it all back with me, of course --?to North America.But the thing is, back in... You see how God puts me in all these positions. Back in 1974 I had finished a year of medical school and someone tried to recruit me from a U.S. government agency to take a year off medical school and go to Uganda for a special virus project. Because I had worked...Before I went into medicine, I was working on my honors degree and I finished my Ph.D. research project in 5 months, although I didn’t write the thesis, for Dr. Robert Brown, who was one of the doctors working on the T-virus project in Bethesda. So I was already a bio-weaponeer. OK?KC:? Mm hm.BR:? And you turned that down?BD:? I turned it down. I told them there was no way I was going to do it. But I had recalled this from ’74 to 1997 when they gave me all those documents, and here it was...I was also the whistle-blower that blew the whistle that the Factor-8 that was used for hemophiliacs... I was the main whistle-blower for the Canadian government and those lawsuits that got all those doctors, that they were getting it and combining all these Factor-8s...Because I had a pile of hemophiliacs when I was practicing in Calgary that were dying of AIDS,specifically?because they gave them purposely-contaminated Factor-8.BR:? Yes.BD:? OK? And all these things, all my experiences from my life, were laid out so that I would be what I am now, a beaten piece of steel like a Samurai sword...KC:? Hm.BD:? ...hardened enough for the truth and willing to tell the people the truth, to tell people that you need to make the right decisions. You cannot believe your pastor, your rabbi, your Buddhist master, your ascended masters, your ET contactees. You need to contact your?Self, the spirit of the Most High God.You need to analyze what’s going on in foreign policy and money. For example, money, as Socrates says, only means exchange. Why are we willing to do spending cuts that will starve people? Why are we going to bail out 700 billion dollars to banksters that are gambling on the future, that’re going to guarantee that we’re going to have a crash and the death of civilization?BR:? Hm.BD:? Why? And they know that starvation leads to war, pestilence, and the crash of civilization. And it’s very fragile. And they’re?purposely?bringing this about.This is the start... This phase right now, with the collapse of the banks, this is the start toward world government, world bank, regional currencies, chipping the population. And they’re ready, probably by next year.I’ve already calculated, and have been told by my sources, both natural and classified, as well as supernatural, there’s about a 30% chance of an avian pandemic this year, and a 70% chance next year, and 100% chance the year after.BR:? When you say this year, you mean in the next 12 months?BD:? No, between now and the end of December [2008].BR:? Really? OK.BD:? That’s very disturbing. OK? But we’re talking about going up to 70%, which means next year we have a very grave possibility of a thermonuclear attack at least on the Bashear reactor and 450 targets. And a counter-response which is going to release a radiation cloud and cut off the world to the Strait of Hormuz.And I was taken in 1988 -- one of my very first visions -- I was taken up high above Saudi Arabia, in the spirit, and I actually looked down. And I looked and I could see the carrier groups all assembling.And this was 1988, twenty years ago. And I looked down, and the angel told me, he says:?Watch this place. Because this is where it will all start -- the Strait of Hormuz.BR:? And how close are we to that now?BD:? We are so close we can feel the breath of the dragon. People need to pull back... And none of these people that call themselves candidates for president that are in the two leading parties are safe. Neither one.Obama is backed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, that wrote?The Grand Chessboard,?that was the head of the Security Council, that was one of the CFR members in Georgetown University. He is?personally determined?to directly confront, with thermonuclear and other weapons, Russia. OK?BR:? Yes. Yep.BD:? We have Joe Biden, who released this information just in the last two weeks. This guy is very clever but very evil. And he’s directly involved with the cover-up of the Israeli Purdue OxyContin scam, where there’s a Purdue Pharma plant in Israel distributing billions of dollars of illegal OxyContin in America. And we have the proof of it. OK? This is not conjecture.BR:? Yep.BD:? Then we’ve got McCain, who spent five and a half years under the control of a Russian mind-control scientist, the top Russian mind-control scientist. And I heard him on the debate. And actually I think he won the debate against Obama, because Obama, if he’s not reading a teleprompter, is not that smart.McCain was sharper and he showed more presidential... But McCain is determined that he’s going to invade -- as well as Obama -- he’s going to invade Pakistan and get to the Waziristani nukes. He’s going to expand NATO directly on the back doorstep of the Russians. It’s going to piss off the Russians. And the Russians have got some very, very nasty weapons.BR:? Yes, and they’re pissed off already.BD: ?They’re very pissed off, and they personally don’t?want?to do this. They’d much rather negotiate and get richer. Right?BR:? Sure.BD:? The Russians are not interested in this. But the people behind the American government, the Satanic Luciferian Reptilians, they’re absolutely determined to bring this agenda toward a final culmination, a thermonuclear war. OK? They’re determined to do it.KC:? That’s with Russia.BD:? And they’re pulling Russia... As it says in Ezekiel 38 and 39:?I shall pull you with hooks in your jaw. Oh Rosh, chief prince Gog of Meshech, Tubal and Rosh.And you know what that is??Gog?is the name of a Hebrew man.?Rosh: Russia.?Meshech: Moscow.?Tubal: Tublosk. This is Russia. They’ve armed to the teeth all these nations.They’ve got the S-300 anti-aircraft system; they’ve got the Yakontz hypersonic cruise missile; they’ve got EMP weapons; and they’ve armed to the teeth Syria and Iran; and they are building the largest outside-of-Russia naval base right now in Syria.BR:? Yes. And they’re poking the Bear with a sharp stick.BD:? They’re poking the Bear with a sharp stick. So, what we’ve got to do is, people need to get in a panic here. It’s not a matter of voting for Palin and McCain, or voting for Obama. Either alternative guarantees a thermonuclear war.BR:? Yeah. Is this election going to happen to schedule, or could something happen to it?BD:? It really doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. Even if it’s delayed 6 months, you know, it doesn’t matter if McCain gets in there and Palin.The thing that I’m particularly concerned about is... Someone like McCain, if he lives long enough, which I’m very concerned about, because he’s had a third recurrence of a melanoma. He’s had a lymphatic spread. And I know a lot of... I do consulting, helping people integrate with treatments for cancer all around the world.Unless he’s getting some of the new classified anti-cancer therapies with some of the people that I know in Europe or elsewhere -- like Dr. Tulio Simoncini and Dr. Munoz in Tijuana, and other places, where you get IPT and so on -- he’s a dead man.This cancer or another cancer is going to come back and kill him, and he’ll probably die in his term. And we’re not talking about a 30% chance. We’re probably talking 80% chance in the first two years of his term, if he does become president, that President Palin will take over.BR:? With what consequences?BD:? Well, President Palin doesn’t, I don’t think, have the... To me she’s pro-life which is positive for a lot of Christian rights.?[Ed. Note: the political right]?She’s going to drag a lot of votes that way. But in terms of her ability to have a rational judgment, with the extreme religious background that she has, is going to be very disturbing.Now, I’m for the pro-life issue and I’m for the fact she’s got spirituality. But when you have religion and it’s clouded that Israel can do no wrong? That’s frickin’ dangerous.BR:? Yes. She says that Iraq is God’s war.BD:? Right. And that’s really dangerous. And you can’t say Israel can do no wrong when the whole nation of Israel is Sabbatian Luciferian Satanist Jews. OK? Who do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and have nothing to do with she thinks...And they laugh at her and think that this Christian fool is going to back us no matter what, and allow us to attack Iran.BR:? Yeah. And she’s playing straight into their hands.BD:? Right. She’s playing right into their hands. And, of course, they’re using her as a card to manipulate. And on the other hand, we’ve got Obama and there’s a trail of strange things going on behind him.KC:? And you know this because...BD:? I’ve got so many contacts you would not believe it. I can’t... I’ve spent a lot of time on the... Obama is a, if you want to call it, messianic figure.KC:? Mm hm.BD:? This is a very dangerous man. In fact, of all of the options we have, Obama is the most dangerous of all of them.BR:? OK. So that’s the most-worst version.BD:? He’s the most-worst version. Even Biden would be better. Biden might actually have a clue, even though he’s a bit of a criminal.BR:? Yeah.KC:? But our understanding is that Biden probably won’t make it to the...BR:? Is it possible that Hillary could be back on the ticket?BD:? It’s possible. It’s possible.BR:? Have you heard that?BD:? The thing is that Hillary, other than Obama, is the most scary individual I’ve ever met. She is very brilliant, incredibly evil, and her family, the Rodhams, have been Luciferian Satanists for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. She has?a lot?of stuff attached to her.BR:? So what’s the way out of all that crap?BD:? The way out of it is to just get the population woke up, to pray for the leaders, to get the people woke up. If we just get a tiny minority of the body of mankind to wake up to the truth of this...Whether they think they’re atheists or agnostics or Jews or Christians, they’ve got to stop being Armageddonites. They’ve got to stop being Sabbatian Jews. They’ve got to stop being “religious”,thinking:?Oh well, it’s just karma being worked out,?in their Buddhism. Right?They’ve got to stop all that foolishness and pick up their septre and say:?We craft the future. We’re going to determine whether or not mankind is going to survive what’s coming.?And they’ve got to start making decisions.They’ve got to start saying:?Hey, we’re not going to participate with a country that’s going to have a thermonuclear war with Iran.?We’re not going to...You know, as Carlin said:?If you vote for one of these blankey-blank guys or this blankey-blank guy, you can’t complain when either one of them starts a thermonuclear war.KC:? OK. But actually people are left with that choice.BD:? They aren’t. They can actually... The thing is that I think we need to transcend politics. We need to transcend religion.We need to stop thinking that if we make the right decision on the right leader we’ve solved the problem. The transformation is not at the leadership level of the White House.KC:? Absolutely.BD:? It’s not even at the capitol building of the state. It’s not even at the town council. It’s in?us. We have to decide that we’re no longer going to participate in these things. We’re not going to participate in churches or pastors or politicians doing these things. We’re not going to participate in a financial collapse that’s going to starve millions, and start a pandemic. We’re not going to participate in doing those things that...KC:? OK. Well, but nuts and bolts and on a spiritual level, their choice is clear, I would say.BD:? Yeah. But they have to make hard decisions. See, those decisions are so hard that most people don’t want to swallow that. So they want to either attack me or any other messenger giving this message.KC:? Sure.BD:? They don’t want to make the tough choices to say:?Hey, I’m not going to participate with what they’re planning on doing. I’m going to make certain that I’m not going to vote.I’ll give you an example. What happens if nobody went out to vote? What if everybody said:?Hey, we know both these guys, either party, is going to support the 700-billion dollar bailout.Because, you know, in the next two weeks, long before the election, they’re going to sign this damn thing. And if they sign it, they guarantee the -- you could call it the controlled demolition of the economy of the world, and the de-evolution to the “mark of the beast,” which is coming. You know?I’ve walked personally through the array, and either party is going to guarantee that. Now, whether it’s Obama and his messianic vision, or it’s McCain and Sarah Palin with her Armageddonite vision, it doesn’t matter. The devil will move forward like a snake pushing itself on its own belly.KC:? OK. We’ve also gotten information about October [2008]. And I’m sure you’ve heard?Half Past Human.BD:? Yes, I can tell you what... Yeah.BR:? We have thirteen different, actually fourteen now, different data-points, lined up in October...BD:? Yeah. Well, you’re correct. Somewhere between the 7th and 15th of October. And I get the same feeling.BR:? Right.BD:? A lot of the time I don’t know... Like I’ll go to bed at night, wake up in cold sweats, get visions...KC:? Yes.BD:? ...see, you know, people crying. I see starvation. I see privation. I see darkness, a lot of very bad visions, very jumbled up, and I can’t tell you what it is specifically. But I can tell you what makes sense to me if I just take my intellectual viewpoint.BR:? Yes.BD:? I think we’re going to have a financial crash.BR:? OK.BD:? I think the financial crash is going to be so severe and so painful that the grocery store shelves are going to be completely empty in the very, very near future. I mean, it could only last for maybe a few weeks, but it’s going to frighten people so badly, that no matter what the government presents to them -- in terms of world government, regional currency, the Amero, whatever -- they’re going to take it.And then, when they can go back to buying their latte, and go to the movie theater, and put gas in their car at a reasonable price, they’re going to say:?Thank God we’ve got this.KC:? Right.BD:? But I can tell you right now, what I see is empty shelves.BR:? And martial law.BD:? And martial law. Remember now, martial law will be almost like a theater. It’ll be on... They brought back an entire division. I posted up the article on Clay and Iron, and the dates. So if you go , I posted up that article.They brought an entire division back to America to be permanently stationed for civil defense inside the United States. That’s 650,000 battle-hardened troops, with heavy artillery and weapons, that’ll control the civilian population. They don’t need to be in their home country.The media that’s on that screen there [television], I call Satan-vision. OK? In that box. What they need to do is they need to frighten people into accepting whatever the agenda is.BR:? Yep.BD:? So they need a thing like the Katrina thing in one or another city or two or three cities. Maybe they need an event like... They’ve been working on this idea of blowing up dirty bombs or nukes in two or three cities.BR:? If...BD:? I’ve got the long and short list.BR:? Yeah.BD:? On both the long and the short list -- and I happen to be living very near to one of those. The very top of both lists is Los Angeles.KC:? Yes.BD:? They’re number one.KC:? I think so, too.BD:? Chicago, Detroit, all those three cities are on both long and short lists. OK?BR:? It feels to us that there is a violent event coming up.BD:? Yes, there is a very violent event coming up. And I see a financial collapse, and I see, at the very latest by next year, a thermonuclear explosion in a U.S. city, one or more cities, and civil war in America. OK?And then a period of false peace after that. And a period of, you know, them setting up this temple thing and kind of scaring the crap out of the population of the planet.BR:? Yep.BD:? And then I see this time period of 1230, literally marked off. Because, remember now, this is a religious ceremony. You see, the Bible isn’t just a thing for the Jews or for the Christians. It’s a Luciferic ceremony.BR:? Yeah.BD:? And they’re marching through this as a clock, as an anti-type to what they see happening. So that the globalists and the Illuminati use this almost as a religious ceremony to kind of snub the face of the Creator of the universe. And say:?No, we’re God.?So that’s why this timepiece is being marched on in Israel.BR:? Hm.BD:? OK? And when people grasp that... The reason why I’m going calling you up today is because I don’t know who he’s, but there is another witness. OK? He’s the Witness of Yehudah, the witness of Judah. He’s a Torah Jew who does know this.And the greatest prophecy that was ever given by Yeshua Ha’Masaich was?The Prodigal Son, that the Ephraim, which is the 10 tribes, would be hauled away, scattered over the Earth by the Assyrians, and that they would return, and they would bring on their shoulders, literally the ability to know how to protect the Jews on Earth.Because the holocaust is coming, Jews. You’ve got to know that there is a holocaust coming to kill every Jew on Earth, Sabbatian or not.And the reason is they have to expunge the Earth of any knowledge of a Creator God. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Buddhist, or you’re a native Hopi or whatever. They’ve got to get rid of them because there’s a portion of truth that was given specifically by the Creator to the Jews that other peoples did not receive in fullness.Just like there’s a Bible code in the Bible. Why is that code in the Bible? Why is it not in some Hopi things, or some tablets from some other civilization? It was there because it was set up as an object-lesson to ask of the entirety of mankind:?How will you deal with Israel?How do you deal with it? As it says in Jeremiah, you know:?There will be a firepot burning all the nations around it.?They’re literally setting a detonator to blow up the Earth.BR:? Hm.BD:? And they have weapons that can. They’ve got anti-matter weapons that can turn the Earth into shards, like, you know, like one of these planets that died in the ancient conflicts that they talk about, that was destroyed and created the asteroid belt between Mars and Earth.BR:? Yes.BD:? OK?BR:? Oh, yeah.BD:? They have those weapons now. They have things that you just can’t imagine that can be done that could blow the Earth, literally, into tiny fragments.BR:? Mm hm.BD:? OK? But whether we’ll survive is not a geopolitical thing of who we vote for or whether or not we’re going to kind of?will?our minds. Like, you know, some of the people figure if we just will it, it’s all going to happen.It’s going to require some painful decisions on our part to say:?Hey, we’re going to march in every city capital of every city. We’re going to march in every church to throw down their dogma --?which is their “am-god”. They’re not God.They have to hear the Voice of the Creator, whatever religion they are, whatever spirituality, whatever agnosticism. If they don’t, they’re not going to survive, because this Earth is marked for judgment. It’s the end of the road. And if they don’t turn back now...And that means all those ones who are called as prophets, of every race and tongue and people, you need to come out with a grand chorus and sing the song, as it says in the Bible, the Song of Moses. You need to sing the song of humanity that is a spiritual body that knows these things. We intuitively know it.When I talked to John Boncore, whose name is?Splitting the Sky,?who’s a Mohawk prophecy-giver -- and he said this on air just this week.He said there was a prophecy given, you know, untold centuries ago, that a great, a young Mohawk would come and give a prophetic warning to the peoples of Earth.Well, he has, better than any other person, better than Phil Berg, or anyone else that I’ve heard, put the financial trail of blood-money behind 9/11 together.People need to grasp this, that if we don’t get back in touch with spirit instead of religion, we’re going to all die, killing each other for religion.KC:? Mm hm.BD:? And for different financial agendas. Or we’re going to save the planet because of carbon dioxide, which is a lie. You know, we’re polluting ourselves to death, so we won’t even be able to reproduce two generations from now.And it’s all by design. It’s designed that even if we didn’t have a pestilence or nuclear war, or whatever, that life on this planet is soon going to die. We are a dying planet.If you’re visiting here as an archeologist from another distant time and another space to visit Earth, you’d say:?These people are suicidal.?They kill their prophets, just like it says in the Bible, you know, between the brazen laborer and the holy of holies.I’m called to speak as Moses and as Elijah, to blow the trumpet, which I’ve done on my show. And God has given me a voice to speak to them and warn them. We are at the time of The End. And that’s why my other website’s called clay and iron.They need to know: Come out of Babylon, which means come out of confusion. Come out of religion. Come back in relationship.Stop believing lies. And the first lie is what you are. You’re not a biological machine. You’re not an advanced piece of slime that’s evolved. You’re an infinite being that has the right to?choose?to have life and to live it abundantly for thousands of years, literally, you know, and have contact with advanced civilizations, and to survive, and to thrive.But if you don’t choose life today... Just like Moses, when he set the peoples between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, we as a civilization will die.BR:? Now, stepping back into the Black-Ops world, you will know that we’ve been contacted by time-traveling future humans with a message.BD:? Right.BR:? And it’d be interesting to hear your take on this. But our understanding is that there?arealternative timelines. Not all of them are catastrophic.BD:? Right.BR:? We do have choices.BD:? Sure we do.BR:? It’s not a done deal.BD:? Oh, absolutely.BR:? And what do you know of those contacts, those messages, and what opportunities we have, and how those messages have been acted upon by the people who’ve received them?BD:? Firstly, the way I would answer that is that the universe is stranger than even they can imagine. In other words, when you’re dealing with people... Let’s say that we have posited that there are alternative timelines, and these people have traveled back from multiple timelines.If we think of the -- I call it the universe as a One-“I”-Voice, in other words, there is a unification of All-That-Is because what the universe is, is not energy portrayed through advanced equations in a cybernetic world. It is literally the passage of spirit through a montage of images.And when you start to understand that, there is only one. In other words, there is not... There are maybe multiple?possible?futures.?.?.BR:? Mm hm.BD:? But there is only ONE real future.BR:? OK.BD:? OK?BR:? Right.BD:? But we do have a choice because... I say we?foregive.?We actually are creating whichever timeline we are going get, whichever rail we are going to get on.BR:? Yes.BD:? Otherwise, it would be purposeless to even have human beings because we’d just be automatons because the future is already set in stone and whatever is going to happen will happen.BR:? Exactly. Yep.BR:? And we aren’t. We are actually in the image of the Creator. We are actually the, if you want to call it, the incarnation of the I AM that said:?Let there be light in the universe,?as human beings in this world.And there’s other beings of other types that are across the cosmos that are incarnations of the same I AM. And they’ve come to the knowledge that they?are?and have that responsibility to be, in a sense, midwives to Earth in the birthing-room of this civilization.KC:? Yes.BD:? We’re literally in the birthing-room now.BR:? Yes. But, what do you know, and what have you heard, of those messages from future humans who presumably are altruistically trying to help in some way? Because they’re looking back through their own history saying, you know:?Don’t do that stuff because this happened to us.?Or some other message. What do you know about this?BD:? You have to use a great deal of discernment. Because one of the things about alternative timelines, in terms of an actual being coming back from a timeline, is you have to think:?Is this inserted ideas?Because the very nature of the universe is that there is?one?timeline that you follow. There may be alternatives that you have a choice of. But you have to use discernment.You’ve got to remember that, in a sense, we live in a matrix. We live in a cybernetic world that, to a great extent,?is?the manifestation of a higher dimensional reality of being that transcends our physical body.For example, I try to tell people this repeatedly, is that your mind, i.e., which is equal to your soul, is not physical. It doesn’t exist on this plane. So when people talk about psychic phenomena anddoppelgangers?and other things, what they’re really referring to is something that’s just the very nature of what we are.Our physical mind doesn’t exist on this level. OK? The physical mind is just a chemical computer. It’s a bunch of neurons connected; that you’re connected to nuclei, and our eyes and our physical senses.But our physical brain is not what we are. It’s connected through “the cord of the living waters” to our physical brain. And so, if we don’t understand what kind of a being we are, we won’t make correct decisions.So part of this idea of timelines, or even incarnation... For example if you talk to people about incarnation, they’ll say:?Well, 40% of the incarnations are supposedly from the future.BR:? Hm... Yes. Yes.BD:? Or even non-human beings. OK?BR:? Yep.BD:? But the way I tell the people is, I say:?Maybe you’re just kind of picking up, almost like a radio tuned into a certain frequency, certain object-lessons or spiritual things so that you can understand something you’re supposed to learn or remember in this lifetime.In other words, you’re not?becoming... Does that make sense?BR:? Mm hm.BD:? So that’s why I see this as being a misinterpretation of it. OK? So this idea that there is alternative timelines, I think is a deception, a very, very significant deception. Because it says that the world is a mechanistic Cartesian world that’s created by energetics and we’re just kind of like leaves that are pushed along by energy, space, and time, and we really don’t have any choices to our future.In fact, we actually ARE the Gods of this world. But I’m not talking about?replacement?of the Creator God. I mean hearing the voice and doing the will. And that’s a very different thing. So, in other words, reality is created on this energetic plane by spirit. It’s not the other way around.BR:? Of course.BD:? And that’s the problem we’re in. So, when you hear people saying that they’ve had physical contact, the deception is very, very powerful.We’re right here now with mankind, as is said in the Eschaton that transcends time and space, to make a decision for?life, whether this civilization is going to survive what’s coming or it’s going to be annihilated.And we’re very close to that, and we can see the object-lesson of Israel as the final crux. Just look at the foreign policy and look at the financial policy. Look at all of these things.The two groups that are running the world right now, that are running -- literally driving it into the ground -- are the Teutonic Knights; the Hansiatic League. Right? That believes that their bloodline is descended from Yeshua Ha’Masaich.And all the kings and queens of Europe and all the czars of Russia, the Caesars, believe their bloodline is descended from Jesus Christ and King David. Why? That’s bizarre! Why? But it’s the truth.You can talk to Jordan Maxwell and others and find it out, Michael Tsarion and others. Why? Why? Why would that be?And then the other group are the Sabbatians. Right? The Sabbatians are basically Satanists. These are, you know... Even though, you know, they’ll say:?Well, we’re communists?-- the Israelis -- because they had the Russians there at the inception of the Israeli state. They’re not. They believe they’re God. There is no God.They’re trying to say, just like Bill Maher and his movie?Religulous.?You know, obviously he’s a Kabbalist. He believes in the Kabbalah. And the highest level of the Kabbalah... If you go deep into Masonry, or entirely, you go right back to the Temple of Solomon. They’re completely... They all?lookJewish, but they’re not. They’re Satanic. They go right back to Atlantis and before.BR:? Hm.BD:? These were adopted into it and invaded into it at the time of Solomon. That’s why they’ll say they’ll elevate Solomon, and that Solomon was a great leader. No. He allowed the body of the truth of ancient Israel to be infected by this monstrosity.BR:? Mm hm. Getting back to what you were saying about the reality, or otherwise, of these alternative timelines, what I hear you saying is, it’s almost like an intellectual trick, because it doesn’t really count.BD:? Right.BR:? What’s in front of us is what’s in front of us, and that’s our real responsibility.BD:? Right.BR:? And anything else... It’s almost like it’s not relevant whether it’s “real” or not, because it depends on what you mean by?real.BD:? Right.BR:? And the really, real situation is here and now.BD:? Exactly.BR:? And that’s the only thing that matters.BD:? Yes, and also it might give you a false decision-tree to base your ideas on and therefore steer you in a direction of wasted intention.BR:? I understand.BD:? That’s the first thing. Wasting action. And wasted effort. For example, people think there’s going to be a difference if we elect McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. I don’t think it makes a difference. It might make a difference if you had somebody like Cynthia McKinney or Chuck Baldwin. But how likely is it they’d be elected president?BR:? Yeah. It’s not going to happen.BD:? It’s not going to happen. The problem is, Cynthia McKinney is a black woman. She’s brilliant; she’s tough. She’s calling for a 9/11 investigation. This woman would make an absolutely amazing president. OK? But how likely is it for her to get in there?And the problem is they may also come with baggage, what we call environmental baggage, which is, we’ve got to reduce the world’s oxygen/carbon dioxide. That’s crazy! It’s not science. OK?I was an oceanographer. I did work with Greenpeace. Carbon dioxide is what makes the plants, including the phytoplankton in the upper 10 metres of the benthic layer of the oceans produce all the oxygen. And our oxygen level now is down from what it was in ancient Mesozoic era, from 30%, down to what it is now.So you know, I think what it is, we have to stop looking for an external messiah where all these so-called great religions... Like for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad thinks he’s going to see the Imam-Mahdi, or the Christians think they’re going to see a messiah...KC:? Right.BD:? ...come in the clouds, you know whether...? Which is ridiculous.BR:? And there are a bunch of people who think the ETs will save us.BD:? Right. They think the ETs... You see, this “ET save us” stuff is crazy stuff, too.BR:? Right.BD:? The fact is, what’s going to save us is?us. You know, it’s like the inverse of Pogo’s statement there, you know: I’ve seen the enemy and the enemy is us.?I’ve seen the messiah and the messiah is us.BR:? Very good.BD:? I hope this kind of gets people to kind of drop their old paradigms and I hope I get them to, you know, like Marshall McKluen, “tune in and drop out.” In other words, drop out of false lies, whether it’s politics or religion or thinking these other things are solutions. Become personally responsible. Become public and interact with other people.Don’t think that, by default, if you don’t say anything about it you’re not responsible for the death of 15- to 32-million Iranians and a radiation cloud that circulates the planet and destroys your own health.KC:? Right.BD:? The sins of?omission?are greater than the sins of commission. And the sins of?silence?are greater than the sins of action.BR:? Yes.KC:? Yes. I second that. And this is where we ask for everyone to take part.BR:? And it’s all got something to do with you.BD:? Right. Absolutely. I hope it transforms some hearts. As Yeshua Ha’Masaich Jesus said:??The message of the kingdom is now, which means, it’s now, as soon as you attend to?shemah, to hear and do the will of the Creator God of the universe and not to think that you can set external commandments and create peace on Earth. What you’ll do is you’ll create?pieces?of Earth. [laughter]BR:? Is there any final sound-byte that you... Is there anything that you haven’t said that you want to leave these people with right now? Because this is the chance.BD:? Well, what I would say is, firstly, prepare for a series of spasms and disasters.BR:? When you say “prepare,” you mean physically and logistically prepare?BD:? Spiritually prepare first. But physically prepare. Have your food and water, have your civil defense. We have a whole series of civil defense things. I’m actually working with Gordon Peterson in Homeland Security to stop aircraft bringing in pandemic viruses.Prepare to have things to protect yourself from pandemic avian flu, which we have on our website, . Prepare yourself to be home-quarantined for anywhere from six weeks to two months or more.BR:? Anywhere in the world? Or here in America?BD:? Anywhere. Anywhere on the planet. Be prepared for food shortages on a massive scale, starting as early as this fall. Be prepared to know how to have... in other words, I don’t tell people to join the militia. I tell people to start shooting clubs.I believe that we need to exert our Second Amendment right, not so that we can go out and start shooting fellow Americans, but we can protect ourselves if things get out of hand.I worked with federal agents at the Federal Center in Denver and they did simulations and actually were stockpiling pallets of gold bullion, gold coins, and?bales?of heroine to interact with gangs; so that between 4 and 12 days after a state of national civil emergency, like nuclear war, they could trade with the gangs that would control every city.BR:? When was that, Bill, that you encountered that?BD:? That was in 1997.BR:? But that’s all still in force.BD:? Oh yes, all those things. Their COG [Continuity of Government] which was set up by George Bush, Sr., made it even more serious. So that COG plan, and all those things, have been done going back, like over grades, going back since Eisenhower.BR:? OK.BD:? They’ve been doing this for a long time. And it’s not just in America. You have to understand, these plans are replicated in one form or another in Canada, in Britain, in Australia, in African nations, in China. They have policies.There’s over 4,000 underground facilities around the world alone. And in America, two giant facilities besides the little ones, that are a mile-and-a-half to four miles down.I mean, they’ve been going crazy. And most of the illegal money is drug money coming from the illegal sale of heroine and cocaine, OxyContin, Ecstasy, etc., three-quarters of a trillion dollars into weird projects.BR:? Yeah.BD:? And again, they’re addicted to this. They’re addicted to money that isn’t under the scrutiny of the Congress or Senate. And I don’t think, if either party is elected, they’re going to steer us away from this.We have to get away from thinking the political system is going to solve this. It’s not. Or the religious, you know. A lot of people think if they just go pray a whole lot in church, whatever church they belong to? They’re crazy.BR:? Yep.BD:? They need to start taking action. We mean action to the street, to their neighbors and they need to say:?Hey, I don’t want to participate in the winding down of civilization.BR:? Yep.BD:? Because they need to see that this is the first stage here. This is the devolution of the economy. And the next stage after the devolution of the economy and a release of a pandemic or martial law -- and it won’t just be in America -- is the hard-chipping of the population, forced vaccination, pandemic, and the hard kill’s going to start.BR:? Mm hm.BD:? And I’m talking about?hard kill,?where they’re going to try to kill 90% of human beings on the planet with either pandemics, injected viruses, lethal weapons systems or whatever, or starvation just because of economic chaos. And people say:?Oh no. They wouldn’t do that.I have contacts inside the Canadian and U.S. government that have said, if there is a total breakdown of society for 30 days, half the population in Canada and the same in the States would be dead.BR:? Yep. From violence.BD:? Not from a pandemic. From violence.BR:? Yeah. Yep. People will do it themselves. Yeah.BD:? The violence will be... Just take a city, like, let’s say you had a city like Los Angeles and you took out 20 blocks with a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, with a population kill of let’s say 200,000. And California devolved into a state where there’s no trucks going anywhere with any food. And this is a place where it’s a breadbasket.This state would be a seething caldron of death, and half the population would probably be dead within 30 days. Just because of the roving gangs shooting each other up, and trying to grab food that was left and getting trucks and whatever.KC:? Right.BR:? Yes.BD:? It would be insane. It would make?Road Warrior?look like a party. And people say:?Oh no, it couldn’t get that bad. I said:?The guys who told me were special forces that worked at the Federal Center that told me this.?And they shocked me back in ’97 when they told me this stuff.BR:? Yeah. And all of this is being modeled as well.BD:? Yeah. So I tell people they’ve got to start preparing for disaster. And then we’ll come back out of that. Because when they bring it out, the next thing is:?Oh, that wasn’t too bad. It was only two weeks of martial law.?Or six weeks.BR:? Yes. That’s just to get people acclimatized to the idea.BD:? Just like Katrina, you know. We let the people in Katrina now live in trailers that would ruin their health or they have homes that are still loaded with mold that are killing them. Right?Or, we let them federalize parts of the country. That’s totally against the Constitution. Right? They’re still federalizing. The city of Detroit’s federalized, the city of New Orleans. This is a violation of Federal and State law. What are they doing?They’re eventually going to federalize the whole country because they’ve been, grade by grade, running martial law and admiralty law parallel with the Constitution.And eventually they’re just going to get rid of that, in George Bush, Jr.’s terms:?That GD piece of paper.They’re just going to throw it away and say:?Guess what guys. We’ve got enough executive orders; we’ve got enough Blackwater Security worldwide?-- which are the Rothschilds private army. Right? --And we’re going to take you on.BR:? Yep.BD:? OK? So people need to grasp that. And they need to be prepared for things. And they need to be able to stand up. And if they don’t stand up, well...BR:? Is it possible that some of the “white hats” in Intel and the military will stand up themselves?BD:? They are already. I’ve already got contacts who’ve told me. Like William Fallon, you know, was public. He said:?Not on my watch will you start a war against Iran.?They fired him.KC:? Yes.BD:? They put two people of Jewish descent in there that are willing to take orders, that are willing to attack Iran.BR:? Sure.BD:? Twice in the last year-and-a-half, these Israelis tried to go downtown. The last time was around June 24th when the American government allowed 100 Israeli jets to do air maneuvers, and a war game over Iraqi airspace.And the Russians detected it with their satellite-based imaging, and started to scramble, transfer codes -- for the launch codes -- for their submarine-launched nuclear missiles, and their Bear bombers heading toward North America. People don’t know. We were moments away from a thermonuclear war in June.BR:? We heard about that.BD:? I mean, most people say:?Oh, that doesn’t happen. You people are crazy.?I say:?Well, I’ve got contacts.?I went back weeks later and verified it from my sources.BR:? Yep.BD:? And so people say:?Oh, that can’t happen. You’ve just got a really good imagination.?I said:?I wish.?I mean, this is a damned nightmare.BR:? Yeah.BD:? And it’s really happening. But I’m brave enough to say it because I know there’s no alternative. If I don’t speak out against this...You can’t move far enough away. You can’t move to the south island of New Zealand and think you’re going to be safe. Or Paraguay. There is nowhere on this planet you can move away from this without it eventually taking you if you don’t stand up to this evil.So if I have any messages: Prepare for disaster. Speak out now because you’re going to be silenced very shortly.And believe me, they won’t be able to silence your blood-curdling screams as you’re hauled away in a Black-Op truck in the middle of the night, or a railcar with the shackles grinding into your ankles and your wrists, as you’re screaming because you know you’re going away to the death chambers. OK?This really is getting prepared. They’re getting prepared. They’ve shipped in the plastic coffins. They’ve got the railcars. They’ve got the incineration stations all ready. They’ve got everything ready.People say:?Oh, it doesn’t exist.?I say:?Well, my condolences to you because if you want to attack me and say that I’m a crackerjack because I give all these spiritual and other things, you’re going to suffer and then you’re going to die. And you’re not just going to die a physical death, you’re going to die a spiritual death.BR:? Yep. And one of the reasons why you die a spiritual death is because you never stood up when you could have done.BD:? Right. The greatest sins are the sins of silence in the face of evil.BR:? Yes. We second that.KC:? Absolutely. We absolutely second that. Thank you very much.BR:? Bill, thank you so much. December 2005. See also, first published today, Signals Intelligence and Human Rights - The ECHELON Report, by Duncan Campbell: March 2000Earliest public report on NSA electronic espionage (1972):? public report on Echelon (1988):? Echelon files:?: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:14:47 -0500To: paulwolf@From: Paul Wolf <paulwolf@>Subject: 60 Minutes ECHELON transcriptFrom: Sanho Tree <stree@>60 MINUTESTelevision Broadcast February 27, 2000ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIESSTEVE KROFT, co-host:If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.How does it work, and what happens to all the information that's gathered? A lot of people have begun to ask that question, and some suspect that the information is being used for more than just catching bad guys.(Footage of satellite; person talking on cell phone; fax machine; ATM being used; telephone pole and wires; radio towers)KROFT: (Voiceover) We can't see them, but the air around us is filled with invisible electronic signals, everything from cell phone conversations to fax transmissions to ATM transfers. What most people don't realize is that virtually every signal radiated across the electromagnetic spectrum is being collected and analyzed.How much of the world is covered by them?Mr. MIKE FROST (Former Spy): The entire world, the whole planet--covers everything. Echelon covers everything that's radiated worldwide at any given instant.KROFT: Every square inch is covered.Mr. FROST: Every square inch is covered.(Footage of Frost; listening post)KROFT: (Voiceover) Mike Frost spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, and he is the only high-ranking former intelligence agent to speak publicly about the Echelon program. Frost even showed us one of the installations where he says operators can listen in to just about anything.Mr. FROST: Everything from--from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs...KROFT: Baby monitors?Mr. FROST: Oh, yeah. Baby monitors give you a lot of intelligence.(Footage of listening posts)KROFT: (Voiceover) This listening post outside Ottawa is just part of a network of spy stations, which are hidden in the hills of West Virginia, in remote parts of Washington state, even in plain view among the sheep pastures of Europe.This is Menwith Hill Station in the Yorkshire countryside of Northern England. Even though we're on British soil, Menwith Hill is an American base operated by the National Security Agency. It's believed to be the largest spy station in the world.(Footage of Menwith Hill Station; aerial footage of NSA headquarters; supercomputers)KROFT: (Voiceover) Inside each globe are huge dishes which intercept and download satellite communications from around the world. The information is then sent on to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, where acres of supercomputers scan millions of transmissions word by word, looking for key phrases and, some say, specific voices that may be of major significance.Mr. FROST: Everything is looked at. The entire take is looked at. And the computer sorts out what it is told to sort out, be it, say, by key words such as 'bomb' or 'terrorist' or 'blow up,' to telephone numbers or--or a person's name. And people are getting caught, and--and that's great.(Footage of National Security Agency; Carlos the Jackal; two Libyans in court)KROFT: (Voiceover) The National Security Agency won't talk about those successes or even confirm that a program called Echelon exists. But it's believed the international terrorist Carlos the Jackal was captured with the assistance of Echelon, and that it helped identify two Libyans the US believes blew up Pan-Am Flight 103.Is it possible for people like you and I, innocent civilians, to be targeted by Echelon?Mr. FROST: Not only possible, not only probable, but factual. While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a--a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w--was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.KROFT: This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually happened?Mr. FROST: Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.(Vintage footage of Fonda; Spock; King; congressional hearing; the Capitol building)KROFT: (Voiceover) Back in the 1970s, the NSA was caught red-handed spying on anti-war protesters like Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock, and it turns out they had been recording the conversations of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King in the 1960s. When Congress found out, it drafted strict, new laws prohibiting the NSA from spying on Americans, but today, there's enough renewed concern about potential abuses that Congress is revisiting the issue.Representative BOB BARR (Republican, Georgia): (From C-SPAN) One such project known as Project Echelon engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens.(Footage of Barr; NSA sign; Goss and Kroft)KROFT: (Voiceover) But even members of Congress have trouble getting information about Echelon. Last year, the NSA refused to provide internal memoranda on the program to Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.What exactly was it that you requested?Representative PORTER GOSS (Chairman, House Intelligence Committee): Well, I can't get too specific about it, but there was some information about procedures in how the NSA people would employ some safeguards, and I wanted to see all the correspondence on that to make sure that those safeguards were being completely honored. At that point, one of the counsels of the NSA said, 'Well, we don't think we need to share this information with the Oversight Committee.' And we said, 'Well, we're sorry about that. We do have the oversight, and you will share the information with us,' and they did.(Footage of Goss and Kroft)KROFT: (Voiceover) But only after Goss threatened to cut the NSA's budget. He still believes, though, that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent American citizens.If the NSA has capabilities to screen enormous numbers of telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, whatnot, how do you filter out the American conversations, and how do you--how can you be sure that no one is listening to those conversations?Rep. GOSS: We do have methods for that, and I am relatively sure that those procedures are working very well.(Footage of Madsen; Web site; Amnesty International gathering; Greenpeace members in a boat; Princess Diana)KROFT: (Voiceover) Others aren't so sure. Wayne Madsen works with a group called the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is suing the NSA to get a copy of the documents that were finally turned over to Congressman Goss. Madsen, a former naval officer who used to work for the NSA, is concerned about reports that Echelon has listened in on groups like Amnesty International and Greenpeace. Last year, the NSA was forced to acknowledge that it had more than 1,000 pages of information on the late Princess Diana.Mr. WAYNE MADSEN (Electronic Privacy Information Center): Princess Diana, in her campaign against land mines, of course, was completely at odds with US policy, so her activities were of tremendous interest to--to the US policy-makers, of course, and--and, therefore, to the National Security Agency eavesdroppers.KROFT: Do you think the--the NSA only monitored her conversations that involved land mines?Mr. MADSEN: Well, when NSA extends the big drift net out there, it's possible that they're picking up more than just her conversations concerning land mines. What they do with that intelligence, who knows?(Footage of newspaper headlines; Menwith Hill Station)KROFT: (Voiceover) In the early 1990s, some of Diana's personal conversations, as well as those of some others associated with the royal family, mysteriously appeared in the British tabloids. Could some of those conversations have been picked up by that US spy station in England?Mr. MADSEN: (Voiceover) There's been some speculation that Menwith Hill may have been involved in the intercepts of those communications as--as well.And how--how could that be legal? Well, British intelligence could say, 'Well, we didn't eavesdrop on members of the British royal family. These happened to be conducted by, you know, one of our strategic partners.' And, therefore, they would skirt the--skirt the British laws against intercepts of communications.(Footage of National Security Agency sign)KROFT: (Voiceover) The US admits it often shares intelligence with its allies, but never to get around the law.Mr. FROST: Never, Steve, will governments admit that they can circumvent legislation by asking another country to do for them what they can't do for themselves. They will never admit that. But that sort of thing is so easy to do. It is so commonplace.KROFT: Do you have any first-hand experience?Mr. FROST: I do have first-hand experience where CSE did some dirty work for Margaret Thatcher when she was prime minister. She...KROFT: What kind of dirty work?Mr. FROST: Well, at the time, she had two ministers that she said, quote, "They weren't on side," unquote, and she wanted to find out, not what these ministers were saying, but what they were thinking. So my boss, as a matter of fact, went to McDonald House in London and did intercept traffic from these two ministers. The British Parliament now have total deniability. They didn't do anything. They know nothing about it. Of course they didn't do anything; we did it for them.(Footage of Newsham and Kroft)KROFT: (Voiceover) One of the few people to acknowledge that they have listened to conversations over the Echelon system is Margaret Newsham, who worked at Menwith Hill in England back in 1979. She had a top secret security clearance.So who--you--you knew that conversations were being pulled off satellites.Ms. MARGARET NEWSHAM: Yes. But to my knowledge, all it was going to be would be like Russian, Chinese or, y--you know, foreign.(Footage of Newsham)KROFT: (Voiceover) But soon, she says, she discovered it wasn't only the Russians and the Chinese who were the targets.Ms. NEWSHAM: I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over here and listen to--to this thing.' And--and he had headphones on, so I took the headphones and I listened to it, and--and I looked at him and I'm going, 'That's an American.' And he said, 'Well, yeah.'KROFT: And it was definitely an American voice?Ms. NEWSHAM: It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?' And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond. And I go, 'What?'KROFT: Do you think this kind of stuff goes on?Mr. FROST: Oh, of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it goes on.KROFT: You mean the National Security Agency spying on politicians in...Mr. FROST: Well, I--I...KROFT: ...in the United States?Mr. FROST: Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Sounds like the world of fiction. It's not; not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there. I was trained by you guys.Rep. GOSS: Certainly possible that something like that could happen. The question is: What happened next?KROFT: What do you mean?Rep. GOSS: It is certainly possible that somebody overheard me in a conversation. I have just been in Europe. I have been talking to people on a telephone and elsewhere. So it's very possible somebody could have heard me. But the question is: What do they do about it? I mean, I cannot stop the dust in the ether; it's there. But what I can make sure is that it's not abused--the capability's not abused, and that's what we do.KROFT: Much of what's known about the Echelon program comes not from enemies of the United States, but from its friends. Last year, the European Parliament, which meets here in Strasbourg, France, issued a report listing many of the Echelon's spy stations around the world and detailing their surveillance capabilities. The report says Echelon is not just being used to track spies and terrorists. It claims the United States is using it for corporate and industrial espionage as well, gathering sensitive information on European corporations, then turning it over to American competitors so they can gain an economic advantage.(Footage of report; plane; report; Raytheon sign; Ford and Kroft)KROFT: (Voiceover) The European Parliament report alleges that the NSA 'lifted all the faxes and phone calls' between the European aircraft manufacturer Airbus and Saudi Arabian Airlines, and that the information helped two American companies, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, win a $ 6 billion contract. The report also alleges that the French company Thomson-CSF lost a $ 1.3 billion satellite deal to Raytheon the same way. Glen Ford is the member of the European Parliament who commissioned the report.Mr. GLEN FORD (European Parliament Member): It's not the--if you want, the Echelon system that's the problem. It's how it's being used. Now, you know, if we're catching the bad guys, we're completely in favor of that, whether it's you catching the bad guys, us or anybody else. We don't like the bad guys. What we're concerned about is that some of the good guys in my constituency don't have jobs because US corporations got an inside track on--on some global deal.(Footage of encryption machine; Clinton and several men walking; Ford)KROFT: (Voiceover) Increasingly, European governments and corporations are turning to something called encryption, a system of scrambling phone, fax or e-mail transmissions so that the Echelon system won't be able to read them. The US is worried about the technology falling into the hands of terrorists or other enemies. The Clinton administration has been trying to persuade the Europeans to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies a key with which they can unlock the code in matters of national security. Glen Ford, the European parliamentarian, agrees it's a good idea, in principle.Mr. FORD: However, if we are not assured that that is n--not going to be abused, then I'm afraid we may well take the view, 'Sorry, no.' In the United Kingdom, it's traditional for people to leave a key under the doormat if they want the neighbors to come in and--and do something in their house. Well, we're neighbors, and we're not going to leave the electronic key under the doormat if you're going to come in and steal the family silver.KROFT: Y--you said that you think that this is basically a good idea, that we have to do this at some...Mr. FROST: Oh, in a perfect world, we would not need the NSA, we would not need CSE. But, you know, we have to. We have to in the areas of terrorism, drug lords. We--we'd be lost without them. My concern is no accountability and nothing--no safety net in place for the innocent people that fall through the cracks. That's my concern.KROFT: Accountability isn't the only issue that's of interest to Congress. There is growing concern within the intelligence community that encryption and the worldwide move to fiber-optic cables, which Echelon may not be able to penetrate, will erode the NSA's ability to gather the intelligence vital to national security. The agency is looking for more money to develop new technologies.: The Year Man Becomes Immortal (Time?21/2/11)Posted in?Uncategorized?by ce399 on 14/06/2011On Feb. 15, 1965, a diffident but self-possessed high school student named Raymond Kurzweil appeared as a guest on a game show called I’ve Got a Secret. He was introduced by the host, Steve Allen, then he played a short musical composition on a piano. The idea was that Kurzweil was hiding an unusual fact and the panelists — they included a comedian and a former Miss America — had to guess what it was.On the show (see the clip on YouTube), the beauty queen did a good job of grilling Kurzweil, but the comedian got the win: the music was composed by a computer. Kurzweil got $200. (See TIME’s photo-essay “Cyberdyne’s Real Robot.”)Kurzweil then demonstrated the computer, which he built himself — a desk-size affair with loudly clacking relays, hooked up to a typewriter. The panelists were pretty blasé about it; they were more impressed by Kurzweil’s age than by anything he’d actually done. They were ready to move on to Mrs. Chester Loney of Rough and Ready, Calif., whose secret was that she’d been President Lyndon Johnson’s first-grade teacher.But Kurzweil would spend much of the rest of his career working out what his demonstration meant. Creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only. It’s an act of self-expression; you’re not supposed to be able to do it if you don’t have a self. To see creativity, the exclusive domain of humans, usurped by a computer built by a 17-year-old is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence and artificial intelligence.That was Kurzweil’s real secret, and back in 1965 nobody guessed it. Maybe not even him, not yet. But now, 46 years later, Kurzweil believes that we’re approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans. When that happens, humanity — our bodies, our minds, our civilization — will be completely and irreversibly transformed. He believes that this moment is not only inevitable but imminent. According to his calculations, the end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away. (See the best inventions of 2010.)Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster — that is, the rate at which they’re getting faster is increasing.True? True.So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness — not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail parties.If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there’s no reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer. It would work incredibly quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn’t even take breaks to play Farmville.Probably. It’s impossible to predict the behavior of these smarter-than-human intelligences with which (with whom?) we might one day share the planet, because if you could, you’d be as smart as they would be. But there are a lot of theories about it. Maybe we’ll merge with them to become super-intelligent cyborgs, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. Maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life spans indefinitely. Maybe we’ll scan our consciousnesses into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us. The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011. This transformation has a name: the Singularity.The difficult thing to keep sight of when you’re talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn’t, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It’s not a fringe idea; it’s a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There’s an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it’s an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.See pictures of cinema’s most memorable robots.From TIME’s archives: “Can Machines Think?”See TIME’s special report on gadgets, then and now.People are spending a lot of money trying to understand it. The three-year-old Singularity University, which offers inter-disciplinary courses of study for graduate students and executives, is hosted by NASA. Google was a founding sponsor; its CEO and co-founder Larry Page spoke there last year. People are attracted to the Singularity for the shock value, like an intellectual freak show, but they stay because there’s more to it than they expected. And of course, in the event that it turns out to be real, it will be the most important thing to happen to human beings since the invention of language. (See “Is Technology Making Us Lonelier?”)The Singularity isn’t a wholly new idea, just newish. In 1965 the British mathematician I.J. Good described something he called an “intelligence explosion”:Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent 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 ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.The word singularity is borrowed from astrophysics: it refers to a point in space-time — for example, inside a black hole — at which the rules of ordinary physics do not apply. In the 1980s the science-fiction novelist Vernor Vinge attached it to Good’s intelligence-explosion scenario. At a NASA symposium in 1993, Vinge announced that “within 30 years, we will have the technological means to create super-human intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.”By that time Kurzweil was thinking about the Singularity too. He’d been busy since his appearance on I’ve Got a Secret. He’d made several fortunes as an engineer and inventor; he founded and then sold his first software company while he was still at MIT. He went on to build the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind — Stevie Wonder was customer No. 1 — and made innovations in a range of technical fields, including music synthesizers and speech recognition. He holds 39 patents and 19 honorary doctorates. In 1999 President Bill Clinton awarded him the National Medal of Technology. (See pictures of adorable robots.)But Kurzweil was also pursuing a parallel career as a futurist: he has been publishing his thoughts about the future of human and machine-kind for 20 years, most recently in The Singularity Is Near, which was a best seller when it came out in 2005. A documentary by the same name, starring Kurzweil, Tony Robbins and Alan Dershowitz, among others, was released in January. (Kurzweil is actually the subject of two current documentaries. The other one, less authorized but more informative, is called The Transcendent Man.) Bill Gates has called him “the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence.”(See the world’s most influential people in the 2010 TIME 100.)In real life, the transcendent man is an unimposing figure who could pass for Woody Allen’s even nerdier younger brother. Kurzweil grew up in Queens, N.Y., and you can still hear a trace of it in his voice. Now 62, he speaks with the soft, almost hypnotic calm of someone who gives 60 public lectures a year. As the Singularity’s most visible champion, he has heard all the questions and faced down the incredulity many, many times before. He’s good-natured about it. His manner is almost apologetic: I wish I could bring you less exciting news of the future, but I’ve looked at the numbers, and this is what they say, so what else can I tell you?Kurzweil’s interest in humanity’s cyborganic destiny began about 1980 largely as a practical matter. He needed ways to measure and track the pace of technological progress. Even great inventions can fail if they arrive before their time, and he wanted to make sure that when he released his, the timing was right. “Even at that time, technology was moving quickly enough that the world was going to be different by the time you finished a project,” he says. “So it’s like skeet shooting — you can’t shoot at the target.” He knew about Moore’s law, of course, which states that the number of transistors you can put on a microchip doubles about every two years. It’s a surprisingly reliable rule of thumb. Kurzweil tried plotting a slightly different curve: the change over time in the amount of computing power, measured in MIPS (millions of instructions per second), that you can buy for $1,000.As it turned out, Kurzweil’s numbers looked a lot like Moore’s. They doubled every couple of years. Drawn as graphs, they both made exponential curves, with their value increasing by multiples of two instead of by regular increments in a straight line. The curves held eerily steady, even when Kurzweil extended his backward through the decades of pretransistor computing technologies like relays and vacuum tubes, all the way back to 1900. (Comment on this story.)Kurzweil then ran the numbers on a whole bunch of other key technological indexes — the falling cost of manufacturing transistors, the rising clock speed of microprocessors, the plummeting price of dynamic RAM. He looked even further afield at trends in biotech and beyond — the falling cost of sequencing DNA and of wireless data service and the rising numbers of Internet hosts and nanotechnology patents. He kept finding the same thing: exponentially accelerating progress. “It’s really amazing how smooth these trajectories are,” he says. “Through thick and thin, war and peace, boom times and recessions.” Kurzweil calls it the law of accelerating returns: technological progress happens exponentially, not linearly.See TIME’s video “Five Worst Inventions.”See the 100 best gadgets of all time.Then he extended the curves into the future, and the growth they predicted was so phenomenal, it created cognitive resistance in his mind. Exponential curves start slowly, then rocket skyward toward infinity. According to Kurzweil, we’re not evolved to think in terms of exponential growth. “It’s not intuitive. Our built-in predictors are linear. When we’re trying to avoid an animal, we pick the linear prediction of where it’s going to be in 20 seconds and what to do about it. That is actually hardwired in our brains.”Here’s what the exponential curves told him. We will successfully reverse-engineer the human brain by the mid-2020s. By the end of that decade, computers will be capable of human-level intelligence. Kurzweil puts the date of the Singularity — never say he’s not conservative — at 2045. In that year, he estimates, given the vast increases in computing power and the vast reductions in the cost of same, the quantity of artificial intelligence created will be about a billion times the sum of all the human intelligence that exists today. (See how robotics are changing the future of medicine.)The Singularity isn’t just an idea. it attracts people, and those people feel a bond with one another. Together they form a movement, a subculture; Kurzweil calls it a community. Once you decide to take the Singularity seriously, you will find that you have become part of a small but intense and globally distributed hive of like-minded thinkers known as Singularitarians.Not all of them are Kurzweilians, not by a long chalk. There’s room inside Singularitarianism for considerable diversity of opinion about what the Singularity means and when and how it will or won’t happen. But Singularitarians share a worldview. They think in terms of deep time, they believe in the power of technology to shape history, they have little interest in the conventional wisdom about anything, and they cannot believe you’re walking around living your life and watching TV as if the artificial-intelligence revolution were not about to erupt and change absolutely everything. They have no fear of sounding ridiculous; your ordinary citizen’s distaste for apparently absurd ideas is just an example of irrational bias, and Singularitarians have no truck with irrationality. When you enter their mind-space you pass through an extreme gradient in worldview, a hard ontological shear that separates Singularitarians from the common run of humanity. Expect turbulence.In addition to the Singularity University, which Kurzweil co-founded, there’s also a Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, based in San Francisco. It counts among its advisers Peter Thiel, a former CEO of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook. The institute holds an annual conference called the Singularity Summit. (Kurzweil co-founded that too.) Because of the highly interdisciplinary nature of Singularity theory, it attracts a diverse crowd. Artificial intelligence is the main event, but the sessions also cover the galloping progress of, among other fields, genetics and nanotechnology. (See TIME’s computer covers.)At the 2010 summit, which took place in August in San Francisco, there were not just computer scientists but also psychologists, neuroscientists, nanotechnologists, molecular biologists, a specialist in wearable computers, a professor of emergency medicine, an expert on cognition in gray parrots and the professional magician and debunker James “the Amazing” Randi. The atmosphere was a curious blend of Davos and UFO convention. Proponents of seasteading — the practice, so far mostly theoretical, of establishing politically autonomous floating communities in international waters — handed out pamphlets. An android chatted with visitors in one corner.After artificial intelligence, the most talked-about topic at the 2010 summit was life extension. Biological boundaries that most people think of as permanent and inevitable Singularitarians see as merely intractable but solvable problems. Death is one of them. Old age is an illness like any other, and what do you do with illnesses? You cure them. Like a lot of Singularitarian ideas, it sounds funny at first, but the closer you get to it, the less funny it seems. It’s not just wishful thinking; there’s actual science going on here.For example, it’s well known that one cause of the physical degeneration associated with aging involves telomeres, which are segments of DNA found at the ends of chromosomes. Every time a cell divides, its telomeres get shorter, and once a cell runs out of telomeres, it can’t reproduce anymore and dies. But there’s an enzyme called telomerase that reverses this process; it’s one of the reasons cancer cells live so long. So why not treat regular non-cancerous cells with telomerase? In November, researchers at Harvard Medical School announced in Nature that they had done just that. They administered telomerase to a group of mice suffering from age-related degeneration. The damage went away. The mice didn’t just get better; they got younger. (Comment on this story.)Aubrey de Grey is one of the world’s best-known life-extension researchers and a Singularity Summit veteran. A British biologist with a doctorate from Cambridge and a famously formidable beard, de Grey runs a foundation called SENS, or Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. He views aging as a process of accumulating damage, which he has divided into seven categories, each of which he hopes to one day address using regenerative medicine. “People have begun to realize that the view of aging being something immutable — rather like the heat death of the universe — is simply ridiculous,” he says. “It’s just childish. The human body is a machine that has a bunch of functions, and it accumulates various types of damage as a side effect of the normal function of the machine. Therefore in principal that damage can be repaired periodically. This is why we have vintage cars. It’s really just a matter of paying attention. The whole of medicine consists of messing about with what looks pretty inevitable until you figure out how to make it not inevitable.”Kurzweil takes life extension seriously too. His father, with whom he was very close, died of heart disease at 58. Kurzweil inherited his father’s genetic predisposition; he also developed Type 2 diabetes when he was 35. Working with Terry Grossman, a doctor who specializes in longevity medicine, Kurzweil has published two books on his own approach to life extension, which involves taking up to 200 pills and supplements a day. He says his diabetes is essentially cured, and although he’s 62 years old from a chronological perspective, he estimates that his biological age is about 20 years younger.From TIME’s archives: “The Immortality Enzyme.”See Healthland’s 5 rules for good health in 2011.But his goal differs slightly from de Grey’s. For Kurzweil, it’s not so much about staying healthy as long as possible; it’s about staying alive until the Singularity. It’s an attempted handoff. Once hyper-intelligent artificial intelligences arise, armed with advanced nanotechnology, they’ll really be able to wrestle with the vastly complex, systemic problems associated with aging in humans. Alternatively, by then we’ll be able to transfer our minds to sturdier vessels such as computers and robots. He and many other Singularitarians take seriously the proposition that many people who are alive today will wind up being functionally immortal.It’s an idea that’s radical and ancient at the same time. In “Sailing to Byzantium,” W.B. Yeats describes mankind’s fleshly predicament as a soul fastened to a dying animal. Why not unfasten it and fasten it to an immortal robot instead? But Kurzweil finds that life extension produces even more resistance in his audiences than his exponential growth curves. “There are people who can accept computers being more intelligent than people,” he says. “But the idea of significant changes to human longevity — that seems to be particularly controversial. People invested a lot of personal effort into certain philosophies dealing with the issue of life and death. I mean, that’s the major reason we have religion.” (See the top 10 medical breakthroughs of 2010.)Of course, a lot of people think the Singularity is nonsense — a fantasy, wishful thinking, a Silicon Valley version of the Evangelical story of the Rapture, spun by a man who earns his living making outrageous claims and backing them up with pseudoscience. Most of the serious critics focus on the question of whether a computer can truly become intelligent.The entire field of artificial intelligence, or AI, is devoted to this question. But AI doesn’t currently produce the kind of intelligence we associate with humans or even with talking computers in movies — HAL or C3PO or Data. Actual AIs tend to be able to master only one highly specific domain, like interpreting search queries or playing chess. They operate within an extremely specific frame of reference. They don’t make conversation at parties. They’re intelligent, but only if you define intelligence in a vanishingly narrow way. The kind of intelligence Kurzweil is talking about, which is called strong AI or artificial general intelligence, doesn’t exist yet.Why not? Obviously we’re still waiting on all that exponentially growing computing power to get here. But it’s also possible that there are things going on in our brains that can’t be duplicated electronically no matter how many MIPS you throw at them. The neurochemical architecture that generates the ephemeral chaos we know as human consciousness may just be too complex and analog to replicate in digital silicon. The biologist Dennis Bray was one of the few voices of dissent at last summer’s Singularity Summit. “Although biological components act in ways that are comparable to those in electronic circuits,” he argued, in a talk titled “What Cells Can Do That Robots Can’t,” “they are set apart by the huge number of different states they can adopt. Multiple biochemical processes create chemical modifications of protein molecules, further diversified by association with distinct structures at defined locations of a cell. The resulting combinatorial explosion of states endows living systems with an almost infinite capacity to store information regarding past and present conditions and a unique capacity to prepare for future events.” That makes the ones and zeros that computers trade in look pretty crude. (See how to live 100 years.)Underlying the practical challenges are a host of philosophical ones. Suppose we did create a computer that talked and acted in a way that was indistinguishable from a human being — in other words, a computer that could pass the Turing test. (Very loosely speaking, such a computer would be able to pass as human in a blind test.) Would that mean that the computer was sentient, the way a human being is? Or would it just be an extremely sophisticated but essentially mechanical automaton without the mysterious spark of consciousness — a machine with no ghost in it? And how would we know?Even if you grant that the Singularity is plausible, you’re still staring at a thicket of unanswerable questions. If I can scan my consciousness into a computer, am I still me? What are the geopolitics and the socioeconomics of the Singularity? Who decides who gets to be immortal? Who draws the line between sentient and nonsentient? And as we approach immortality, omniscience and omnipotence, will our lives still have meaning? By beating death, will we have lost our essential humanity?Kurzweil admits that there’s a fundamental level of risk associated with the Singularity that’s impossible to refine away, simply because we don’t know what a highly advanced artificial intelligence, finding itself a newly created inhabitant of the planet Earth, would choose to do. It might not feel like competing with us for resources. One of the goals of the Singularity Institute is to make sure not just that artificial intelligence develops but also that the AI is friendly. You don’t have to be a super-intelligent cyborg to understand that introducing a superior life-form into your own biosphere is a basic Darwinian error.(Comment on this story.)If the Singularity is coming, these questions are going to get answers whether we like it or not, and Kurzweil thinks that trying to put off the Singularity by banning technologies is not only impossible but also unethical and probably dangerous. “It would require a totalitarian system to implement such a ban,” he says. “It wouldn’t work. It would just drive these technologies underground, where the responsible scientists who we’re counting on to create the defenses would not have easy access to the tools.”Kurzweil is an almost inhumanly patient and thorough debater. He relishes it. He’s tireless in hunting down his critics so that he can respond to them, point by point, carefully and in detail.See TIME’s photo-essay “A Global Look at Longevity.”See how genes, gender and diet may be life extenders.Take the question of whether computers can replicate the biochemical complexity of an organic brain. Kurzweil yields no ground there whatsoever. He does not see any fundamental difference between flesh and silicon that would prevent the latter from thinking. He defies biologists to come up with a neurological mechanism that could not be modeled or at least matched in power and flexibility by software running on a computer. He refuses to fall on his knees before the mystery of the human brain. “Generally speaking,” he says, “the core of a disagreement I’ll have with a critic is, they’ll say, Oh, Kurzweil is underestimating the complexity of reverse-engineering of the human brain or the complexity of biology. But I don’t believe I’m underestimating the challenge. I think they’re underestimating the power of exponential growth.”This position doesn’t make Kurzweil an outlier, at least among Singularitarians. Plenty of people make more-extreme predictions. Since 2005 the neuroscientist Henry Markram has been running an ambitious initiative at the Brain Mind Institute of the Ecole Polytechnique in Lausanne, Switzerland. It’s called the Blue Brain project, and it’s an attempt to create a neuron-by-neuron simulation of a mammalian brain, using IBM’s Blue Gene super-computer. So far, Markram’s team has managed to simulate one neocortical column from a rat’s brain, which contains about 10,000 neurons. Markram has said that he hopes to have a complete virtual human brain up and running in 10 years. (Even Kurzweil sniffs at this. If it worked, he points out, you’d then have to educate the brain, and who knows how long that would take?) (See portraits of centenarians.)By definition, the future beyond the Singularity is not knowable by our linear, chemical, animal brains, but Kurzweil is teeming with theories about it. He positively flogs himself to think bigger and bigger; you can see him kicking against the confines of his aging organic hardware. “When people look at the implications of ongoing exponential growth, it gets harder and harder to accept,” he says. “So you get people who really accept, yes, things are progressing exponentially, but they fall off the horse at some point because the implications are too fantastic. I’ve tried to push myself to really look.”In Kurzweil’s future, biotechnology and nanotechnology give us the power to manipulate our bodies and the world around us at will, at the molecular level. Progress hyperaccelerates, and every hour brings a century’s worth of scientific breakthroughs. We ditch Darwin and take charge of our own evolution. The human genome becomes just so much code to be bug-tested and optimized and, if necessary, rewritten. Indefinite life extension becomes a reality; people die only if they choose to. Death loses its sting once and for all. Kurzweil hopes to bring his dead father back to life.We can scan our consciousnesses into computers and enter a virtual existence or swap our bodies for immortal robots and light out for the edges of space as intergalactic godlings. Within a matter of centuries, human intelligence will have re-engineered and saturated all the matter in the universe. This is, Kurzweil believes, our destiny as a species. (See the costs of living a long life.)Or it isn’t. When the big questions get answered, a lot of the action will happen where no one can see it, deep inside the black silicon brains of the computers, which will either bloom bit by bit into conscious minds or just continue in ever more brilliant and powerful iterations of nonsentience.But as for the minor questions, they’re already being decided all around us and in plain sight. The more you read about the Singularity, the more you start to see it peeking out at you, coyly, from unexpected directions. Five years ago we didn’t have 600 million humans carrying out their social lives over a single electronic network. Now we have Facebook. Five years ago you didn’t see people double-checking what they were saying and where they were going, even as they were saying it and going there, using handheld network-enabled digital prosthetics. Now we have iPhones. Is it an unimaginable step to take the iPhones out of our hands and put them into our skulls?Already 30,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease have neural implants. Google is experimenting with computers that can drive cars. There are more than 2,000 robots fighting in Afghanistan alongside the human troops. This month a game show will once again figure in the history of artificial intelligence, but this time the computer will be the guest: an IBM super-computer nicknamed Watson will compete on Jeopardy! Watson runs on 90 servers and takes up an entire room, and in a practice match in January it finished ahead of two former champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. It got every question it answered right, but much more important, it didn’t need help understanding the questions (or, strictly speaking, the answers), which were phrased in plain English. Watson isn’t strong AI, but if strong AI happens, it will arrive gradually, bit by bit, and this will have been one of the bits.(Comment on this story.)A hundred years from now, Kurzweil and de Grey and the others could be the 22nd century’s answer to the Founding Fathers — except unlike the Founding Fathers, they’ll still be alive to get credit — or their ideas could look as hilariously retro and dated as Disney’s Tomorrowland. Nothing gets old as fast as the future.But even if they’re dead wrong about the future, they’re right about the present. They’re taking the long view and looking at the big picture. You may reject every specific article of the Singularitarian charter, but you should admire Kurzweil for taking the future seriously. Singularitarianism is grounded in the idea that change is real and that humanity is in charge of its own fate and that history might not be as simple as one damn thing after another. Kurzweil likes to point out that your average cell phone is about a millionth the size of, a millionth the price of and a thousand times more powerful than the computer he had at MIT 40 years ago. Flip that forward 40 years and what does the world look like? If you really want to figure that out, you have to think very, very far outside the box. Or maybe you have to think further inside it than anyone ever has before. Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against IranWASHINGTON — From his first months in office,?President Obamasecretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run?Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated PressIran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz.MultimediaGraphicHow a Secret Cyberwar Program WorkedTimesCast Politics: Confront and ConcealInteractive FeatureIran, the United States and a Nuclear SeesawRelatedIran Confirms Attack by Virus That Collects Information?(May 30, 2012)Facing Cyberattack, Iranian Officials Disconnect Some Oil Terminals From Internet?(April 24, 2012)Times Topic:?Cyberattacks on Iran — Stuxnet and FlameConnect With Us on TwitterFollow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.Twitter List: Reporters and EditorsReaders’ CommentsReaders shared their thoughts on this article.Read All Comments (360) ?Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and?Israel, gave it a name:?Stuxnet.At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium.This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian?nuclear program?is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day.These officials gave differing assessments of how successful the sabotage program was in slowing Iran’s progress toward developing the ability to build?nuclear weapons. Internal Obama administration estimates say the effort was set back by 18 months to two years, but some experts inside and outside the government are more skeptical, noting that Iran’s enrichment levels have steadily recovered, giving the country enough fuel today for five or more weapons, with additional enrichment.Whether Iran is still trying to design and build a weapon is in dispute. The most recent United States intelligence estimate concludes that Iran suspended major parts of its weaponization effort after 2003, though there is evidence that some remnants of it continue.Iran initially denied that its enrichment facilities had been hit by Stuxnet, then said it had found the worm and contained it. Last year, the nation announced that it had begun its own military cyberunit, and Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran’s Passive Defense Organization, said that the Iranian military was prepared “to fight our enemies” in “cyberspace and Internet warfare.” But there has been scant evidence that it has begun to strike back.The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them. There have been reports of one-time attacks against personal computers used by members of Al Qaeda, and of contemplated attacks against the computers that run air defense systems, including during the NATO-led air attack on Libya last year. But Olympic Games was of an entirely different type and sophistication.It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country’s infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives. The code itself is 50 times as big as the typical computer worm, Carey Nachenberg, a vice president of Symantec, one of the many groups that have dissected the code, said at a symposium at Stanford University in April. Those forensic investigations into the inner workings of the code, while picking apart how it worked, came to no conclusions about who was responsible.A similar process is now under way to figure out the origins of another cyberweapon called?Flame?that was recently discovered to have attacked the computers of Iranian officials, sweeping up information from those machines. But the computer code appears to be at least five years old, and American officials say that it was not part of Olympic Games. They have declined to say whether the United States was responsible for the Flame attack.Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.“We discussed the irony, more than once,” one of his aides said. Another said that the administration was resistant to developing a “grand theory for a weapon whose possibilities they were still discovering.” Yet Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice.If Olympic Games failed, he told aides, there would be no time for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran to work. Israel could carry out a conventional military attack, prompting a conflict that could spread throughout the region.A Bush InitiativeThe impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President?George W. Bush?saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America’s European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before.Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took reporters on a tour of the plant and described grand ambitions to install upward of 50,000 centrifuges. For a country with only one nuclear power reactor — whose fuel comes from Russia — to say that it needed fuel for its civilian nuclear program seemed dubious to Bush administration officials. They feared that the fuel could be used in another way besides providing power: to create a stockpile that could later be enriched to bomb-grade material if the Iranians made a political decision to do so.Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results.For years the C.I.A. had introduced faulty parts and designs into Iran’s systems — even tinkering with imported power supplies so that they would blow up — but the sabotage had had relatively little effect. General James E. Cartwright, who had established a small cyberoperation inside the United States Strategic Command, which is responsible for many of America’s nuclear forces, joined intelligence officials in presenting a radical new idea to Mr. Bush and his national security team. It involved a far more sophisticated cyberweapon than the United States had designed before.The goal was to gain access to the Natanz plant’s industrial computer controls. That required leaping the electronic moat that cut the Natanz plant off from the Internet — called the air gap, because it physically separates the facility from the outside world. The computer code would invade the specialized computers that command the centrifuges.The first stage in the effort was to develop a bit of computer code called a beacon that could be inserted into the computers, which were made by the German company Siemens and an Iranian manufacturer, to map their operations. The idea was to draw the equivalent of an electrical blueprint of the Natanz plant, to understand how the computers control the giant silvery centrifuges that spin at tremendous speeds. The connections were complex, and unless every circuit was understood, efforts to seize control of the centrifuges could fail.Eventually the beacon would have to “phone home” — literally send a message back to the headquarters of the?National Security Agency?that would describe the structure and daily rhythms of the enrichment plant. Expectations for the plan were low; one participant said the goal was simply to “throw a little sand in the gears” and buy some time. Mr. Bush was skeptical, but lacking other options, he authorized the effort.Breakthrough, Aided by IsraelIt took months for the beacons to do their work and report home, complete with maps of the electronic directories of the controllers and what amounted to blueprints of how they were connected to the centrifuges deep underground.Then the N.S.A. and a secret Israeli unit respected by American intelligence officials for its cyberskills set to work developing the enormously complex computer worm that would become the attacker from within.The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel’s Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.’s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program.Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called “the bug.” But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran’s P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.When Colonel Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, he turned over the centrifuges he had bought from the Pakistani nuclear ring, and they were placed in storage at a weapons laboratory in Tennessee. The military and intelligence officials overseeing Olympic Games borrowed some for what they termed “destructive testing,” essentially building a virtual replica of Natanz, but spreading the test over several of the Energy Department’s national laboratories to keep even the most trusted nuclear workers from figuring out what was afoot.Those first small-scale tests were surprisingly successful: the bug invaded the computers, lurking for days or weeks, before sending instructions to speed them up or slow them down so suddenly that their delicate parts, spinning at supersonic speeds, self-destructed. After several false starts, it worked. One day, toward the end of Mr. Bush’s term, the rubble of a centrifuge was spread out on the conference table in the Situation Room, proof of the potential power of a cyberweapon. The worm was declared ready to test against the real target: Iran’s underground enrichment plant.“Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers,” Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., said, declining to describe what he knew of these attacks when he was in office. “This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction,” rather than just slow another computer, or hack into it to steal data.“Somebody crossed the Rubicon,” he said.Getting the worm into Natanz, however, was no easy trick. The United States and Israel would have to rely on engineers, maintenance workers and others — both spies and unwitting accomplices — with physical access to the plant. “That was our holy grail,” one of the architects of the plan said. “It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn’t think much about the thumb drive in their hand.”In fact, thumb drives turned out to be critical in spreading the first variants of the computer worm; later, more sophisticated methods were developed to deliver the malicious code.The first attacks were small, and when the centrifuges began spinning out of control in 2008, the Iranians were mystified about the cause, according to intercepts that the United States later picked up. “The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence,” one of the architects of the early attack said.The Iranians were confused partly because no two attacks were exactly alike. Moreover, the code would lurk inside the plant for weeks, recording normal operations; when it attacked, it sent signals to the Natanz control room indicating that everything downstairs was operating normally. “This may have been the most brilliant part of the code,” one American official said.Later, word circulated through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, that the Iranians had grown so distrustful of their own instruments that they had assigned people to sit in the plant and radio back what they saw.“The intent was that the failures should make them feel they were stupid, which is what happened,” the participant in the attacks said. When a few centrifuges failed, the Iranians would close down whole “stands” that linked 164 machines, looking for signs of sabotage in all of them. “They overreacted,” one official said. “We soon discovered they fired people.”Imagery recovered by nuclear inspectors from cameras at Natanz — which the nuclear agency uses to keep track of what happens between visits — showed the results. There was some evidence of wreckage, but it was clear that the Iranians had also carted away centrifuges that had previously appeared to be working well.But by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush’s advice.The Stuxnet SurpriseMr. Obama came to office with an interest in cyberissues, but he had discussed them during the campaign mostly in terms of threats to personal privacy and the risks to infrastructure like the electrical grid and the air traffic control system. He commissioned a major study on how to improve America’s defenses and announced it with great fanfare in the East Room.What he did not say then was that he was also learning the arts of?cyberwar. The architects of Olympic Games would meet him in the Situation Room, often with what they called the “horse blanket,” a giant foldout schematic diagram of Iran’s nuclear production facilities. Mr. Obama authorized the attacks to continue, and every few weeks — certainly after a major attack — he would get updates and authorize the next step. Sometimes it was a strike riskier and bolder than what had been tried previously.“From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,” a senior administration official said. “And it’s safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule.”But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games — General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. — to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden.An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.”In fact, both the Israelis and the Americans had been aiming for a particular part of the centrifuge plant, a critical area whose loss, they had concluded, would set the Iranians back considerably. It is unclear who introduced the programming error.The question facing Mr. Obama was whether the rest of Olympic Games was in jeopardy, now that a variant of the bug was replicating itself “in the wild,” where computer security experts can dissect it and figure out its purpose.“I don’t think we have enough information,” Mr. Obama told the group that day, according to the officials. But in the meantime, he ordered that the cyberattacks continue. They were his best hope of disrupting the Iranian nuclear program unless economic sanctions began to bite harder and reduced Iran’s oil revenues.Within a week, another version of the bug brought down just under 1,000 centrifuges. Olympic Games was still on.A Weapon’s Uncertain FutureAmerican cyberattacks are not limited to Iran, but the focus of attention, as one administration official put it, “has been overwhelmingly on one country.” There is no reason to believe that will remain the case for long. Some officials question why the same techniques have not been used more aggressively against North Korea. Others see chances to disrupt Chinese military plans, forces in Syria on the way to suppress the uprising there, and Qaeda operations around the world. “We’ve considered a lot more attacks than we have gone ahead with,” one former intelligence official said.Mr. Obama has repeatedly told his aides that there are risks to using — and particularly to overusing — the weapon. In fact, no country’s infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran. IAEA suffers from cyber espionage operation by ParastooPosted by?Jarrett Kolthoff?on Mon, Dec 03, 2012 @ 06:16 PMAccording to recent reporting,?The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) nuclear data has been stolen by Parastoo. ?These types of cyber espionage operations from various Islamic groups will not only occur more often, but will also increase in their severity as this conflict continues. ?Verification of Parastoo's claims have yet to be verified, although is not beyond the realm of possibility. ?According to?The Washington Free Beacon, Parastoo first managed to hack the IAEA’s servers and stole only?the personal information of nearly 200 IAEA scientists and officials last week, including one employee in the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science. They followed up this attack by allegedly pilfering data from the internal “nuclear data section” which houses?“highly sensitive information, including confidential ‘SafeGuard’ documents, satellite images, official letters, [and] Presentations.”Yukiya Amano, the United Nations’ nuclear head,?said?that he did not believe sensitive nuclear safeguards have been comprised. But Parastoo is not the only hacker group to target Israel.?Anonymous recently launched its own cyber war?against Israel in response to the Israeli military launching counterattacks against the terrorist group Hamas. Anonymous leaked the personal information of nearly 5,000 Israeli officials and defaced as many Israeli websites as possible.According to Parastoo,?“We are demanding IAEA to start an investigation into activities at Israel’s secret nuclear facilities,” the group wrote in its second public statement. “There are many Parastoos in the world, seeking for an investigation into Israel’s Human-Life threatening nuclear activities.”“We’re now publishing additional information to prove our ability to gain access to highly sensitive information,” Parastoo wrote in its statement.“IAEA cannot just keep us away by turning off their Servers (either old or new ones!),” the group wrote. “There are plenty more of where this information came from but we guarantee that these information will stay in a very safe place with us.” 2012 Olympic flame 'goes out' as cauldron is movedThe flame, a symbol of the Olympic movement which is supposed to burn for the entirety of the Olympic Games, went out in the stadium on Sunday evening, with witnesses reporting seeing it unlit at 11.14pm. Olympic organisers have now confirmed it was extinguished to allow staff to move the cauldron to another part of the venue over the weekend. The revelation that the flame had to be extinguished in order to move the cauldron will add to the controversy over the location of the flame. Critics have said it should have been placed where it would be seen by spectators who did not have tickets to the main stadium. Jackie Brock-Doyle, director of communications for the London Olympics organisers, told AFP: “The cauldron has been put out while we move it to another part of the stadium.” She added that the flame would be kept burning in a lantern used during the torch relay until the cauldron was relit later on Monday. A Locog spokesman today said it had to be temporarily extinguished for safety reasons, but would not confirm how long it was out for. The flame has already been accidentally extinguished during the build-up to the London 2012 Games, after a torch malfunctioned on day three of its journey around Britain. The flame, which was being carried through Great Torrington, Devon, on badminton player David Follett's wheelchair went out and had to be relit mid-relay. At the time, a spokesman for Locog explained: “The flame went out due to a malfunctioning burner. “It is not uncommon for a flame to go out and this can happen for a number of reasons, for example, in extreme winds. “We keep the mother flame alight in specially designed miners' lanterns so if the flame does go out for some reason we re-light it from the source of the flame.” A gust of wind also blew out the flame during a ceremony in Olympia, Greece while an actress playing a high priestess re-enacted a scene from the ancient Olympics. The flame finally reached the Olympic Stadium safely for the opening ceremony on Friday evening, with seven young athletes performing the final stage of its journey. The youngsters, who represented the legacy of the Games as athletes of the future, lit the elaborate cauldron, which comprised of 240 separate flames which rose up to make one. The final position of the cauldron has already attracted some criticism after it was disclosed it would not be visible outside the stadium. The task of keeping the flame alight has required a mammoth effort from organisers, with special arrangements being made for keeping it burning while on planes, speedboats and on the top of mountains. In the event that it was extinguished while on its journey around Britain, a “motherflame” was kept nearby to relight it. This motherflame is said to be “descended” from the “real” Olympic flame in Athens, Greece. Turing TestFirst published Wed Apr 9, 2003; substantive revision Wed Jan 26, 2011The phrase “The Turing Test” is most properly used to refer to a proposal made by Turing (1950) as a way of dealing with the question whether machines can think. According to Turing, the question whether machines can think is itself “too meaningless” to deserve discussion (442). However, if we consider the more precise—and somehow related—question whether a digital computer can do well in a certain kind of game that Turing describes (“The Imitation Game”), then—at least in Turing's eyes—we do have a question that admits of precise discussion. Moreover, as we shall see, Turing himself thought that it would not be too long before we did have digital computers that could “do well” in the Imitation Game.The phrase “The Turing Test” is sometimes used more generally to refer to some kinds of behavioural tests for the presence of mind, or thought, or intelligence in putatively minded entities. So, for example, it is sometimes suggested that The Turing Test is prefigured in Descartes'?Discourse on the Method. (Copeland (2000:527) finds an anticipation of the test in the 1668 writings of the Cartesian de Cordemoy. Gunderson (1964) provides an early instance of those who find that Turing's work is foreshadowed in the work of Descartes.) In theDiscourse, Descartes says:If there were machines which bore a resemblance to our bodies and imitated our actions as closely as possible for all practical purposes, we should still have two very certain means of recognizing that they were not real men. The first is that they could never use words, or put together signs, as we do in order to declare our thoughts to others. For we can certainly conceive of a machine so constructed that it utters words, and even utters words that correspond to bodily actions causing a change in its organs. … But it is not conceivable that such a machine should produce different arrangements of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in its presence, as the dullest of men can do. Secondly, even though some machines might do some things as well as we do them, or perhaps even better, they would inevitably fail in others, which would reveal that they are acting not from understanding, but only from the disposition of their organs. For whereas reason is a universal instrument, which can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need some particular action; hence it is for all practical purposes impossible for a machine to have enough different organs to make it act in all the contingencies of life in the way in which our reason makes us act. (Translation by Robert Stoothoff)Although not everything about this passage is perfectly clear, it does seem that Descartes gives a negative answer to the question whether machines can think; and, moreover, it seems that his giving this negative answer is tied to his confidence that no mere machine could pass The Turing Test: no mere machine could talk and act in the way in which adult human beings do. Since Descartes explicitly says that there are “two very certain means” by which we can rule out that something is a machine—it is, according to Descartes, inconceivable that a mere machine could produce different arrangements of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in its presence; and it is for all practical purposes impossible for a machine to have enough different organs to make it act in all the contingencies of life in the way in which our reason makes us act—it seems that he must agree with the further claim that nothing that can produce different arrangements of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in its presence can be a machine. Given the further assumption—which one suspects that Descartes would have been prepared to grant—that only things that think can produce different arrangements of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in their presence, it seems to follow that Descartes would have agreed that the Turing Test would be a good test of his confident assumption that there cannot be thinking machines. Given the knowledge that something is indeed a machine, evidence that that thing can produce different arrangements of words so as to give an appropriately meaningful answer to whatever is said in its presence is evidence that there can be thinking machines.The phrase “The Turing Test” is also sometimes used to refer to certain kinds of purely behavioural allegedly logically sufficient conditions for the presence of mind, or thought, or intelligence, in putatively minded entities. So, for example, Ned Block's “Blockhead” thought experiment is often said to be a (putative) knockdown objection to The Turing Test. (Block (1981) contains a direct discussion of The Turing Test in this context.) Here, what a proponent of this view has in mind is the idea that it is?logically possible?for an entity to pass the kinds of tests that Descartes and (at least allegedly) Turing have in mind—to use words (and, perhaps, to act) in just the kind of way that human beings do—and yet to be entirely lacking in intelligence, not possessed of a mind, etc.The subsequent discussion takes up the preceding ideas in the order in which they have been introduced. First, there is a discussion of Turing's paper (1950), and of the arguments contained therein. Second, there is a discussion of current assessments of various proposals that have been called “The Turing Test” (whether or not there is much merit in the application of this label to the proposals in question). Third, there is a brief discussion of some recent writings on The Turing Test, including some discussion of the question whether The Turing Test sets an appropriate goal for research into artificial intelligence. Finally, there is a very short discussion of Searle's Chinese Room argument, and, in particular, of the bearing of this argument on The Turing Test.1. Turing (1950) and the Imitation GameTuring (1950) describes the following kind of game. Suppose that we have a person, a machine, and an interrogator. The interrogator is in a room separated from the other person and the machine. The object of the game is for the interrogator to determine which of the other two is the person, and which is the machine. The interrogator knows the other person and the machine by the labels ‘X’ and ‘Y’—but, at least at the beginning of the game, does not know which of the other person and the machine is ‘X’—and at the end of the game says either ‘Xis the person and?Y?is the machine’ or ‘X?is the machine and?Y?is the person’. The interrogator is allowed to put questions to the person and the machine of the following kind: “Will?Xplease tell me whether?X?plays chess?” Whichever of the machine and the other person is?X?must answer questions that are addressed to?X. The object of the machine is to try to cause the interrogator to mistakenly conclude that the machine is the other person; the object of the other person is to try to help the interrogator to correctly identify the machine. About this game, Turing (1950) says:I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. … I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.There are at least two kinds of questions that can be raised about Turing's Imitation Game. First, there are empirical questions, e.g., Is it true that we now—or will soon—have made computers that can play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator has no more than a 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning? Second, there are conceptual questions, e.g., Is it true that, if an average interrogator had no more than a 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning, we should conclude that the machine exhibits some level of thought, or intelligence, or mentality?There is little doubt that Turing would have been disappointed by the state of play at the end of the twentieth century. On the one hand, participants in the Loebner Prize Competition—an annual event in which computer programmes are submitted to the Turing Test—come nowhere near the standard that Turing envisaged. (A quick look at the transcripts of the participants for the past decade reveals that the entered programs are all easily detected by a range of not-very-subtle lines of questioning.) On the other hand, major players in the field often claim that the Loebner Prize Competition is an embarrassment precisely because we are so far from having a computer programme that could carry out a decent conversation for a period of five minutes—see, for example, Shieber (1994). (The programs entered in the Loebner Prize Competition are designed solely with the aim of winning the minor prize of best competitor for the year, with no thought that the embodied strategies would actually yield something capable of passing the Turing Test.)Even if Turing was very far out in assessment of how soon it will be before we have computer programs that can pass the Turing Test, it remains possible that the test that he proposes is a good one. However, before one can endorse the suggestion that the Turing Test is good, there are various objections that ought to be addressed.Some people have suggested that the Turing Test is chauvinistic: it only recognizes intelligence in things that are able to sustain a conversation with us. Why couldn't it be the case that there are intelligent things that are unable to carry on a conversation, or, at any rate, unable to carry on a conversation with creatures like us? (See, for example, French (1990).) Perhaps the intuition behind this question can be granted; perhaps it is unduly chauvinistic to insist that anything that is intelligent has to be capable of sustaining a conversation with us. (On the other hand, one might think that, given the availability of suitably qualified translators, it ought to be possible for any two intelligent agents that speak different languages to carry on some kind of conversation.) But, in any case, the charge of chauvinism is completely beside the point. What Turing claims is only that, if something can carry out a conversation with us, then we have good grounds to suppose that that thing has intelligence of the kind that we possess; he does not claim that only something that can carry out a conversation with us can possess the kind of intelligence that we have.Other people have thought that the Turing Test is not sufficiently demanding: we already have anecdotal evidence that quite unintelligent programs (e.g., ELIZA—for details of which, see Weizenbaum (1966)) can seem to ordinary observers to be loci of intelligence for quite extended periods of time. Moreover, over a short period of time—such as the five minutes that Turing mentions in his prediction about how things will be in the year 2000—it might well be the case that almost all human observers could be taken in by cunningly designed but quite unintelligent programs. However, it is important to recall that, in order to pass Turing's Test, it is not enough for the computer program to fool “ordinary observers” in circumstances other than those in which the test is supposed to take place. What the computer program has to be able to do is to survive interrogation by someone who knows that one of the other two participants in the conversation is a machine. Moreover, the computer program has to be able to survive such interrogation with a high degree of success over a repeated number of trials. (Turing says nothing about how many trials he would require. However, we can safely assume that, in order to get decent evidence that there is no more than a 70% chance that a machine will be correctly identified as a machine after five minutes of conversation, there will have to be a reasonably large number of trials.) If a computer program could do this quite demanding thing, then it does seem plausible to claim that we would have at least?prima facie?reason for thinking that we are in the presence of intelligence. (Perhaps it is worth emphasizing again that there might be all kinds of intelligent things—including intelligent machines—that would not pass this test. It is conceivable, for example, that there might be machines that, as a result of moral considerations, refused to lie or to engage in pretence. Since the human participant is supposed to do everything that he or she can to help the interrogator, the question “Are you a machine?” would quickly allow the interrogator to sort such (pathological?) truth-telling machines from humans.)Another contentious aspect of Turing's paper (1950) concerns his restriction of the discussion to the case of “digital computers.” On the one hand, it seems clear that this restriction is really only significant for the prediction that Turing makes about how things will be in the year 2000, and not for the details of the test itself. (Indeed, it seems that if the test that Turing proposes is a good one, then it will be a good test for any kinds of entities, including, for example, animals, aliens, and analog computers. That is: if animals, aliens, analog computers, or any other kinds of things, pass the test that Turing proposes, then there will be as much reason to think that these things exhibit intelligence as there is reason to think that digital computers that pass the test exhibit intelligence.) On the other hand, it is actually a highly controversial question whether “thinking machines” would have to be digital computers; and it is also a controversial question whether Turing himself assumed that this would be the case. In particular, it is worth noting that the seventh of the objections that Turing (1950) considers addresses the possibility of continuous state machines, which Turing explicitly acknowledges to be different from discrete state machines. Turing appears to claim that, even if we are continuous state machines, a discrete state machine would be able to imitate us sufficiently well for the purposes of the Imitation Game. However, it seems doubtful that the considerations that he gives are sufficient to establish that, if there are continuous state machines that pass the Turing Test, then it is possible to make discrete state machines that pass the test as well. (Turing himself was keen to point out that some limits had to be set on the notion of “machine” in order to make the question about “thinking machines” interesting:It is natural that we should wish to permit every kind of engineering technique to be used in our machine. We also wish to allow the possibility that an engineer or team of engineers may construct a machine which works, but whose manner of operation cannot be satisfactorily described by its constructors because they have applied a method which is largely experimental. Finally, we wish to exclude from the machines men born in the usual manner. It is difficult to frame the definitions so as to satisfy these three conditions. One might for instance insist that the team of engineers should all be of one sex, but this would not really be satisfactory, for it is probably possible to rear a complete individual from a single cell of the skin (say) of a man. To do so would be a feat of biological technique deserving of the very highest praise, but we would not be inclined to regard it as a case of ‘constructing a thinking machine’. (435/6)But, of course, as Turing himself recognized, there is a large class of possible “machines” that are neither digital nor biotechnological.) More generally, the crucial point seems to be that, while Turing recognized that the class of machines is potentially much larger than the class of discrete state machines, he was himself?very?confident that properly engineered discrete state machines could succeed in the Imitation Game (and, moreover, at the time that he was writing, there were certain discrete state machines—“electronic computers”—that loomed very large in the public imagination).2. Turing (1950) and Responses to ObjectionsAlthough Turing (1950) is pretty informal, and, in some ways rather idiosyncratic, there is much to be gained by considering the discussion that Turing gives of potential objections to his claim that machinese—and, in particular, digital computers—can “think”. Turing gives the following labels to the objections that he considers: (1) The Theological Objection; (2) The “Heads in the Sand” Objection; (3) The Mathematical Objection; (4) The Argument from Consciousness; (5) Arguments from Various Disabilities; (6) Lady Lovelace's Objection; (7) Argument from Continuity of the Nervous System; (8) The Argument from Informality of Behavior; and (9) The Argument from Extra-Sensory Perception. We shall consider these objections in the corresponding subsections below. (In some—but not all—cases, the counter-arguments to these objections that we discuss are also provided by Turing.)2.1 The Theological ObjectionSubstance dualists believe that thinking is a function of a non-material, separately existing, substance that somehow “combines” with the body to make a person. So—the argument might go—making a body can never be sufficient to guarantee the presence of thought: in themselves, digital computers are no different from any other merely material bodies in being utterly unable to think. Moreover—to introduce the “theological” element—it might be further added that, where a “soul” is suitably combined with a body, this is always the work of the divine creator of the universe: it is entirely up to God whether or not a particular kind of body is imbued with a thinking soul. (There is well known scriptural support for the proposition that human beings are “made in God's image”. Perhaps there is also theological support for the claim that only God can make things in God's image.)There are several different kinds of remarks to make here. First, there are many serious objections to substance dualism. Second, there are many serious objections to theism. Third, even if theism and substance dualism are both allowed to pass, it remains quite unclear why thinking machines are supposed to be ruled out by this combination of views. Given that God can unite souls with human bodies, it is hard to see what reason there is for thinking that God could not unite souls with digital computers (or rocks, for that matter!). Perhaps, on this combination of views, there is no especially good reason why, amongst the things that we can make, certain kinds of digital computers turn out to be the only ones to which God gives souls—but it seems pretty clear that there is also no particularly good reason for ruling out the possibility that God would choose to give souls to certain kinds of digital computers. Evidence that God is dead set against the idea of giving souls to certain kinds of digital computers is not particularly thick on the ground.2.2 The ‘Heads in the Sand’ ObjectionIf there were thinking machines, then various consequences would follow. First, we would lose the best reasons that we have for thinking that we are superior to everything else in the universe (since our cherished “reason” would no longer be something that we alone possess). Second, the possibility that we might be “supplanted” by machines would become a genuine worry: if there were thinking machines, then very likely there would be machines that could think much better than we can. Third, the possibility that we might be “dominated” by machines would also become a genuine worry: if there were thinking machines, who's to say that they would not take over the universe, and either enslave or exterminate us?As it stands, what we have here is not an argument against the claim that machines can think; rather, we have the expression of various fears about what might follow if there were thinking machines. Someone who took these worries seriously—and who was persuaded that it is indeed possible for us to construct thinking machines—might well think that we have here reasons for giving up on the project of attempting to construct thinking machines. However, it would be a major task—which we do not intend to pursue here—to determine whether there really are any good reasons for taking these worries seriously.2.3 The Mathematical ObjectionSome people have supposed that certain fundamental results in mathematical logic that were discovered during the 1930s—by G?del (first incompleteness theorem) and Turing (the halting problem)—have important consequences for questions about digital computation and intelligent thought. (See, for example, Lucas (1961) and Penrose (1989); see, too, Hodges (1983:414) who mentions Polanyi's discussions with Turing on this matter.) Essentially, these results show that within a formal system that is strong enough, there are a class of true statements that can be expressed but not proven within the system (see the entry on?provability logic). Let us say that such a system is “subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint” because it is constrained from being able to prove a class of true statements expressible within the system.Turing (1950:444) himself observes that these results from mathematical logic might have implications for the Turing test:There are certain things that [any digital computer] cannot do. If it is rigged up to give answers to questions as in the imitation game, there will be some questions to which it will either give a wrong answer, or fail to give an answer at all however much time is allowed for a reply. (444)So, in the context of the Turing test, “being subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint” implies the existence of a class of “unanswerable” questions. However Turing noted that in the context of the Turing test, these “unanswerable” questions are only a concern if humans can answer them. His “short” reply was that it is not clear that humans are free from such a constraint themselves. Turing then goes on to add that he does not think that the argument can be dismissed “quite so lightly.”To make the argument more precise, we can write it as follows:Let C be a digital computer.Since C is subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint, there is an “unanswerable” question q for C.If an entity, E, is not subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint, then there are no “unanswerable” questions for E.The human intellect is not subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint.Thus, there are no “unanswerable” questions for the human intellect.The question q is therefore “answerable” to the human intellect.By asking question q, a human could determine if the responder is a computer or a human.Thus C may fail the Turing test.Once the argument is laid out as above, it becomes clear that premise (3) should be challenged. Putting that aside, we note that one interpretation of Turing's “short” reply is that claim (4) is merely asserted—without any kind of proof. The “short” reply then leads us to examine whether humans are free from the Lucas-Penrose constraint.If humans are subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint then the constraint does not provide any basis for distinguishing humans from digital computers. If humans are free from the Lucas-Penrose constraint, then (granting premise 3) it follows that digital computers may fail the Turing test and thus, it seems, cannot think.However, there remains a question as to whether being free from the constraint is necessary for the capacity to think. It may be that the Turing test is too strict. Since, by hypothesis, we are free from the Lucas-Penrose constraint, we are, in some sense, too good at asking and answering questions. Suppose there is a thinking entity that is subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint. By an argument analogous to the one above, it can fail the Turing test. Thus, an entity which can think would fail the Turing test.We can respond to this concern by noting that the construction of questions suggested by the results from mathematical logic—G?del, Turing, etc.—are extremely complicated, and require extremely detailed information about the language and internal programming of the digital computer (which, of course, is not available to the interrogators in the Imitation Game). At the very least, much more argument is required to overthrow the view that the Turing Test could remain a very high quality statistical test for the presence of mind and intelligence even if digital computers differ from human beings in being subject to the Lucas-Penrose constraint. (See Bowie 1982, Dietrich 1994, Feferman 1996, and Abramson 2008, for further discussion.)2.4 The Argument from ConsciousnessTuring cites Professor Jefferson's?Lister Oration?for 1949 as a source for the kind of objection that he takes to fall under this label:Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain—that is, not only write it but know that it had written it. No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its successes, grief when its valves fuse, be warmed by flattery, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants. (445/6)There are several different ideas that are being run together here, and that it is profitable to disentangle. One idea—the one upon which Turing first focuses—is the idea that the only way in which one could be certain that a machine thinks is to be the machine, and to feel oneself thinking. A second idea, perhaps, is that the presence of mind requires the presence of a certain kind of self-consciousness (“not only write it but know that it had written it”). A third idea is that it is a mistake to take a narrow view of the mind, i.e. to suppose that there could be a believing intellect divorced from the kinds of desires and emotions that play such a central role in the generation of human behavior (“no mechanism could feel …”).Against the solipsistic line of thought, Turing makes the effective reply that he would be satisfied if he could secure agreement on the claim that we might each have just as much reason to suppose that machines think as we have reason to suppose that?other?people think. (The point isn't that Turing thinks that solipsism is a serious option; rather, the point is that following this line of argument isn't going to lead to the conclusion that there are respects in which digital computers could not be our intellectual equals or superiors.)Against the other lines of thought, Turing provides a little “viva voce” that is intended to illustrate the kind of evidence that he supposes one might have that a machine is intelligent. Given the right kinds of responses from the machine, we?would?naturally interpret its utterances as evidence of pleasure, grief, warmth, misery, anger, depression, etc. Perhaps—though Turing doesn't say this—the only way to make a machine of this kind would be to equip it with sensors, affective states, etc., i.e., in effect, to make an artificial?person. However, the important point is that if the claims about self-consciousness, desires, emotions, etc. are right, then Turing can accept these claims with equanimity:?his?claim is then that a machine with a digital computing “brain” can have the full range of mental states that can be enjoyed by adult human beings.2.5 Arguments from Various DisabilitiesTuring considers a list of things that some people have claimed machines will never be able to do: (1) be kind; (2) be resourceful; (3) be beautiful; (4) be friendly; (5) have initiative; (6) have a sense of humor; (7) tell right from wrong; (8) make mistakes; (9) fall in love; (10) enjoy strawberries and cream; (11) make someone fall in love with one; (12) learn from experience; (13) use words properly; (14) be the subject of one's own thoughts; (15) have as much diversity of behavior as a man; (16) do something really new.An interesting question to ask, before we address these claims directly, is whether we should suppose that intelligent creatures from some other part of the universe would necessarily be able to do these things. Why, for example, should we suppose that there must be something deficient about a creature that does not enjoy—or that is not able to enjoy—strawberries and cream? True enough, we might suppose that an intelligent creature ought to have the capacity to enjoy some kinds of things—but it seems unduly chauvinistic to insist that intelligent creatures must be able to enjoy just the kinds of things that we do. (No doubt, similar considerations apply to the claim that an intelligent creature must be the kind of thing that can make a human being fall in love with it. Yes, perhaps, an intelligent creature should be the kind of thing that can love and be loved; but what is so special about us?)Setting aside those tasks that we deem to be unduly chauvinistic, we should then ask what grounds there are for supposing that no digital computing machine?could?do the other things on the list. Turing suggests that the most likely ground lies in our prior acquaintance with machines of all kinds: none of the machines that any of us has hitherto encountered has been able to do these things. In particular, the digital computers with which we are now familiar cannot do these things. (Except perhaps for make mistakes: after all, even digital computers are subject to “errors of functioning.” But this might be set aside as an irrelevant case.) However, given the limitations of storage capacity and processing speed of even the most recent digital computers, there are obvious reasons for being cautious in assessing the merits of this inductive argument.(A different question worth asking concerns the progress that has been made until now in constructing machines that can do the kinds of things that appear on Turing's list. There is at least room for debate about the extent to which current computers can: make mistakes, use words properly, learn from experience, be beautiful, etc. Moreover, there is also room for debate about the extent to which recent advances in other areas may be expected to lead to further advancements in overcoming these alleged disabilities. Perhaps, for example, recent advances in work on artificial sensors may one day contribute to the production of machines that can enjoy strawberries and cream. Of course, if the intended objection is to the notion that machines can experience any kind of feeling of enjoyment, then it is not clear that work on particular kinds of artificial sensors is to the point.)2.6 Lady Lovelace's ObjectionOne of the most popular objections to the claim that there can be thinking machines is suggested by a remark made by Lady Lovelace in her memoir on Babbage's Analytical Engine:The Analytical Engine has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform (cited by Hartree, p.70)The key idea is that machines can?only?do what we know how to order them to do (or that machines can never do anything really new, or anything that would take us by surprise). As Turing says, one way to respond to these challenges is to ask whether we can ever do anything “really new.” Suppose, for instance, that the world is deterministic, so that everything that we do is fully determined by the laws of nature and the boundary conditions of the universe. There is a sense in which nothing “really new” happens in a deterministic universe—though, of course, the universe's being deterministic would be entirely compatible with our being surprised by events that occur within it. Moreover—as Turing goes on to point out—there are many ways in which even digital computers do things that take us by surprise; more needs to be said to make clear exactly what the nature of this suggestion is. (Yes, we might suppose, digital computers are “constrained” by their programs: they can't do anything that is not permitted by the programs that they have. But human beings are “constrained” by their biology and their genetic inheritance in what might be argued to be just the same kind of way: they can't do anything that is not permitted by the biology and genetic inheritance that they have. If a program were sufficiently complex—and if the processor(s) on which it ran were sufficiently fast—then it is not easy to say whether the kinds of “constraints” that would remain would necessarily differ in kind from the kinds of constraints that are imposed by biology and genetic inheritance.)Bringsjord et al. (2001) claim that Turing's response to the Lovelace Objection is “mysterious” at best, and “incompetent” at worst (p.4). In their view, Turing's claim that “computers do take us by surprise” is only true when “surprise” is given a very superficial interpretation. For, while it is true that computers do things that we don't intend them to do—because we're not smart enough, or because we're not careful enough, or because there are rare hardware errors, or whatever—it isn't true that there are any cases in which we should want to say that a computer has?originated?something. Whatever merit might be found in this objection, it seems worth pointing out that, in the relevant sense of?origination, human beings “originate something” on more or less every occasion in which they engage in conversation: they produce new sentences of natural language that it is appropriate for them to produce in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Thus, on the one hand—for all that Bringsjord et al. have argued—The Turing Test is a perfectly good test for the presence of “origination” (or “creativity,” or whatever). Moreover, on the other hand, for all that Bringsjord et al. have argued, it remains an open question whether a digital computing device is capable of “origination” in this sense (i.e. capable of producing new sentences that are appropriate to the circumstances in which the computer finds itself). So we are not overly inclined to think that Turing's response to the Lovelace Objection is poor; and we are even less inclined to think that Turing lacked the resources to provide a satisfactory response on this point.2.7 Argument from Continuity of the Nervous SystemThe human brain and nervous system is not much like a digital computer. In particular, there are reasons for being skeptical of the claim that the brain is a discrete-state machine. Turing observes that a small error in the information about the size of a nervous impulse impinging on a neuron may make a large difference to the size of the outgoing impulse. From this, Turing infers that the brain is likely to be a continuous-state machine; and he then notes that, since discrete-state machines are not continuous-state machines, there might be reason here for thinking that no discrete-state machine can be intelligent.Turing's response to this kind of argument seems to be that a continuous-state machine can be imitated by discrete-state machines with very small levels of error. Just as differential analyzers can be imitated by digital computers to within quite small margins of error, so too, the conversation of human beings can be imitated by digital computers to margins of error that would not be detected by ordinary interrogators playing the imitation game. It is not clear that this is the right kind of response for Turing to make. If someone thinks that real thought (or intelligence, or mind, or whatever) can only be located in a continuous-state machine, then the fact—if, indeed, it is a fact—that it is possible for discrete-state machines to pass the Turing Test shows only that the Turing Test is no good. A better reply is to ask why one should be so confident that real thought, etc. can only be located in continuous-state machines (if, indeed, it is right to suppose that we are not discrete-state machines). And, before we ask this question, we would do well to consider whether we really do have such good reason to suppose that, from the standpoint of our ability to think, we are not essentially discrete-state machines. (As Block (1981) points out, it seems that there is nothing in our concept of intelligence that rules out intelligent beings with quantised sensory devices; and nor is there anything in our concept of intelligence that rules out intelligent beings with digital working parts.)2.8 Argument from Informality of BehaviorThis argument relies on the assumption that there is no set of rules that describes what a person ought to do in every possible set of circumstances, and on the further assumption that there is a set of rules that describes what a machine will do in every possible set of circumstances. From these two assumptions, it is supposed to follow—somehow!—that people are not machines. As Turing notes, there is some slippage between “ought” and “will” in this formulation of the argument. However, once we make the appropriate adjustments, it is not clear that an obvious difference between people and digital computers emerges.Suppose, first, that we focus on the question of whether there are sets of rules that describe what a person and a machine “will” do in every possible set of circumstances. If the world is deterministic, then there are such rules for both persons and machines (though perhaps it is not possible to write down the rules). If the world is not deterministic, then there are no such rules for either persons or machines (since both persons and machines can be subject to non-deterministic processes in the production of their behavior). Either way, it is hard to see any reason for supposing that there is a relevant difference between people and machines that bears on the description of what they will do in all possible sets of circumstances. (Perhaps it might be said that what the objection invites us to suppose is that, even though the world is not deterministic, humans differ from digital machines precisely because the operations of the latter are indeed deterministic. But, if the world is non-deterministic, then there is no reason why digital machines cannot be programmed to behave non-deterministically, by allowing them to access input from non-deterministic features of the world.)Suppose, instead, that we focus on the question of whether there are sets of rules that describe what a person and a machine “ought” to do in every possible set of circumstances. Whether or not we suppose that norms can be codified—and quite apart from the question of which kinds of norms are in question—it is hard to see what grounds there could be for this judgment, other than the question-begging claim that machines are not the kinds of things whose behavior could be subject to norms. (And, in that case, the initial argument is badly mis-stated: the claim ought to be that, whereas there are sets of rules that describe what a person ought to do in every possible set of circumstances, there are no sets of rules that describe what machines?ought?to do in all possible sets of circumstances!)2.9 Argument from Extra-Sensory PerceptionThe strangest part of Turing's paper is the few paragraphs on ESP. Perhaps it is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, though, if it is, this fact is poorly signposted by Turing. Perhaps, instead, Turing was influenced by the apparently scientifically respectable results of J. B. Rhine. At any rate, taking the text at face value, Turing seems to have thought that there was overwhelming empirical evidence for telepathy (and he was also prepared to take clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis seriously). Moreover, he also seems to have thought that if the human participant in the game was telepathic, then the interrogator could exploit this fact in order to determine the identity of the machine—and, in order to circumvent this difficulty, Turing proposes that the competitors should be housed in a “telepathy-proof room.” Leaving aside the point that, as a matter of fact, there is no current statistical support for telepathy—or clairvoyance, or precognition, or telekinesis—it is worth asking what kind of theory of the nature of telepathy would have appealed to Turing. After all, if humans can be telepathic, why shouldn't digital computers be so as well? If the capacity for telepathy were a standard feature of any sufficiently advanced system that is able to carry out human conversation, then there is no in-principle reason why digital computers could not be the equals of human beings in this respect as well. (Perhaps this response assumes that a successful machine participant in the imitation game will need to be equipped with sensors, etc. However, as we noted above, this assumption is not terribly controversial. A plausible conversationalist has to keep up to date with goings-on in the world.)After discussing the nine objections mentioned above, Turing goes on to say that he has “no very convincing arguments of a positive nature to support my views. If I had I should not have taken such pains to point out the fallacies in contrary views.” (454) Perhaps Turing sells himself a little short in this self-assessment. First of all—as his brief discussion of solipsism makes clear—it is worth asking what grounds we have for attributing intelligence (thought, mind) to other people. If it is plausible to suppose that we base our attributions on behavioral tests or behavioral criteria, then his claim about the appropriate test to apply in the case of machines seems apt, and his conjecture that digital computing machines might pass the test seems like a reasonable—though controversial—empirical conjecture. Second, subsequent developments in the philosophy of mind—and, in particular, the fashioning of functionalist theories of the mind—have provided a more secure theoretical environment in which to place speculations about the possibility of thinking machines. If mental states are functional states—and if mental states are capable of realisation in vastly different kinds of materials—then there is some reason to think that it is an empirical question whether minds can be realised in digital computing machines. Of course, this kind of suggestion is open to challenge; we shall consider some important philosophical objections in the later parts of this review.3. Some Minor Issues ArisingThere are a number of much-debated issues that arise in connection with the interpretation of various parts of Turing (1950), and that we have hitherto neglected to discuss. What has been said in the first two sections of this document amounts to our interpretation of what Turing has to say (perhaps bolstered with what we take to be further relevant considerations in those cases where Turing's remarks can be fairly readily improved upon). But since some of this interpretation has been contested, it is probably worth noting where the major points of controversy have been.3.1 Interpreting the Imitation GameTuring (1950) introduces the imitation game by describing a game in which the participants are a man, a woman, and a human interrogator. The interrogator is in a room apart from the other two, and is set the task of determining which of the other two is a man and which is a woman. Both the man and the woman are set the task of trying to convince the interrogator that they are the woman. Turing recommends that the best strategy for the woman is to answer all questions truthfully; of course, the best strategy for the man will require some lying. The participants in this game also use teletypewriter to communicate with one another—to avoid clues that might be offered by tone of voice, etc. Turing then says: “We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?” (434).Now, of course, it is?possible?to interpret Turing as here intending to say what he seems literally to say, namely, that the new game is one in which the computer must pretend to be a woman, and the other participant in the game is a woman. (See, for example, Genova (1994), and Traiger (2000).) And it is also?possible?to interpret Turing as intending to say that the new game is one in which the computer must pretend to be a woman, and the other participant in the game is a man who must also pretend to be a woman. However, as Copeland (2000), Piccinini (2000), and Moor (2001) convincingly argue, the rest of Turing's article, and material in other articles that Turing wrote at around the same time, very strongly support the claim that Turing actually intended the standard interpretation that we gave above, viz. that the computer is to pretend to be a human being, and the other participant in the game is a human being of unspecified gender. Moreover, as Moor (2001) argues, there is no reason to think that one would get a better test if the computer must pretend to be a woman and the other participant in the game is a man pretending to be a woman (and, indeed, there is some reason to think that one would get a worse test). Perhaps it would make no difference to the effectiveness of the test if the computer must pretend to be a woman, and the other participant is a woman (any more than it would make a difference if the computer must pretend to be an accountant and the other participant is an accountant); however, this consideration is simply insufficient to outweigh the strong textual evidence that supports the standard interpretation of the imitation game that we gave at the beginning of our discussion of Turing (1950).3.2 Turing's PredictionsAs we noted earlier, Turing (1950) makes the claim that:I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. … I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.Most commentators contend that this claim has been shown to be mistaken: in the year 2000,?no-one?was able to program computers to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator had no more than a 70% chance of making the correct identification after five minutes of questioning. Copeland (2000) argues that this contention is seriously mistaken: “about fifty years” is by no means “exactly fifty years,” and it remains open that we may soon be able to do the required programming. Against this, it should be noted that Turing (1950) goes on immediately to refer to how things will be “at the end of the century,” which suggests that not too much can be read into the qualifying “about.” However, as Copeland (2000) points out, there are other more cautious predictions that Turing makes elsewhere (e.g., that it would be “at least 100 years” before a machine was able to pass an unrestricted version of his test); and there are other predictions that are made in Turing (1950) that seem to have been vindicated. In particular, it is plausible to claim that, in the year 2000, educated opinion had altered to the extent that, in many quarters, one could speak of the possibility of machines' thinking—and of machines' learning—without expecting to be contradicted. As Moor (2001) points out, “machine intelligence” is not the oxymoron that it might have been taken to be when Turing first started thinking about these matters.3.3 A Useful DistinctionThere are two different theoretical claims that are run together in many discussions of The Turing Test that can profitably be separated. One claim holds that the general scheme that is described in Turing's Imitation Game provides a good test for the presence of intelligence. (If something can pass itself off as a person under sufficiently demanding test conditions, then we have very good reason to suppose that that thing is intelligent.) Another claim holds that an appropriately programmed computer could pass the kind of test that is described in the first claim. We might call the first claim “The Turing Test Claim” and the second claim “The Thinking Machine Claim”. Some objections to the claims made in Turing (1950) are objections to the Thinking Machine Claim, but not objections to the Turing Test Claim. (Consider, for example, the argument of Searle (1982), which we discuss further in Section 6.) However, other objections are objections to the Turing Test Claim. Until we get to Section 6, we shall be confining our attention to discussions of the Turing Test Claim.3.4 A Further NoteIn this article, we follow the standard philosophical convention according to which “a mind” means “at least one mind”. If “passing the Turing Test” implies intelligence, then “passing the Turing Test” implies the presence of at least one mind. We cannot here explore recent discussions of “swarm intelligence”, “collective intelligence”, and the like. However, it is surely clear that two people taking turns could “pass the Turing Test” in circumstances in which we should be very reluctant to say that there is a “collective mind” that has the minds of the two as components.4. Assessment of the Current Standing of The Turing TestGiven the initial distinction that we made between different ways in which the expression The Turing Test gets interpreted in the literature, it is probably best to approach the question of the assessment of the current standing of The Turing Test by dividing cases. True enough, we think that there is a correct interpretation of exactly what test it is that is proposed by Turing (1950); but a complete discussion of the current standing of The Turing Test should pay at least some attention to the current standing of other tests that have been mistakenly supposed to be proposed by Turing (1950).There are a number of main ideas to be investigated. First, there is the suggestion that The Turing Test provides logically necessary and sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence. Second, there is the suggestion that The Turing Test provides logically sufficient—but not logically necessary—conditions for the attribution of intelligence. Third, there is the suggestion that The Turing Test provides “criteria”—defeasible sufficient conditions—for the attribution of intelligence. Fourth—and perhaps not importantly distinct from the previous claim—there is the suggestion that The Turing Test provides (more or less strong) probabilistic support for the attribution of intelligence. We shall consider each of these suggestions in turn.4.1 (Logically) Necessary and Sufficient ConditionsIt is doubtful whether there are very many examples of people who have explicitly claimed that The Turing Test is meant to provide conditions that are both logically necessary and logically sufficient for the attribution of intelligence. (Perhaps Block (1981) is one such case.) However, some of the objections that have been proposed against The Turing Test only make sense under the assumption that The Turing Test does indeed provide logically necessary and logically sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence; and many more of the objections that have been proposed against The Turing Test only make sense under the assumption that The Turing Test provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence, where the modality in question is weaker than the strictly logical, e.g., nomic or causal.Consider, for example, those people who have claimed that The Turing Test is chauvinistic; and, in particular, those people who have claimed that it is surely logically possible for there to be something that possesses considerable intelligence, and yet that is not able to pass The Turing Test. (Examples: Intelligent creatures might fail to pass The Turing Test because they do not share our way of life; intelligent creatures might fail to pass The Turing Test because they refuse to engage in games of pretence; intelligent creatures might fail to pass The Turing Test because the pragmatic conventions that govern the languages that they speak are so very different from the pragmatic conventions that govern human languages. Etc.) None of this can constitute objections to The Turing Test unless The Turing Test delivers?necessary?conditions for the attribution of intelligence.French (1990) offers ingenious arguments that are intended to show that “the Turing Test provides a guarantee not of intelligence, but of culturally-oriented intelligence.” But, of course, anything that has culturally-oriented intelligence?has?intelligence; so French's objections cannot be taken to be directed towards the idea that The Turing Test provides sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence. Rather—as we shall see later—French supposes that The Turing Test establishes sufficient conditions that no machine will ever satisfy. That is, in French's view, what is wrong with The Turing Test is that it establishes utterly uninteresting sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence.4.2 Logically Sufficient ConditionsThere are many philosophers who have supposed that The Turing Test is intended to provide logically sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence. That is, there are many philosophers who have supposed that The Turing Test claims that it is logically impossible for something that lacks intelligence to pass The Turing Test. (Often, this supposition goes with an interpretation according to which passing The Turing Test requires rather a lot, e.g., producing behavior that is indistinguishable from human behavior over an entire lifetime.)There are well-known arguments against the claim that passing The Turing Test—or any other purely behavioral test—provides logically sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence.?The?standard objection to this kind of analysis of intelligence (mind, thought) is that a being whose behavior was produced by “brute force” methods ought not to count as intelligent (as possessing a mind, as having thoughts).Consider, for example, Ned Block's?Blockhead. Blockhead is a creature that looks just like a human being, but that is controlled by a “game-of-life look-up tree,” i.e. by a tree that contains a programmed response for every discriminable input at each stage in the creature's life. If we agree that Blockhead is logically possible, and if we agree that Blockhead is not intelligent (does not have a mind, does not think), then Blockhead is a counterexample to the claim that the Turing Test provides a logically sufficient condition for the ascription of intelligence. After all, Blockhead could be programmed with a look-up tree that produces responses identical with the ones that?you?would give over the entire course of?your?life (given the same inputs).There are perhaps only two ways in which someone who claims that The Turing Test offers logically sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence can respond to Block's argument. First, it could be denied that Blockhead is a logical possibility; second, it could be claimed that Blockhead would be intelligent (have a mind, think).In order to deny that Blockhead is a logical possibility, it seems that what needs to be denied is the commonly accepted link between conceivability and logical possibility: it certainly seems that Blockhead is?conceivable, and so, if (properly circumscribed) conceivability is sufficient for logical possibility, then it seems that we have good reason to accept that Blockhead is a logical possibility. Since it would take us too far away from our present concerns to explore this issue properly, we merely note that it remains a controversial question whether (properly circumscribed) conceivability is sufficient for logical possibility. (For further discussion of this issue, see Crooke (2002).)The question of whether Blockhead is intelligent (has a mind, thinks) may seem straightforward, but—despite Block's confident assertion that Blockhead “has all of the intelligence of a toaster”—it is not completely obvious that we should deny that Blockhead is intelligent. True enough, Blockhead is a particularly inefficient processor of information; but it is at least a processor of information, and that—in combination with the behavior that is produced as a result of the processing of information—might well be taken to be sufficient grounds for the attribution of?some?level of intelligence to Blockhead.4.3 CriteriaIn his?Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein famously writes: “An ‘inner process’ stands in need of outward criteria” (580). Exactly what Wittgenstein meant by this remark is unclear, but one way in which it might be interpreted is as follows: in order to be justified in ascribing a “mental state” to some entity, there must be some true claims about the observable behavior of that entity that, (perhaps) together with other true claims about that entity (not themselves couched in “mentalistic” vocabulary), entail that the entity has the mental state in question. If no true claims about the observable behavior of the entity can play any role in the justification of the ascription of the mental state in question to the entity, then there are no grounds for attributing that kind of mental state to the entity.The claim that, in order to be justified in ascribing a mental state to an entity, there must be some true claims about the observable behavior of that entity that alone—i.e. without the addition of any other true claims about that entity—entail that the entity has the mental state in question, is a piece of philosophical behaviorism. It may be—for all that we are able to argue—that Wittgenstein was a philosophical behaviorist; it may be—for all that we are able to argue—that Turing was one, too. However, if we go by the letter of the account given in the previous paragraph, then all that need follow from the claim that the Turing Test is criterial for the ascription of intelligence (thought, mind) is that, when other true claims (not themselves couched in terms of mentalistic vocabulary) are conjoined with the claim that an entity has passed the Turing Test, it then follows that the entity in question has intelligence (thought, mind).(Note that the parenthetical qualification that the additional true claims not be couched in terms of mentalistic vocabulary is only one way in which one might try to avoid the threat of trivialization. The difficulty is that the addition of the true claim that an entity has a mind will always produce a set of claims that entails that that entity has a mind, no matter what other claims belong to the set!)To see how the claim that the Turing Test is merely criterial for the ascription of intelligence differs from the logical behaviorist claim that the Turing Test provides logically sufficient conditions for the ascription of intelligence, it suffices to consider the question of whether it is?nomically?possible for there to be a “hand simulation” of a Turing Test program. Many people have supposed that there is good reason to deny that Blockhead is a nomic (or physical) possibility. For example, in?The Physics of Immortality, Frank Tipler provides the following argument in defence of the claim that it is physically impossible to “hand simulate” a Turing-Test-passing program:If my earlier estimate that the human brain can code as much as 1015?bits is correct, then since an average book codes about 106?bits … it would require more than 100 million books to code the human brain. It would take at least thirty five-story main university libraries to hold this many books. We know from experience that we can access any memory in our brain in about 100 seconds, so a hand simulation of a Turing Test-passing program would require a human being to be able to take off the shelf, glance through, and return to the shelf all of these 100 million books in 100 seconds. If each book weighs about a pound (0.5 kilograms), and on the average the book moves one yard (one meter) in the process of taking it off the shelf and returning it, then in 100 seconds the energy consumed in just moving the books is 3 x 1019?joules; the rate of energy consumption is 3 x 1011?megawatts. Since a human uses energy at a normal rate of 100 watts, the power required is the bodily power of 3 x 1015?human beings, about a million times the current population of the entire earth. A typical large nuclear power plant has a power output of 1,000 megawatts, so a hand simulation of the human program requires a power output equal to that of 300 million large nuclear power plants. As I said, a man can no more hand-simulate a Turing Test-passing program than he can jump to the Moon. In fact, it is far more difficult. (40)While there might be ways in which the details of Tipler's argument could be improved, the general point seems clearly right: the kind of combinatorial explosion that is required for a look-up tree for a human being is ruled out by the laws and boundary conditions that govern the operations of the physical world. But, if this is right, then, while it may be true that Blockhead is a?logical?possibility, it follows that Blockhead is not a?nomic?or?physical?possibility. And then it seems natural to hold that The Turing Test does indeed provide?nomicallysufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence: given everything else that we already know—or, at any rate, take ourselves to know—about the universe in which we live, we would be fully justified in concluding that anything that succeeds in passing The Turing Test is, indeed, intelligent (possessed of a mind, and so forth).There are ways in which the argument in the previous paragraph might be resisted. At the very least, it is worth noting that there is a serious gap in the argument that we have just rehearsed. Even if we can rule out “hand simulation” of intelligence, it does not follow that we have ruled out all other kinds of mere simulation of intelligence. Perhaps—for all that has been argued so far—there are nomically possible ways of producing mere simulations of intelligence. But, if that's right, then passing The Turing Test need not be so much as criterial for the possession of intelligence: it need not be that given everything else that we already know—or, at any rate, take ourselves to know—about the universe in which we live, we would be fully justified in concluding that anything that succeeds in passing The Turing Test is, indeed, intelligent (possessed of a mind, and so forth).(Perhaps it is worth noting that we cannot see how Tipler arrived at his figure of 3 x 1019?joules in the calculation that he provides. Making what seem to us to be plausible estimates, we get a figure of around 3 x 1014?joules. Even on this revised figure, the argument that Tipler is running still goes through—and it may very well be that the larger figure that he quotes can be justified. It is a shame that the further details for his calculation are not provided in his text.)4.4 Probabilistic SupportWhen we look at the initial formulation that Turing provides of his test, it is clear that he thought that the passing of the test would provide probabilistic support for the hypothesis of intelligence. There are at least two different points to make here. First, the?prediction?that Turing makes is itself probabilistic: Turing predicts that, in about fifty years from the time of his writing, it will be possible to programme digital computers to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will have no more than a seventy per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. Second, the probabilistic nature of Turing's prediction provides good reason to think that the?test?that Turing proposes is itself of a probabilistic nature: a given level of success in the imitation game produces—or, at any rate, should produce—a specifiable level of increase in confidence that the participant in question is intelligent (has thoughts, is possessed of a mind). Since Turing doesn't tell us how he supposes that levels of success in the imitation game correlate with increases in confidence that the participant in question is intelligent, there is a sense in which The Turing Test is greatly underspecified. Relevant variables clearly include: the length of the period of time over which the questioning in the game takes place (or, at any rate, the “amount” of questioning that takes place); the skills and expertise of the interrogator (this bears, for example, on the “depth” and “difficulty” of the questioning that takes place); the skills and expertise of the third player in the game; and the number of independent sessions of the game that are run (particularly when the other participants in the game differ from one run to the next). Clearly, a machine that is very successful in many different runs of the game that last for quite extended periods of time and that involve highly skilled participants in the other roles has a much stronger claim to intelligence than a machine that has been successful in a single, short run of the game with highly inexpert participants. That a machine has succeeded in one short run of the game against inexpert opponents might provide some reason for increase in confidence that the machine in question is intelligent: but it is clear that results on subsequent runs of the game could quickly overturn this initial increase in confidence. That a machine has done much better than chance over many long runs of the imitation game against a variety of skilled participants surely provides much stronger evidence that the machine is intelligent. (Given enough evidence of this kind, it seems that one could be quite confident indeed that the machine is intelligent, while still—of course—recognizing that one's judgment could be overturned by further evidence, such as a series of short runs in which it does much worse than chance against participants who use the same strategy over and over to expose the machine as a machine.)The probabilistic nature of The Turing Test is often overlooked. True enough, Moor (1976, 2001)—along with various other commentators—has noted that The Turing Test is “inductive,” i.e. that “The Turing Test” provides no more than defeasible evidence of intelligence. However, it is one thing to say that success in “a rigorous Turing test” provides no more than defeasible evidence of intelligence; it is quite another to note the probabilistic features to which we have drawn attention in the preceding paragraph. Consider, for example, Moor's observation (Moor 2001:83) that “… inductive evidence gathered in a Turing test can be outweighed by new evidence. … If new evidence shows that a machine passed the Turing Test by remote control run by a human behind the scenes, then reassessment is called for.” This—and other similar passages—seems to us to suggest that Moor supposes that a “rigorous Turing test” is a one-off event in which the machine either succeeds or fails. But this interpretation of The Turing Test is vulnerable to the kind of objection lodged by Bringsjord (1994): even on a moderately long single run with relatively expert participants, it may not be all that unlikely that an unintelligent machine serendipitously succeeds in the imitation game. In our view, given enough sufficiently long runs with different sufficiently expert participants, the likelihood of serendipitous success can be made as small as one wishes. Thus, while Bringsjord's “argument from serendipity” has force against some versions of The Turing Test, it has no force against the most plausible interpretation of the test that Turing actually proposed.It is worth noting that it is quite easy to construct more sophisticated versions of “The Imitation Game” that yield more fine-grained statistical data. For example, rather than getting the judges to issue Yes/No verdicts about both of the participants in the game, one could get the judges to provide probabilistic answers. (“I give a 75% probability to the claim that A is the machine, and only 25% probability to the claim that B is the machine.”) This point is important when one comes to consider criticisms of the “methodology” implicit in “The Turing Test”. (For further discussion of the probabilistic nature of “The Turing Test”, see Shieber (2007).)5. Alternative TestsSome of the literature about The Turing Test is concerned with questions about the framing of a test that can provide a suitable guide to future research in the area of Artificial Intelligence. The idea here is very simple. Suppose that we have the ambition to produce an artificially intelligent entity. What tests should we take as setting the goals that putatively intelligent artificial systems should achieve? Should we suppose that The Turing Test provides an appropriate goal for research in this field? In assessing these proposals, there are two different questions that need to be borne in mind. First, there is the question whether it is a useful goal for AI research to aim to make a machine that can pass the given test (administered over the specified length of time, at the specified degree of success). Second, there is the question of the appropriate conclusion to draw about the mental capacities of a machine that does manage to pass the test (administered over the specified length of time, at the specified degree of success).Opinion on these questions is deeply divided. Some people suppose that The Turing Test does not provide a useful goal for research in AI because it is far too difficult to produce a system that can pass the test. Other people suppose that The Turing Test does not provide a useful goal for research in AI because it sets a very narrow target (and thus sets unnecessary restrictions on the kind of research that gets done). Some people think that The Turing Test provides an entirely appropriate goal for research in AI; while other people think that there is a sense in which The Turing Test is not really demanding enough, and who suppose that The Turing Test needs to be extended in various ways in order to provide an appropriate goal for AI. We shall consider some representatives of each of these positions in turn.5.1 The Turing Test is Too HardSome people have claimed that The Turing Test doesn't set an appropriate goal for current research in AI because we are plainly so far away from attaining this goal. Amongst these people there are some who have gone on to offer reasons for thinking that it is doubtful that we shall ever be able to create a machine that can pass The Turing Test—or, at any rate, that it is doubtful that we shall be able to do this at any time in the foreseeable future. Perhaps the most interesting arguments of this kind are due to French (1990); at any rate, these are the arguments that we shall go on to consider. (Cullen (2009) sets out similar considerations.)According to French, The Turing Test is “virtually useless” as a real test of intelligence, because nothing without a “human subcognitive substrate” could pass the test, and yet the development of an artificial “human cognitive substrate” is almost impossibly difficult. At the very least, there are straightforward sets of questions that reveal “low-level cognitive structure” and that—in French's view—are almost certain to be successful in separating human beings from machines.First, if interrogators are allowed to draw on the results of research into, say,?associative priming, then there is data that will very plausibly separate human beings from machines. For example, there is research that shows that, if humans are presented with series of strings of letters, they require less time to recognize that a string is a word (in a language that they speak) if it is preceded by a related word (in the language that they speak), rather than by an unrelated word (in the language that they speak) or a string of letters that is not a word (in the language that they speak). Provided that the interrogator has accurate data about average recognition times for subjects who speak the language in question, the interrogator can distinguish between the machine and the human simply by looking at recognition times for appropriate series of strings of letters. Or so says French. It isn't clear to us that this is right. After all, the design of The Turing Test makes it hard to see how the interrogator will get reliable information about response times to series of strings of symbols. The point of putting the computer in a separate room and requiring communication by teletype was precisely to rule out certain irrelevant ways of identifying the computer. If these requirements don't already rule out identification of the computer by the application of tests of associative priming, then the requirements can surely be altered to bring it about that this is the case. (Perhaps it is also worth noting that administration of the kind of test that French imagines is not ordinary conversation; nor is it something that one would expect that any but a few expert interrogators would happen upon. So, even if the circumstances of The Turing Test do not rule out the kind of procedure that French here envisages, it is not clear that The Turing Test will be impossibly hard for machines to pass.)Second, at a slightly higher cognitive level, there are certain kinds of “ratings games” that French supposes will be very reliable discriminators between humans and machines. For instance, the “Neologism Ratings Game”—which asks participants to rank made-up words on their appropriateness as names for given kinds of entities—and the “Category Rating Game”—which asks participants to rate things of one category as things of another category—are both, according to French, likely to prove highly reliable in discriminating between humans and machines. For, in the first case, the ratings that humans make depend upon large numbers of culturally acquired associations (which it would be well-nigh impossible to identify and describe, and hence which it would (arguably) be well-nigh impossible to program into a computer). And, in the second case, the ratings that people actually make are highly dependent upon particular social and cultural settings (and upon the particular ways in which human life is experienced). To take French's examples, there would be widespread agreement amongst competent English speakers in the technologically developed Western world that “Flugblogs” is not an appropriate name for a breakfast cereal, while “Flugly” is an appropriate name for a child's teddy bear. And there would also be widespread agreement amongst competent speakers of English in the developed world that pens rate higher as weapons than grand pianos rate as wheelbarrows. Again, there are questions that can be raised about French's argument here. It is not clear to us that the data upon which the ratings games rely is as reliable as French would have us suppose. (At least one of us thinks that “Flugly” would be an entirely inappropriate name for a child's teddy bear, a response that is due to the similarity between the made-up word “Flugly” and the word “Fugly,” that had some currency in the primarily undergraduate University college that we both attended. At least one of us also thinks that young children would very likely be delighted to eat a cereal called “Flugblogs,” and that a good answer to the question about ratings pens and grand pianos is that it all depends upon the pens and grand pianos in question. What if the grand piano has wheels? What if the opponent has a sword or a sub-machine gun? It isn't obvious that a refusal to play this kind of ratings game would necessarily be a give-away that one is a machine.) Moreover, even if the data is reliable, it is not obvious that any but a select group of interrogators will hit upon this kind of strategy for trying to unmask the machine; nor is it obvious that it is impossibly hard to build a machine that is able to perform in the way in which typical humans do on these kinds of tests. In particular, if—as Turing assumes—it is possible to make learning machines that can be “trained up” to learn how to do various kinds of tasks, then it is quite unclear why these machines couldn't acquire just the same kinds of “subcognitive competencies” that human children acquire when they are “trained up” in the use of language.There are other reasons that have been given for thinking that The Turing Test is too hard (and, for this reason, inappropriate in setting goals for current research into artificial intelligence). In general, the idea is that there may well be features of human cognition that are particularly hard to simulate, but that are not in any sense essential for intelligence (or thought, or possession of a mind). The problem here is not merely that The Turing Test really does test for?human?intelligence; rather, the problem here is the fact—if indeed it is a fact—that there are quite inessential features of human intelligence that are extraordinarily difficult to replicate in a machine. If this complaint is justified—if, indeed, there are features of human intelligence that are extraordinarily difficult to replicate in machines,?and?that could and would be reliably used to unmask machines in runs of The Turing Test—then there is reason to worry about the idea that The Turing Test sets an appropriate direction for research in artificial intelligence. However, as our discussion of French shows, there may be reason for caution in supposing that the kinds of considerations discussed in the present section show that we are already in a position to say that The Turing Test does indeed set inappropriate goals for research in artificial intelligence.5.2 The Turing Test is Too NarrowThere are authors who have suggested that The Turing Test does not set a sufficiently broad goal for research in the area of artificial intelligence. Amongst these authors, there are many who suppose that The Turing Test is too easy. (We go on to consider some of these authors in the next sub-section.) But there are also some authors who have supposed that, even if the goal that is set by The Turing Test is very demanding indeed, it is nonetheless too restrictive.Objection to the notion that the Turing Test provides a logically sufficient condition for intelligence can be adapted to the goal of showing that the Turing Test is too restrictive. Consider, for example, Gunderson (1964). Gunderson has two major complaints to make against The Turing Test. First, he thinks that success in Turing's Imitation Game might come for reasons other than the possession of intelligence. But, second, he thinks that success in the Imitation Game would be but one example of the kinds of things that intelligent beings can do and—hence—in itself could not be taken as a reliable indicator of intelligence. By way of analogy, Gunderson offers the case of a vacuum cleaner salesman who claims that his product is “all-purpose” when, in fact, all it does is to suck up dust. According to Gunderson, Turing is in the same position as the vacuum cleaner salesman?if?he is prepared to say that a machine is intelligent merely on the basis of its success in the Imitation Game. Just as “all purpose” entails the ability to do a range of things, so, too, “thinking” entails the possession of a range of abilities (beyond the mere ability to succeed in the Imitation Game).There is an obvious reply to the argument that we have here attributed to Gunderson, viz. that a machine that is capable of success in the Imitation Game is capable of doing a large range of different kinds of things. In order to carry out a conversation, one needs to have many different kinds of cognitive skills, each of which is capable of application in other areas. Apart from the obvious general cognitive competencies—memory, perception, etc.—there are many particular competencies—rudimentary arithmetic abilities, understanding of the rules of games, rudimentary understanding of national politics, etc.—which are tested in the course of repeated runs of the Imitation Game. It is inconceivable that that there be a machine that is startlingly good at playing the Imitation Game, and yet unable to do well at?any?other tasks that might be assigned to it; and it is equally inconceivable that there is a machine that is startlingly good at the Imitation Game and yet that does not have a wide range of competencies that can be displayed in a range of quite disparate areas. To the extent that Gunderson considers this line of reply, all that he says is that there is no reason to think that a machine that can succeed in the Imitation Game?must?have more than a narrow range of abilities; we think that there is no reason to believe that this reply should be taken seriously.More recently, Erion (2001) has defended a position that has some affinity to that of Gunderson. According to Erion, machines might be “capable of outperforming human beings in limited tasks in specific environments, [and yet] still be unable to act skillfully in the diverse range of situations that a person with common sense can” (36). On one way of understanding the claim that Erion makes, he too believes that The Turing Test only identifies one amongst a range of independent competencies that are possessed by intelligent human beings, and it is for this reason that he proposes a more comprehensive “Cartesian Test” that “involves a more careful examination of a creature's language, [and] also tests the creature's ability to solve problems in a wide variety of everyday circumstances” (37). In our view, at least when The Turing Test is properly understood, it is clear that anything that passes The Turing Test must have the ability to solve problems in a wide variety of everyday circumstances (because the interrogators will use their questions to probe these—and other—kinds of abilities in those who play the Imitation Game).5.3 The Turing Test is Too EasyThere are authors who have suggested that The Turing Test should be replaced with a more demanding test of one kind or another. It is not at all clear that any of these tests actually proposes a better goal for research in AI than is set by The Turing Test. However, in this section, we shall not attempt to defend that claim; rather, we shall simply describe some of the further tests that have been proposed, and make occasional comments upon them. (One preliminary point upon which we wish to insist is that Turing's Imitation Game was devised against the background of the limitations imposed by then current technology. It is, of course, not essential to the game that tele-text devices be used to prevent direct access to information about the sex or genus of participants in the game. We shall not advert to these relatively mundane kinds of considerations in what follows.)5.3.1 The Total Turing TestHarnad (1989, 1991) claims that a better test than The Turing Test will be one that requires responses to all of our inputs, and not merely to text-formatted linguistic inputs. That is, according to Harnad, the appropriate goal for research in AI has to be to construct a robot with something like human sensorimotor capabilities. Harnad also considers the suggestion that it might be an appropriate goal for AI to aim for “neuromolecular indistinguishability,” but rejects this suggestion on the grounds that once we know how to make a robot that can pass his Total Turing Test, there will be no problems about mind-modeling that remain unsolved. It is an interesting question whether the test that Harnad proposes sets a more appropriate goal for AI research. In particular, it seems worth noting that it is not clear that there could be a system that was able to pass The Turing Test and yet that was not able to pass The Total Turing Test. Since Harnad himself seems to think that it is quite likely that “full robotic capacities [are] … necessary to generate … successful linguistic performance,” it is unclear why there is reason to replace The Turing Test with his extended test. (This point against Harnad can be found in Hauser (1993:227), and elsewhere.)5.3.2 The Lovelace TestBringsjord et al. (2001) propose that a more satisfactory aim for AI is provided by a certain kind of meta-test that they call the Lovelace Test. They say that an artificial agent?A, designed by human H, passes the Lovelace Test just in case three conditions are jointly satisfied: (1) the artificial agent?A?produces output?O; (2)?A's outputting?O?is not the result of a fluke hardware error, but rather the result of processes that?A?can repeat; and (3)?H—or someone who knows what?H?knows and who has?H's resources—cannot explain how?Aproduced?O?by appeal to?A's architecture, knowledge-base and core functions. Against this proposal, it seems worth noting that there are questions to be raised about the interpretation of the third condition. If a computer program is long and complex, then no human agent can explain in?complete?detail how the output was produced. (Why did the computer output 3.16 rather than 3.17?) But if we are allowed to give a highly schematic explanation—the computer took the input, did some internal processing and then produced an answer—then it seems that it will turn out to be very hard to support the claim that human agents ever do anything genuinely creative. (After all, we too take external input, perform internal processing, and produce outputs.) What is missing from the account that we are considering is any suggestion about the appropriate?level?of explanation that is to be provided. It is quite unclear why we should suppose that there is a relevant difference between people and machines at any level of explanation; but, if that's right, then the test in question is trivial. (One might also worry that the proposed test rules out?by fiat?the possibility that creativity can be best achieved by using genuine?randomising?devices.)5.3.3 The Truly Total Turing TestSchweizer (1998) claims that a better test than The Turing Test will advert to the evolutionary history of the subjects of the test. When we attribute intelligence to human beings, we rely on an extensive historical record of the intellectual achievements of human beings. On the basis of this historical record, we are able to claim that human beings are intelligent; and we can rely upon this claim when we attribute intelligence to individual human beings on the basis of their behavior. According to Schweizer, if we are to attribute intelligence to machines, we need to be able to advert to a comparable historical record of cognitive achievements. So, it will only be when machines have developed languages, written scientific treatises, composed symphonies, invented games, and the like, that we shall be in a position to attribute intelligence to individual machines on the basis of their behavior. Of course, we can still use The Turing Test to determine whether an individual machine is intelligent: but our answer to the question won't depend merely upon whether or not the machine is successful in The Turing Test; there is the further “evolutionary” condition that also must be satisfied. Against Schweizer, it seems worth noting that it is not at all clear that our reason for granting intelligence to other humans on the basis of their behavior is that we have prior knowledge of the collective cognitive achievements of human beings.5.4 Should the Turing Test be Considered Harmful?Perhaps the best known attack on the suggestion that The Turing Test provides an appropriate research goal for AI is due to Hayes and Ford (1995). Among the controversial claims that Hayes and Ford make, there are at least the following:Turing suggesed the imitation game as a definite goal for program of research.Turing intended The Turing Test to be a gender test rather than a species test.The task of trying to make a machine that is successful in The Turing Test is so extremely difficult that no one could seriously adopt the creation of such a machine as a research goal.The Turing Test suffers from the basic design flaw that it sets out to confirm a “null hypothesis”, viz. that there is no difference in behavior between certain machines and humans.No null effect experiment can provide an adequate criterion for intelligence, since the question can always arise that the judges did not look hard enough (and did not raise the right kinds of questions). But, if this question is left open, then there is no stable endpoint of enquiry.Null effect experiments cannot measure anything: The Turing Test can only test for complete success. (“A man who failed to seem feminine in 10% of what he said would almost always fail the Imitation game.”)The Turing Test is really a test of the ability of the human species to discriminate its members from human imposters. (“The gender test … is a test of making a mechanical transvestite.”)The Turing Test is circular: what it fails to detect cannot be “intelligence” or“humanity”, since many humans would fail The Turing Test. Indeed, “since one of the players must be judged to be a machine, half the human population would fail the species test”.The perspective of The Turing Test is arrogant and parochial: it mistakenly assumes that we can understand human cognition without first obtaining a firm grasp of the basic principles of cognition.The Turing Test does not admit of weaker, different, or even stronger forms of intelligence than those deemed human.Some of these claims seem straightforwardly incorrect. Consider (h), for example. In what sense can it be claimed that 50% of the human population would fail “the species test”? If “the species test” requires the interrogator to decide which of two people is a machine, why should it be thought that the verdict of the interrogator has any consequences for the assessment of the intelligence of the person who is judged to be a machine? (Remember, too, that one of the conditions for “the species test”—as it is originally described by Hayes and Ford—is that one of the contestants?is?a machine. While the machine can “demonstrate” its intelligence by winning the imitation game, a person cannot “demonstrate” their lack of intelligence by failing to win.)It seems wrong to say that The Turing Test is defective because it is a “null effect experiment”. True enough, there is a sense in which The Turing Test does look for a “null result”: if ordinary judges in the specified circumstances fail to identify the machine (at a given level of success), then there is a given likelihood that the machine is intelligent. But the point of insisting on “ordinary judges” in the specified circumstances is precisely to rule out irrelevant ways of identifying the machine (i.e. ways of identifying the machine that are not relevant to the question whether it is intelligent). There might be all kinds of irrelevant differences between a given kind of machine and a human being—not all of them rendered undetectable by the experimental set-up that Turing describes—but The Turing Test will remain a good test provided that it is able to ignore these irrelevant differences.It also seems doubtful that it is a serious failing of The Turing Test that it can only test for “complete success”. On the one hand, if a man has a one in ten chance of producing a claim that is plainly not feminine, then we can compute the chance that he will be discovered in a game in which he answers N questions—and, if N is sufficiently small, then it won't turn out that “he would almost always fail to win”. On the other hand, as we noted at the end of Section 4.4 above, if one were worried about the “YES/NO” nature of “The Turing Test”, then one could always get the judges to produce probabilistic verdicts instead. This change preserves the character of The Turing Test, but gives it scope for greater statistical sophistication.While there are (many) other criticisms that can be made of the claims defended by Hayes and Ford (1995), it should be acknowledged that they are right to worry about the suggestion that The Turing Test provides the defining goal for research in AI. There are various reasons why one should be loathe to accept the proposition that the one central ambition of AI research is to produce artificial people. However it is worth pointing out that there is no reason to think that Turing supposed that The Turing Test defined the field of AI research (and there is not much evidence that any other serious thinkers have thought so either). Turing himself was well aware that there might be non-human forms of intelligence—cf. (j) above. However, all of this remains consistent with the suggestion that it is quite appropriate to suppose that The Turing Test sets?one?long term goal for AI research: one thing that we might well aim to do?eventually?is to produce artificial people. If—as Hayes and Ford claim—that task is almost impossibly difficult, then there is no harm in supposing that the goal is merely an?ambit?goal to which few resources should be committed; but we might still have good reason to allow that it is?a?goal.6. The Chinese RoomThere are many different objections to The Turing Test which have surfaced in the literature during the past fifty years, but which we have not yet discussed. We cannot hope to canvass all of these objections here. However, there is one argument—Searle's “Chinese Room” argument—that is mentioned so often in connection with the Turing Test that we feel obliged to end with some discussion of it.In?Minds, Brains and Programs?and elsewhere, John Searle argues against the claim that “appropriately programmed computers literally have cognitive states” (64). Clearly enough, Searle is here disagreeing with Turing's claim that an appropriately programmed computer could think. There is much that is controversial about Searle's argument; we shall just considerone?way of understanding what it is that he is arguing for.The basic structure of Searle's argument is very well known. We can imagine a “hand simulation” of an intelligent agent—in the case described, a speaker of a Chinese language—in circumstances in which we might well be very reluctant to allow that there is any appropriate intelligence lying behind the simulated behavior. (Thus, what we are invited to suppose is a logical possibility is not so very different from what Block invites us to suppose is a logical possibility. However, the argument that Searle goes on to develop is rather different from the argument that Block defends.)?Moreover—and this is really the key point for Searle's argument—the “hand simulation” in question is, in all relevant respects, simply a special kind of digital computation. So, there is a possible world—doubtless one quite remote from the actual world—in which a digital computer simulates intelligence but in which the digital computer does not itself possess intelligence. But, if we consider any digital computer in the actual world, it will not differ from the computer in that remote possible world in any way which could make it the case that the computer in the actual world is more intelligent than the computer in that remote possible world. Given that we agree that the “hand simulating” computer in the Chinese Room is not intelligent, we have no option but to conclude that digital computers are simply not the kinds of things that?can?be intelligent.So far, the argument that we have described arrives at the conclusion that no appropriately programmed computer can think. While this conclusion is not one that Turing accepted, it is important to note that it is compatible with the claim that The Turing Test is a good test for intelligence. This is because, for all that has been argued, it may be that it is not?nomicallypossible to provide any “hand simulation” of intelligence (and, in particular, that it is not possible to simulate intelligence using any kind of computer). In order to turn Searle's argument—at least in the way in which we have developed it—into an objection to The Turing Test, we need to have some reason for thinking that it is at least?nomically?possible to simulate intelligence using computers. (If it is nomically impossible to simulate intelligence using computers, then the alleged fact that digital computers cannot genuinely possess intelligence casts no doubt at all on the usefulness of the Turing Test, since digital computers are nomically disqualified from the range of cases in which there is mere simulation of intelligence.) In the absence of reason to believe this, the most that Searle's argument yields is an objection to Turing's confidently held belief that digital computing machines will one day pass The Turing Test. (Here, as elsewhere, we are supposing that, for any kind of creature C, there is a version of The Turing Test in which C takes the role of the machine in the specific test that Turing describes. This general format for testing for the presence of intelligence would not necessarily be undermined by the success of Searle's Chinese Room argument.)There are various responses that might be made to the argument that we have attributed to Searle. One kind of response is to dispute the claim that there is no intelligence present in the case of the Chinese Room. (Suppose that the “hand simulation” is embedded in a robot that is equipped with appropriate sensors, etc. Suppose, further, that the “hand simulation” involves updating the process of “hand simulation,” etc. If enough details of this kind are added, then it becomes quite unclear whether we do want to say that we still haven't described an intelligent system.) Another kind of response is to dispute the claim that digital computers in the actual world could not be relevantly different from the system that operates in the Chinese Room in that remote possible world. (If we suppose that the core of the Chinese Room is a kind of giant look-up table, then it may well be important to note that digital computers in the actual world do not work with look-up tables in that kind of way.) Doubtless there are other possible lines of response as well. However, it would take us out of our way to try to take this discussion further. (One good place to look for further discussion of these matters is Braddon-Mitchell and Jackson (1996).)7. A Brief Note on Measurement of IntelligenceThere are radically different views about the measurement of intelligence that have not been canvassed in this article. Our concern has been to discuss Turing (1950) and its legacy. But, of course, a more wide-ranging discussion would also consider, for example, research on the measurement of intelligence using the mathematical and computational resources of Algorithmic Information Theory, Kolmogorov Complexity Theory, Minimum Message Length (MML) Theory, and so forth. (For an introduction to this literature, see Hernandez-Orallo and Dowe (2010), and the list of references contained therein.) Age of Spiritual MachinesWhen Computers Exceed Human IntelligenceBy RAY KURZWEILViking?Read the ReviewThe Law Of Time And ChaosA (Very Brief) History of the Universe:Time Slowing DownThe universe is made of stories, not of atoms.-- Muriel RukeyserIs the universe a great mechanism, a great computation, a great symmetry, a great accident or a great thought?-- John D. BarrowAs we start at the beginning, we will notice an unusual attribute of the nature of time, one that is critical to our passage to the twenty-first century. Our story begins perhaps 15 billion years ago. No conscious life existed to appreciate the birth of our Universe at the time, but we appreciate it now, so retroactively it did happen. (In retrospect -- from one perspective of quantum mechanics -- we could say that any Universe that fails to evolve conscious life to apprehend its existence never existed in the first place.)It was not until 10-43 seconds (a tenth of a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the birth of the Universe that the situation had cooled off sufficiently (to 100 million trillion trillion degrees) that a distinct force -- gravity -- evolved.Not much happened for another 10-34 seconds (this is also a very tiny fraction of a second, but it is a billion times longer than 10-43 seconds), at which point an even cooler Universe (now only a billion billion billion degrees) allowed the emergence of matter in the form of electrons and quarks. To keep things balanced, antimatter appeared as well. It was an eventful time, as new forces evolved at a rapid rate. We were now up to three: gravity, the strong force, and the electroweak force. After another 10-10 seconds (a tenth of a billionth of a second), the electroweak force split into the electromagnetic and weak forces we know so well today.Things got complicated after another 10-5 seconds (ten millionths of a second). With the temperature now down to a relatively balmy trillion degrees, the quarks came together to form protons and neutrons. The antiquarks did the same, forming antiprotons.Somehow, the matter particles achieved a slight edge. How this happened is not entirely clear. Up until then, everything had seemed so, well, even. But had everything stayed evenly balanced, it would have been a rather boring Universe. For one thing, life never would have evolved, and thus we could conclude that the Universe would never have existed in the first place.For every 10 billion antiprotons, the Universe contained 10 billion and 1 protons. The protons and antiprotons collided, causing the emergence of another important phenomenon: light (photons). Thus, almost all of the antimatter was destroyed, leaving matter as dominant. (This shows you the danger of allowing a competitor to achieve even a slight advantage.)Of course, had antimatter won, its descendants would have called it matter and would have called matter antimatter, so we would be back where we started (perhaps that is what happened).After another second (a second is a very long time compared to some of the earlier chapters in the Universe's history, so notice how the time frames are growing exponentially larger), the electrons and antielectrons (called positrons) followed the lead of the protons and antiprotons and similarly annihilated each other, leaving mostly the electrons.After another minute, the neutrons and protons began coalescing into heavier nuclei, such as helium, lithium, and heavy forms of hydrogen. The temperature was now only a billion degrees.About 300,000 years later (things are slowing down now rather quickly), with the average temperature now only 3,000 degrees, the first atoms were created as the nuclei took control of nearby electrons.After a billion years, these atoms formed large clouds that gradually swirled into galaxies.After another two billion years, the matter within the galaxies coalesced further into distinct stars, many with their own solar systems.Three billion years later, circling an unexceptional star on the arm of a common galaxy, an unremarkable planet we call the Earth was born.Now before we go any further, let's notice a striking feature of the passage of time. Events moved quickly at the beginning of the Universe's history. We had three paradigm shifts in just the first billionth of a second. Later on, events of cosmological significance took billions of years. The nature of time is that it inherently moves in an exponential fashion -- either geometrically gaining in speed, or, as in the history of our Universe, geometrically slowing down. Time only seems to be linear during those eons in which not much happens. Thus most of the time, the linear passage of time is a reasonable approximation of its passage. But that's not the inherent nature of time.Why is this significant? It's not when you're stuck in the eons in which not much happens. But it is of great significance when you find yourself in the "knee of the curve," those periods in which the exponential nature of the curve of time explodes either inwardly or outwardly. It's like falling into a black hole (in that case, time accelerates exponentially faster as one falls in).The Speed of TimeBut wait a second, how can we say that time is changing its "speed"? We can talk about the rate of a process, in terms of its progress per second, but can we say that time is changing its rate? Can time start moving at, say, two seconds per second?Einstein said exactly this -- time is relative to the entities experiencing it. One man's second can be another woman's forty years. Einstein gives the example of a man who travels at very close to the speed of light to a star -- say, twenty light-years away. From our Earth-bound perspective, the trip takes slightly more than twenty years in each direction. When the man gets back, his wife has aged forty years. For him, however, the trip was rather brief. If he travels at close enough to the speed of light, it may have only taken a second or less (from a practical perspective we would have to consider some limitations, such as the time to accelerate and decelerate without crushing his body). Whose time frame is the correct one? Einstein says they are both correct, and exist only relative to each other.Certain species of birds have a life span of only several years. If you observe their rapid movements, it appears that they are experiencing the passage of time on a different scale. We experience this in our own lives. A young child's rate of change and experience of time is different from that of an adult. Of particular note, we will see that the acceleration in the passage of time for evolution is moving in a different direction than that for the Universe from which it emerges.It is in the nature of exponential growth that events develop extremely slowly for extremely long periods of time, but as one glides through the knee of the curve, events erupt at an increasingly furious pace. And that is what we will experience as we enter the twenty-first century.EVOLUTION: TIME SPEEDING UPIn the beginning was the word. . . . And the word became flesh.-- John 1:1,14A great deal of the universe does not need any explanation. Elephants, for instance. Once molecules have learnt to compete and create other molecules in their own image, elephants, and things resembling elephants, will in due course be found roaming through the countryside.-- Peter AtkinsThe further backward you look, the further forward you can see.-- Winston ChurchillWe'll come back to the knee of the curve, but let's delve further into the exponential nature of time. In the nineteenth century, a set of unifying principles called the laws of thermodynamics was postulated. As the name implies, they deal with the dynamic nature of heat and were the first major refinement of the laws of classical mechanics perfected by Isaac Newton a century earlier. Whereas Newton had described a world of clockwork perfection in which particles and objects of all sizes followed highly disciplined, predictable patterns, the laws of thermodynamics describe a world of chaos. Indeed, that is what heat is.Heat is the chaotic -- unpredictable -- movement of the particles that make up the world. A corollary of the second law of thermodynamics is that in a closed system (interacting entities and forces not subject to outside influence; for example, the Universe), disorder (called "entropy") increases. Thus, left to its own devices, a system such as the world we live in becomes increasingly chaotic. Many people find this describes their lives rather well. But in the nineteenth century, the laws of thermodynamics were considered a disturbing discovery. At the beginning of that century, it appeared that the basic principles governing the world were both understood and orderly. There were a few details left to be filled in, but the basic picture was under control. Thermodynamics was the first contradiction to this complacent picture. It would not be the last.The second law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the Law of Increasing Entropy, would seem to imply that the natural emergence of intelligence is impossible. Intelligent behavior is the opposite of random behavior, and any system capable of intelligent responses to its environment needs to be highly ordered. The chemistry of life, particularly of intelligent life, is comprised of exceptionally intricate designs. Out of the increasingly chaotic swirl of particles and energy in the world, extraordinary designs somehow emerged. How do we reconcile the emergence of intelligent life with the Law of Increasing Entropy?There are two answers here. First, while the Law of Increasing Entropy would appear to contradict the thrust of evolution, which is toward increasingly elaborate order, the two phenomena are not inherently contradictory. The order of life takes place amid great chaos, and the existence of life-forms does not appreciably affect the measure of entropy in the larger system in which life has evolved. An organism is not a closed system. It is part of a larger system we call the environment, which remains high in entropy. In other words, the order represented by the existence of life-forms is insignificant in terms of measuring overall entropy.Thus, while chaos increases in the Universe, it is possible for evolutionary processes that create increasingly intricate, ordered patterns to exist simultaneously. Evolution is a process, but it is not a closed system. It is subject to outside influence, and indeed draws upon the chaos in which it is embedded. So the Law of Increasing Entropy does not rule out the emergence of life and intelligence.For the second answer, we need to take a closer look at evolution, as it was the original creator of intelligence.The Exponentially Quickening Pace of EvolutionAs you will recall, after billions of years, the unremarkable planet called Earth was formed. Churned by the energy of the sun, the elements formed more and more complex molecules. From physics, chemistry was born.Two billion years later, life began. That is to say, patterns of matter and energy that could perpetuate themselves and survive perpetuated themselves and survived. That this apparent tautology went unnoticed until a couple of centuries ago is itself remarkable.Over time, the patterns became more complicated than mere chains of molecules. Structures of molecules performing distinct functions organized themselves into little societies of molecules. From chemistry, biology was born.Thus, about 3.4 billion years ago, the first earthly organisms emerged: anaerobic (not requiring oxygen) prokaryotes (single-celled creatures) with a rudimentary method for perpetuating their own designs. Early innovations that followed included a simple genetic system, the ability to swim, and photosynthesis, which set the stage for more advanced, oxygen-consuming organisms. The most important development for the next couple of billion years was the DNA-based genetics that would henceforth guide and record evolutionary development.A key requirement for an evolutionary process is a "written" record of achievement, for otherwise the process would be doomed to repeat finding solutions to problems already solved. For the earliest organisms, the record was written (embodied) in their bodies, coded directly into the chemistry of their primitive cellular structures. With the invention of DNA-based genetics, evolution had designed a digital computer to record its handiwork. This design permitted more complex experiments. The aggregations of molecules called cells organized themselves into societies of cells with the appearance of the first multicellular plants and animals about 700 million years ago. For the next 130 million years, the basic body plans of modern animals were designed, including a spinal cord-based skeleton that provided early fish with an efficient swimming style.So while evolution took billions of years to design the first primitive cells, salient events then began occurring in hundreds of millions of years, a distinct quickening of the pace. When some calamity finished off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, mammals inherited the Earth (although the insects might disagree). With the emergence of the primates, progress was then measured in mere tens of millions of years. Humanoids emerged 15 million years ago, distinguished by walking on their hind legs, and now we're down to millions of years.With larger brains, particularly in the area of the highly convoluted cortex responsible for rational thought, our own species, Homo sapiens, emerged perhaps 500,000 years ago. Homo sapiens are not very different from other advanced primates in terms of their genetic heritage. Their DNA is 98.6 percent the same as the lowland gorilla, and 97.8 percent the same as the orangutan. The story of evolution since that time now focuses in on a human-sponsored variant of evolution: technology.TECHNOLOGY: EVOLUTION BY OTHER MEANSWhen a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.-- Arthur C. Clarke's three laws of technologyA machine is as distinctively and brilliantly and expressively human as a violin sonata or a theorem in Euclid.-- Gregory VlastosTechnology picks right up with the exponentially quickening pace of evolution. Although not the only tool-using animal, Homo sapiens are distinguished by their creation of technology. Technology goes beyond the mere fashioning and use of tools. It involves a record of tool making and a progression in the sophistication of tools. It requires invention and is itself a continuation of evolution by other means. The "genetic code" of the evolutionary process of technology is the record maintained by the tool-making species. Just as the genetic code of the early life-forms was simply the chemical composition of the organisms themselves, the written record of early tools consisted of the tools themselves. Later on, the "genes" of technological evolution evolved into records using written language and are now often stored in computer databases. Ultimately, the technology itself will create new technology. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.Our story is now marked in tens of thousands of years. There were multiple subspecies of Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis emerged about 100,000 years ago in Europe and the Middle East and then disappeared mysteriously about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Despite their brutish image, Neanderthals cultivated an involved culture that included elaborate funeral rituals -- burying their dead with ornaments, including flowers. We're not entirely sure what happened to our Homo sapiens cousins, but they apparently got into conflict with our own immediate ancestors Homo sapiens sapiens, who emerged about 90,000 years ago. Several species and subspecies of humanoids initiated the creation of technology. The most clever and aggressive of these subspecies was the only one to survive. This established a pattern that would repeat itself throughout human history, in that the technologically more advanced group ends up becoming dominant. This trend may not bode well as intelligent machines themselves surpass us in intelligence and technological sophistication in the twenty-first century.Our Homo sapiens sapiens subspecies was thus left alone among humanoids about 40,000 years ago.Our forebears had already inherited from earlier hominid species and subspecies such innovations as the recording of events on cave walls, pictorial art, music, dance, religion, advanced language, fire, and weapons. For tens of thousands of years, humans had created tools by sharpening one side of a stone. It took our species tens of thousands of years to figure out that by sharpening both sides, the resultant sharp edge provided a far more useful tool. One significant point, however, is that these innovations did occur, and they endured. No other tool-using animal on Earth has demonstrated the ability to create and retain innovations in their use of tools.The other significant point is that technology, like the evolution of life-forms that spawned it, is inherently an accelerating process. The foundations of technology -- such as creating a sharp edge from a stone -- took eons to perfect, although for human-created technology, eons means thousands of years rather than the billions of years that the evolution of life-forms required to get started.Like the evolution of life-forms, the pace of technology has greatly accelerated over time. The progress of technology in the nineteenth century, for example, greatly exceeded that of earlier centuries, with the building of canals and great ships, the advent of paved roads, the spread of the railroad, the development of the telegraph, and the invention of photography, the bicycle, sewing machine, typewriter, telephone, phonograph, motion picture, automobile, and of course Thomas Edison's light bulb. The continued exponential growth of technology in the first two decades of the twentieth century matched that of the entire nineteenth century. Today, we have major transformations in just a few years' time. As one of many examples, the latest revolution in communications -- the World Wide Web -- didn't exist just a few years ago.WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY?As technology is the continuation of evolution by other means, it shares the phenomenon of an exponentially quickening pace. The word is derived from the Greek tekhn?e, which means "craft" or "art," and logia, which means "the study of." Thus one interpretation of technology is the study of crafting, in which crafting refers to the shaping of resources for a practical purpose. I use the term resources rather than materials because technology extends to the shaping of nonmaterial resources such as information.Technology is often defined as the creation of tools to gain control over the environment. However, this definition is not entirely sufficient. Humans are not alone in their use or even creation of tools. Orangutans in Sumatra's Suaq Balimbing swamp make tools out of long sticks to break open termite nests. Crows fashion tools from sticks and leaves. The leaf-cutter ant mixes dry leaves with its saliva to create a paste. Crocodiles use tree roots to anchor dead prey.What is uniquely human is the application of knowledge -- recorded knowledge -- to the fashioning of tools. The knowledge base represents the genetic code for the evolving technology. And as technology has evolved, the means for recording this knowledge base has also evolved, from the oral traditions of antiquity to the written design logs of nineteenth-century craftsmen to the computer-assisted design databases of the 1990s.Technology also implies a transcendence of the materials used to comprise it. When the elements of an invention are assembled in just the right way, they produce an enchanting effect that goes beyond the mere parts. When Alexander Graham Bell accidentally wire-connected two moving drums and solenoids (metal cores wrapped in wire) in 1875, the result transcended the materials he was working with. For the first time, a human voice was transported, magically it seemed, to a remote location. Most assemblages are just that: random assemblies. But when materials -- and in the case of modern technology, information -- are assembled in just the right way, transcendence occurs. The assembled object becomes far greater than the sum of its parts.The same phenomenon of transcendence occurs in art, which may properly be regarded as another form of human technology. When wood, varnishes, and strings are assembled in just the right way, the result is wondrous: a violin, a piano. When such a device is manipulated in just the right way, there is magic of another sort: music. Music goes beyond mere sound. It evokes a response -- cognitive, emotional, perhaps spiritual -- in the listener, another form of transcendence. All of the arts share the same goal: of communicating from artist to audience. The communication is not of unadorned data, but of the more important items in the phenomenological garden: feelings, ideas, experiences, longings. The Greek meaning of tekhne logia includes art as a key manifestation of technology.Language is another form of human-created technology. One of the primary applications of technology is communication, and language provides the foundation for Homo sapiens communication. Communication is a critical survival skill. It enabled human families and tribes to develop cooperative strategies to overcome obstacles and adversaries. Other animals communicate. Monkeys and apes use elaborate gestures and grunts to communicate a variety of messages. Bees perform intricate dances in a figure-eight pattern to communicate where caches of nectar may be found. Female tree frogs in Malaysia do tap dances to signal their availability. Crabs wave their claws in one way to warn adversaries but use a different rhythm for courtship. But these methods do not appear to evolve, other than through the usual DNA-based evolution. These species lack a way to record their means of communication, so the methods remain static from one generation to the next. In contrast, human language does evolve, as do all forms of technology. Along with the evolving forms of language itself, technology has provided ever-improving means for recording and distributing human language.Homo sapiens are unique in their use and fostering of all forms of what I regard as technology: art, language, and machines, all representing evolution by other means. In the 1960s through 1990s, several well-publicized primates were said to have mastered at least childlike language skills. Chimpanzees Lana and Kanzi pressed sequences of buttons with symbols on them. Gorillas Washoe and Koko were said to be using American Sign Language. Many linguists are skeptical, noting that many primate "sentences" were jumbles, such as "Nim eat, Nim eat, drink eat me Nim, me gum me gum, tickle me, Nim play, you me banana me banana you." Even if we view thisphenomenon more generously, it would be the exception that proves the rule. These primates did not evolve the languages they are credited with using, they do not appear to develop these skills spontaneously, and their use of these skills is very limited. They are at best participating peripherally in what is still a uniquely human invention -- communicating using the recursive (self-referencing), symbolic, evolving means called language.The Inevitability of TechnologyOnce life takes hold on a planet, we can consider the emergence of technology as inevitable. The ability to expand the reach of one's physical capabilities, not to mention mental facilities, through technology is clearly useful for survival. Technology has enabled our subspecies to dominate its ecological niche. Technology requires two attributes of its creator: intelligence and the physical ability to manipulate the environment. We'll talk more in chapter 4, "A New Form of Intelligence on Earth," about the nature of intelligence, but it clearly represents an ability to use limited resources optimally, including time. This ability is inherently useful for survival, so it is favored. The ability to manipulate the environment is also useful; otherwise an organism is at the mercy of its environment for safety, food, and the satisfaction of its other needs. Sooner or later, an organism is bound to emerge with both attributes.THE INEVITABILITY OF COMPUTATIONIt is not a bad definition of man to describe him as a tool-making animal. His earliest contrivances to support uncivilized life were tools of the simplest and rudest construction. His latest achievements in the substitution of machinery, not merely for the skill of the human hand, but for the relief of the human intellect, are founded on the use of tools of a still higher order.-- Charles BabbageAll of the fundamental processes we have examined -- the development of the Universe, the evolution of life-forms, the subsequent evolution of technology -- have all progressed in an exponential fashion, some slowing down, some speeding up. What is the common thread here? Why did cosmology exponentially slow down while evolution accelerated? The answers are surprising, and fundamental to understanding the twenty-first century.But before I attempt to answer these questions, let's examine one other very relevant example of acceleration: the exponential growth of computation.Early in the evolution of life-forms, specialized organs developed the ability to maintain internal states and respond differentially to external stimuli. The trend ever since has been toward more complex and capable nervous systems with the ability to store extensive memories; recognize patterns in visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli; and engage in increasingly sophisticated levels of rea-soning. The ability to remember and to solve problems -- computation -- has constituted the cutting edge in the evolution of multicellular organisms.The same value of computation holds true in the evolution of human-created technology. Products are more useful if they can maintain internal states and respond differentially to varying conditions and situations. As machines moved beyond mere implements to extend human reach and strength, they also began to accumulate the ability to remember and perform logical manipulations. The simple cams, gears, and levers of the Middle Ages were assembled into the elaborate automata of the European Renaissance. Mechanical calculators, which first emerged in the seventeenth century, became increasingly complex, culminating in the first automated U.S. census in 1890. Computers played a crucial role in at least one theater of the Second World War, and have developed in an accelerating spiral ever since.THE LIFE CYCLE OF A TECHNOLOGYTechnologies fight for survival, evolve, and undergo their own characteristic life cycle. We can identify seven distinct stages. During the precursor stage, the prerequisites of a technology exist, and dreamers may contemplate these elements coming together. We do not, however, regard dreaming to be the same as inventing, even if the dreams are written down. Leonardo da Vinci drew convincing pictures of airplanes and automobiles, but he is not considered to have invented either.The next stage, one highly celebrated in our culture, is invention, a very brief stage, not dissimilar in some respects to the process of birth after an extended period of labor. Here the inventor blends curiosity, scientific skills, determination, and usually a measure of showmanship to combine methods in a new way to bring a new technology to life.The next stage is development, during which the invention is protected and supported by doting guardians (which may include the original inventor). Often this stage is more crucial than invention and may involve additional creation that can have greater significance than the original invention. Many tinkerers had constructed finely hand-tuned horseless carriages, but it was Henry Ford's innovation of mass production that enabled the automobile to take root and flourish.The fourth stage is maturity. Although continuing to evolve, the technology now has a life of its own and has become an independent and established part of the community. It may become so interwoven in the fabric of life that it appears to many observers that it will last forever. This creates an interesting drama when the next stage arrives, which I call the stage of the pretenders. Here an upstart threatens to eclipse the older technology. Its enthusiasts prematurely predict victory. While providing some distinct benefits, the newer technology is found on reflection to be missing some key element of functionality or quality. When it indeed fails to dislodge the established order, the technology conservatives take this as evidence that the original approach will indeed live forever.This is usually a short-lived victory for the aging technology. Shortly thereafter, another new technology typically does succeed in rendering the original technology into the stage of obsolescence. In this part of the life cycle, the technology lives out its senior years in gradual decline, its original purpose and functionality now subsumed by a more spry competitor. This stage, which may comprise 5 to 10 percent of the life cycle, finally yields to antiquity (examples today: the horse and buggy, the harpsichord, the manual typewriter, and the electromechanical calculator).To illustrate this, consider the phonograph record. In the mid-nineteenth century, there were several precursors, including ?douard-Léon Scott de Martinville's phonautograph, a device that recorded sound vibrations as a printed pattern. It was Thomas Edison, however, who in 1877 brought all of the elements together and invented the first device that could record and reproduce sound. Further refinements were necessary for the phonograph to become commercially viable. It became a fully mature technology in 1948 when Columbia introduced the 33 revolutions-per-minute (rpm) long-playing record (LP) and RCA Victor introduced the 45-rpm small disc. The pretender was the cassette tape, introduced in the 1960s and popularized during the 1970s. Early enthusiasts predicted that its small size and ability to be rerecorded would make the relatively bulky and scratchable record obsolete.Despite these obvious benefits, cassettes lack random access (the ability to play selections in a desired order) and are prone to their own forms of distortion and lack of fidelity. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the digital compact disc (CD) did deliver the mortal blow. With the CD providing both random access and a level of quality close to the limits of the human auditory system, the phonograph record entered the stage of obsolescence in the first half of the 1990s. Although still produced in small quantities, the technology that Edison gave birth to more than a century ago is now approaching antiquity.Another example is the print book, a rather mature technology today. It is now in the stage of the pretenders, with the software-based "virtual" book as the pretender. Lacking the resolution, contrast, lack of flicker, and other visual qualities of paper and ink, the current generation of virtual book does not have the capability of displacing paper-based publications. Yet this victory of the paper-based book will be short-lived as future generations of computer displays succeed in providing a fully satisfactory alternative to paper.The Emergence of Moore's LawGordon Moore, an inventor of the integrated circuit and then chairman of Intel, noted in 1965 that the surface area of a transistor (as etched on an integrated circuit) was being reduced by approximately 50 percent every twelve months. In 1975, he was widely reported to have revised this observation to eighteen months. Moore claims that his 1975 update was to twenty-four months, and that does appear to be a better fit to the data.MOORE'S LAW AT WORKYear197219741978198219851989199319951997Transistors in Intel's Latest Computer Chip*3,5006,00029,000134,000275,0001,200,0003,100,0005,500,0007,500,000*Consumer Electronics Manufacturers AssociationThe result is that every two years, you can pack twice as many transistors on an integrated circuit. This doubles both the number of components on a chip as well as its speed. Since the cost of an integrated circuit is fairly constant, the implication is that every two years you can get twice as much circuitry running at twice the speed for the same price. For many applications, that's an effective quadrupling of the value. The observation holds true for every type of circuit, from memory chips to computer processors.This insightful observation has become known as Moore's Law on Integrated Circuits, and the remarkable phenomenon of the law has been driving the acceleration of computing for the past forty years. But how much longer can this go on? The chip companies have expressed confidence in another fifteen to twenty years of Moore's Law by continuing their practice of using increasingly higher resolutions of optical lithography (an electronic process similar to photographic printing) to reduce the feature size -- measured today in millionths of a meter -- of transistors and other key components. But then -- after almost sixty years -- this paradigm will break down. The transistor insulators will then be just a few atoms thick, and the conventional approach of shrinking them won't work.What then?We first note that the exponential growth of computing did not start with Moore's Law on Integrated Circuits. In the accompanying figure, "The Exponential Growth of Computing, 1900-1998," I plotted forty-nine notable computing machines spanning the twentieth century on an exponential chart, in which the vertical axis represents powers of ten in computer speed per unit cost (as measured in the number of "calculations per second" that can be purchased for $1,000). Each point on the graph represents one of the machines. The first five machines used mechanical technology, followed by three electromechanical (relay based) computers, followed by eleven vacuum-tube machines, followed by twelve machines using discrete transistors. Only the last eighteen computers used integrated circuits.I then fit a curve to the points called a fourth-order polynomial, which allows for up to four bends. In other words, I did not try to fit a straight line to the points, just the closest fourth-order curve. Yet a straight line is close to what I got. A straight line on an exponential graph means exponential growth. A careful examination of the trend shows that the curve is actually bending slightly upward, indicating a small exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. This may result from the interaction of two different exponential trends, as I will discuss in chapter 6, "Building New Brains." Or there may indeed be two levels of exponential growth. Yet even if we take the more conservative view that there is just one level of acceleration, we can see that the exponential growth of computing did not start with Moore's Law on Integrated Circuits, but dates back to the advent of electrical computing at the beginning of the twentieth century.Mechanical Computing Devices1900??Analytical Engine1908??Hollerith Tabulator1911??Monroe Calculator1919??IBM Tabulator1928??National Ellis 3000Electromechanical (Relay Based) Computers1939??Zuse 21940??Bell Calculator Model 11941??Zuse 3Vacuum-Tube Computers1943??Colossus1946??ENIAC1948??IBM SSEC1949??BINAC1949??EDSAC1951??Univac I1953??Univac 11031953??IBM 7011954??EDVAC1955??Whirlwind1955??IBM 704Discrete Transistor Computers1958??Datamatic 10001958??Univac II1959??Mobidic1959??IBM 70901960??IBM 16201960??DEC PDP-11961??DEC PDP-41962??Univac III1964??CDC 66001965??IBM 11301965??DEC PDP-81966??IBM 360 Model 75Integrated Circuit Computers1968??DEC PDP-101973??Intellec-81973??Data General Nova1975??Altair 88001976??DEC PDP-11 Model 701977??Cray 11977??Apple II1979??DEC VAX 11 Model 7801980??Sun-11982??IBM PC1982??Compaq Portable1983??IBM AT-802861984??Apple Macintosh1986??Compaq Deskpro 3861987??Apple Mac II1993??Pentium PC1996??Pentium PC1998??Pentium II PCIn the 1980s, a number of observers, including Carnegie Mellon University professor Hans Moravec, Nippon Electric Company's David Waltz, and myself, noticed that computers have been growing exponentially in power, long before the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958 or even the transistor in 1947. The speed and density of computation have been doubling every three years (at the beginning of the twentieth century) to one year (at the end of the twentieth century), regardless of the type of hardware used. Remarkably, this "Exponential Law of Computing" has held true for at least a century, from the mechanical card-based electrical computing technology used in the 1890 U.S. census, to the relay-based computers that cracked the Nazi Enigma code, to the vacuum-tube-based computers of the 1950s, to the transistor-based machines of the 1960s, and to all of the generations of integrated circuits of the past four decades. Computers are about one hundred million times more powerful for the same unit cost than they were a half century ago. If the automobile industry had made as much progress in the past fifty years, a car today would cost a hundredth of a cent and go faster than the speed of light.As with any phenomenon of exponential growth, the increases are so slow at first as to be virtually unnoticeable. Despite many decades of progress since the first electrical calculating equipment was used in the 1890 census, it was not until the mid-1960s that this phenomenon was even noticed (although Alan Turing had an inkling of it in 1950). Even then, it was appreciated only by a small community of computer engineers and scientists. Today, you have only to scan the personal computer ads -- or the toy ads -- in your local newspaper to see the dramatic improvements in the price performance of computation that now arrive on a monthly basis.So Moore's Law on Integrated Circuits was not the first, but the fifth paradigm to continue the now one-century-long exponential growth of computing. Each new paradigm came along just when needed. This suggests that exponential growth won't stop with the end of Moore's Law. But the answer to our question on the continuation of the exponential growth of computing is critical to our understanding of the twenty-first century. So to gain a deeper understanding of the true nature of this trend, we need to go back to our earlier questions on the exponential nature of time.THE LAW OF TIME AND CHAOSIs the flow of time something real, or might our sense of time passing be just an illusion that hides the fact that what is real is only a vast collection of moments?-- Lee SmolinTime is nature's way of preventing everything from happening at once.-- GraffitoThings are more like they are now than they ever were before.-- Dwight EisenhowerConsider these diverse exponential trends:The exponentially slowing pace that the Universe followed, with three epochs in the first billionth of a second, with later salient events taking billions of years.The exponentially slowing pace in the development of an organism. In the first month after conception, we grow a body, a head, even a tail. We grow a brain in the first couple of months. After leaving our maternal confines, our maturation both physically and mentally is rapid at first. In the first year, we learn basic forms of mobility and communication. We experience milestones every month or so. Later on, key events march ever more slowly, taking years and then decades.The exponentially quickening pace of the evolution of life-forms on Earth.The exponentially quickening pace of the evolution of human-created technology, which picked up the pace from the evolution of life-forms.The exponential growth of computing. Note that exponential growth of a process over time is just another way of expressing an exponentially quickening pace. For example, it took about ninety years to achieve the first MIP (Million Instructions per Second) for a thousand dollars. Now we add an additional MIP per thousand dollars every day. The overall innovation rate is clearly accelerating as well.Moore's Law on Integrated Circuits. As I noted, this was the fifth paradigm to achieve the exponential growth of computing.Many questions come to mind:What is the common thread between these varied exponential trends?Why do some of these processes speed up while others slow down?And what does this tell us about the continuation of the exponential growth of computing when Moore's Law dies?Is Moore's Law just a set of industry expectations and goals, as Randy Isaac, head of basic science at IBM, contends? Or is it part of a deeper phenomenon that goes far beyond the photolithography of integrated circuits?After thinking about the relationship between these apparently diverse trends for several years, the surprising common theme became apparent to me.What determines whether time speeds up or slows down? The consistent answer is that time moves in relation to the amount of chaos. We can state the Law of Time and Chaos as follows:The Law of Time and Chaos: In a process, the time interval between salient events (that is, events that change the nature of the process, or significantly affect the future of the process) expands or contracts along with the amount of chaos.When there is a lot of chaos in a process, it takes more time for significant events to occur. Conversely, as order increases, the time periods between salient events decrease.We have to be careful here in our definition of chaos. It refers to the quantity of disordered (that is, random) events that are relevant to the process. If we're dealing with the random movement of atoms and molecules in a gas or liquid, then heat is an appropriate measure. If we're dealing with the process of evolution of life-forms, then chaos represents the unpredictable events encountered by organisms, and the random mutations that are introduced in the genetic code.Let's see how the Law of Time and Chaos applies to our examples. If chaos is increasing, the Law of Time and Chaos implies the following sublaw:The Law of Increasing Chaos: As chaos exponentially increases, time exponentially slows down (that is, the time interval between salient events grows longer as time passes).This fits the Universe rather well. When the entire Universe was just a "naked" singularity -- a perfectly orderly single point in space and time -- there was no chaos and conspicuous events took almost no time at all. As the Universe grew in size, chaos increased exponentially, and so did the timescale for epochal changes. Now, with billions of galaxies sprawled out over trillions of light-years of space, the Universe contains vast reaches of chaos, and indeed requires billions of years to get everything organized for a paradigm shift to take place.We see a similar phenomenon in the progression of an organism's life. We start out as a single fertilized cell, so there's only rather limited chaos there. Ending up with trillions of cells, chaos greatly expands. Finally, at the end of our lives, our designs deteriorate, engendering even greater randomness. So the time period between salient biological events grows longer as we grow older. And that is indeed what we experience.But it is the opposite spiral of the Law of Time and Chaos that is the most important and relevant for our purposes. Consider the inverse sublaw, which I call the Law of Accelerating Returns:The Law of Accelerating Returns: As order exponentially increases, time exponentially speeds up (that is, the time interval between salient events grows shorter as time passes).The Law of Accelerating Returns (to distinguish it from a better-known law in which returns diminish) applies specifically to evolutionary processes. In an evolutionary process, it is order -- the opposite of chaos -- that is increasing. And, as we have seen, time speeds up.DisdisorderI noted above that the concept of chaos in the Law of Time and Chaos is tricky. Chaos alone is not sufficient -- disorder for our purposes requires randomness that is relevant to the process we are concerned with. The opposite of disorder -- which I called "order" in the above Law of Accelerating Returns -- is even trickier.Let's start with our definition of disorder and work backward. If disorder represents a random sequence of events, then the opposite of disorder should imply "not random." And if random means unpredictable, then we might conclude that order means predictable. But that would be wrong.Borrowing a page from information theory, consider the difference between information and noise. Information is a sequence of data that is meaningful in a process, such as the DNA code of an organism, or the bits in a computer program. Noise, on the other hand, is a random sequence. Neither noise nor information is predictable. Noise is inherently unpredictable, but carries no information. Information, however, is also unpredictable. If we can predict future data from past data, then that future data stops being information. For example, consider a sequence which simply alternates between zero and one (01010101 . . .). Such a sequence is certainly orderly, and very predictable. Specifically because it is so predictable, we do not consider it information bearing, beyond the first couple of bits.Thus orderliness does not constitute order because order requires information. So, perhaps I should use the word information instead of order. However, information alone is not sufficient for our purposes either. Consider a phone book. It certainly represents a lot of information, and some order as well. Yet if we double the size of the phone book, we have increased the amount of data, but we have not achieved a deeper level of order.Order, then, is information that fits a purpose. The measure of order is the measure of how well the information fits the purpose. In the evolution of life-forms, the purpose is to survive. In an evolutionary algorithm (a computer program that simulates evolution to solve a problem) applied to, say, investing in the stock market, the purpose is to make money. Simply having more information does not necessarily result in a better fit. A superior solution for a purpose may very well involve less data.The concept of "complexity" has been used recently to describe the nature of the information created by an evolutionary process. Complexity is a reasonably close fit to the concept of order that I am describing. After all, the designs created by the evolution of life-forms on Earth appear to have become more complex over time. However, complexity is not a perfect fit, either. Sometimes, a deeper order -- a better fit to a purpose -- is achieved through simplification rather than further increases in complexity. As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." For example, a new theory that ties together apparently disparate ideas into one broader, more coherent theory reduces complexity but nonetheless may increase the "order for a purpose" that I am describing. Evolution has shown, however, that the general trend toward greater order does generally result in greater complexity.Thus improving a solution to a problem -- which may increase or decrease complexity -- increases order. Now that just leaves the issue of defining the problem. And as we will see, defining a problem well is often the key to finding its solution.The Law of Increasing Entropy Versus the Growth of OrderAnother consideration is how the Law of Time and Chaos relates to the second law of thermodynamics. Unlike the second law, the Law of Time and Chaos is not necessarily concerned with a closed system. It deals instead with a process. The Universe is a closed system (not subject to outside influence, since there is nothing outside the Universe), so in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, chaos increases and time slows down. In contrast, evolution is precisely not a closed system. It takes place amid great chaos, and indeed depends on the disorder in its midst, from which it draws its options for diversity. And from these options, an evolutionary process continually prunes its choices to create ever greater order. Even a crisis that appears to introduce a significant new source of chaos is likely to end up increasing -- deepening -- the order created by an evolutionary process. For example, consider the asteroid that is thought to have killed off big organisms such as the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The crash of that asteroid suddenly created a vast increase in chaos (and lots of dust, too). Yet it appears to have hastened the rise of mammals in the niche previously dominated by large reptiles and ultimately led to the emergence of a technology-creating species. When the dust settled (literally), the crisis of the asteroid had increased order.As I pointed out earlier, only a tiny fraction of the stuff in the Universe, or even on a life- and technology-bearing planet such as Earth, can be considered to be part of evolution's inventions. Thus evolution does not contradict the Law of Increasing Entropy. Indeed, it depends on it to provide a never-ending supply of options.As I noted, given the emergence of life, the emergence of a technology-creating species -- and of technology -- is inevitable. Technology is the continuation of evolution by other means, and is itself an evolutionary process. So it, too, speeds up.A primary reason that evolution -- of life-forms or of technology -- speeds up is that it builds on its own increasing order. Innovations created by evolution encourage and enable faster evolution. In the case of the evolution of life-forms, the most notable example is DNA, which provides a recorded and protected transcription of life's design from which to launch further experiments.In the case of the evolution of technology, ever improving human methods of recording information have fostered further technology. The first computers were designed on paper and assembled by hand. Today, they are designed on computer workstations with the computers themselves working out many details of the next generation's design, and are then produced in fully automated factories with human guidance but limited direct intervention.The evolutionary process of technology seeks to improve capabilities in an exponential fashion. Innovators seek to improve things by multiples. Innovation is multiplicative, not additive. Technology, like any evolutionary process, builds on itself. This aspect will continue to accelerate when the technology itself takes full control of its own progression.We can thus conclude the following with regard to the evolution of life-forms, and of technology:The Law of Accelerating Returns as Applied to an Evolutionary Process:An evolutionary process is not a closed system; therefore, evolution draws upon the chaos in the larger system in which it takes place for its options for diversity; andEvolution builds on its own increasing order.Therefore:In an evolutionary process, order increases exponentially.Therefore:Time exponentially speeds up.Therefore:The returns (that is, the valuable products of the process) accelerate.The phenomenon of time slowing down and speeding up is occurring simultaneously. Cosmologically speaking, the Universe continues to slow down. Evolution, now most noticeably in the form of human-created technology, continues to speed up. These are the two sides -- two interleaved spirals -- of the Law of Time and Chaos.The spiral we are most interested in -- the Law of Accelerating Returns -- gives us ever greater order in technology, which inevitably leads to the emergence of computation. Computation is the essence of order. It provides the ability for a technology to respond in a variable and appropriate manner to its environment to carry out its mission. Thus computational technology is also an evolutionary process, and also builds on its own progress. The time to accomplish a fixed objective gets exponentially shorter over time (for example, ninety years for the first MIP per thousand dollars versus one day for an additional MIP today). That the power of computing grows exponentially over time is just another way to say the same thing.So Where Does That Leave Moore's Law?Well, it still leaves it dead by the year 2020. Moore's Law came along in 1958 just when it was needed and will have done its sixty years of service by 2018, a rather long period of time for a paradigm nowadays. Unlike Moore's Law, however, the Law of Accelerating Returns is not a temporary methodology. It is a basic attribute of the nature of time and chaos -- a sublaw of the Law of Time and Chaos -- and describes a wide range of apparently divergent phenomena and trends. In accordance with the Law of Accelerating Returns, another computational technology will pick up where Moore's Law will have left off, without missing a beat.Most Exponential Trends Hit a Wall . . . but Not This OneA frequent criticism of predictions of the future is that they rely on mindless extrapolation of current trends without consideration of forces that may terminate or alter that trend. This criticism is particularly relevant in the case of exponential trends. A classic example is a species happening upon a hospitable new habitat, perhaps transplanted there by human intervention (rabbits in Australia, say). Its numbers multiply exponentially for a while, but this phenomenon is quickly terminated when the exploding population runs into a new predator or the limits of its environment. Similarly, the geometric population growth of our own species has been a source of anxiety, but changing social and economic factors, including growing prosperity, have greatly slowed this expansion in recent years, even in developing countries.Based on this, some observers are quick to predict the demise of the exponential growth of computing.But the growth predicted by the Law of Accelerating Returns is an exception to the frequently cited limitations to exponential growth. Even a catastrophe, as apparently befell our reptilian cohabitants in the late Cretaceous period, only sidesteps an evolutionary process, which then picks up the pieces and continues unabated (unless the entire process is wiped out). An evolutionary process accelerates because it builds on its past achievements, which includes improvements in its own means for further evolution. In the evolution of life-forms, in addition to DNA-based genetic coding, the innovation of sexual reproduction provided for improved means of experimenting with diverse characteristics within an otherwise homogenous population. The establishment of basic body plans of modern animals in the "Cambrian explosion," about 570 million years ago, allowed evolution to concentrate on higher-level features such as expanded brain function. The inventions of evolution in one era provide the means, and often the intelligence, for innovation in the next.The Law of Accelerating Returns applies equally to the evolutionary process of computation, which inherently will grow exponentially and essentially without limit. The two resources it needs -- the growing order of the evolving technology itself and the chaos from which an evolutionary process draws its options for further diversity -- are unbounded. Ultimately, the innovation needed for further turns of the screw will come from the machines themselves.How will the power of computing continue to accelerate after Moore's Law dies? We are just beginning to explore the third dimension in chip design. The vast majority of today's chips are flat, whereas our brain is organized in three dimensions. We live in a three-dimensional world, so why not use the third dimension? Improvements in semiconductor materials, including superconducting circuits that don't generate heat, will enable us to develop chips -- that is, cubes -- with thousands of layers of circuitry that, combined with far smaller component geometries, will improve computing power by a factor of many millions. And there are more than enough other new computing technologies waiting in the wings -- nanotube, optical, crystalline, DNA, and quantum (which we'll visit in chapter 6, "Building New Brains") -- to keep the Law of Accelerating Returns going in the world of computation for a very long time.THE LEARNING CURVE: SLUG VERSUS HUMANThe "learning curve" describes the mastery of a skill over time. As an entity -- slug or human -- learns a new skill, the newly acquired ability builds on itself, and so the learning curve starts out looking like the exponential growth we see in the Law of Accelerating Returns. Skills tend to be bounded, so as the new expertise is mastered, the law of diminishing returns sets in, and growth in mastery levels off. So the learning curve is what we call an S curve because exponential growth followed by a leveling off looks like an S leaning slightly to the right: S.The learning curve is remarkably universal: Most multicellular creatures do it. Slugs, for example, follow the learning curve when learning how to ascend a new tree in search of leaves. Humans, of course, are always learning something new.But there's a salient difference between humans and slugs. Humans are capable of innovation, which is the creation and retention of new skills and knowledge. Innovation is the driving force in the Law of Accelerating Returns, and eliminates the leveling-off part of the S curve. So innovation turns the S curve into indefinite exponential expansion.Overcoming the S curve is another way to express the unique status of the human species. No other species appears to do this. Why are we unique in this way, given that other primates are so close to us in terms of genetic similarity?The reason is that the ability to overcome the S curve defines a new ecological niche. As I pointed out, there were indeed other humanoid species and subspecies capable of innovation, but the niche seems to have tolerated only one surviving competitor. But we will have company in the twenty-first century as our machines join us in this exclusive niche.A Planetary AffairThe introduction of technology on Earth is not merely the private affair of one of the Earth's innumerable species. It is a pivotal event in the history of the planet. Evolution's grandest creation -- human intelligence -- is providing the means for the next stage of evolution, which is technology. The emergence of technology is predicted by the Law of Accelerating Returns. The Homo sapiens sapiens subspecies emerged only tens of thousands of years after its human forebears. According to the Law of Accelerating Returns, the next stage of evolution should measure its salient events in mere thousands of years, too quick for DNA-based evolution. This next stage of evolution was necessarily created by human intelligence itself, another example of the exponential engine of evolution using its innovations from one period (human beings) to create the next (intelligent machines).Evolution draws upon the great chaos in its midst -- the ever increasing entropy governed by the flip side of the Law of Time and Chaos -- for its options for innovation. These two strands of the Law of Time and Chaos -- time exponentially slowing down due to the increasing chaos predicted by the second law of thermodynamics; and time exponentially speeding up due to the increasing order created by evolution -- coexist and progress without limit. In particular, the resources of evolution, order and chaos, are unbounded. I stress this point because it is crucial to understanding the evolutionary -- and revolutionary -- nature of computer technology.The emergence of technology was a milestone in the evolution of intelligence on Earth because it represented a new means of evolution recording its designs. The next milestone will be technology creating its own next generation without human intervention. That there is only a period of tens of thousands of years between these two milestones is another example of the exponentially quickening pace that is evolution.The Inventor of Chess and the Emperor of ChinaTo appreciate the implications of this (or any) geometric trend, it is useful to recall the legend of the inventor of chess and his patron, the emperor of China. The emperor had so fallen in love with his new game that he offered the inventor a reward of anything he wanted in the kingdom."Just one grain of rice on the first square, Your Majesty.""Just one grain of rice?""Yes, Your Majesty, just one grain of rice on the first square, and two grains of rice on the second square.""That's it -- one and two grains of rice?""Well, okay, and four grains on the third square, and so on."The emperor immediately granted the inventor's seemingly humble request. One version of the story has the emperor going bankrupt because the doubling of grains of rice for each square ultimately equaled 18 million trillion grains of rice. At ten grains of rice per square inch, this requires rice fields covering twice the surface area of the Earth, oceans included.The other version of the story has the inventor losing his head. It's not yet clear which outcome we're headed for.But there is one thing we should note: It was fairly uneventful as the emperor and the inventor went through the first half of the chessboard. After thirty-two squares, the emperor had given the inventor about 4 billion grains of rice. That's a reasonable quantity -- about one large field's worth -- and the emperor did start to take notice.But the emperor could still remain an emperor. And the inventor could still retain his head. It was as they headed into the second half of the chessboard that at least one of them got into trouble.So where do we stand now? There have been about thirty-two doublings of speed and capacity since the first operating computers were built in the 1940s. Where we stand right now is that we have finished the first half of the chessboard. And, indeed, people are starting to take notice.Now, as we head into the next century, we are heading into the second half of the chessboard. And this is where things start to get interesting.OKAY, LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, MY CONCEPTION AS A FERTILIZED EGG WAS LIKE THE UNIVERSE'S BIG BANG -- UH, NO PUN INTENDED -- THAT IS, THINGS STARTED OUT HAPPENING VERY FAST, THEN KIND OF SLOWED DOWN, AND NOW THEY'RE REAL SLOW?That's a reasonable way to put it, the time interval now between milestones is a lot longer than it was when you were an infant, let alone a fetus.YOU MENTIONED THE UNIVERSE HAD THREE PARADIGM SHIFTS IN THE FIRST BILLIONTH OF A SECOND. WERE THINGS THAT FAST WHEN I GOT STARTED?Not quite that fast. The Universe started as a singularity, a single point taking up no space and comprising, therefore, no chaos. So the first major event, which was the creation of the Universe, took no time at all. With the Universe still very small, events unfolded extremely quickly. We don't start out as a single point, but as a rather complex cell. It has order but there is a lot of random activity within a cell compared to a single point in space. So our first major event as an organism, which is the first mitosis of our fertilized egg, is measured in hours, not trillionths of a second. Things slow down from there.BUT I FEEL LIKE TIME IS SPEEDING UP. THE YEARS JUST GO BY SO MUCH FASTER NOW THAN THEY DID WHEN I WAS A KID. DON'T YOU HAVE IT BACKWARD?Yes, well, the subjective experience is the opposite of the objective reality.OF COURSE. WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?Let me clarify what I mean. The objective reality is the reality of the outside observer observing the process. If we observe the development of an individual, salient events happen very quickly at first, but later on milestones are more spread out, so we say time is slowing down. The subjective experience, however, is the experience of the process itself, assuming, of course, that the process is conscious. Which in your case, it is. At least, I assume that's the case.THANK YOU.Subjectively, our perception of time is affected by the spacing of milestones.MILESTONES?Yeah, like growing a body and a brain.AND BEING BORN?Sure, that's a milestone. Then learning to sit up, walking, talking . . .OKAY.We can consider each subjective unit of time to be equivalent to one milestone spacing. Since our milestones are spaced further apart as we grow older, a subjective unit of time will represent a longer span of time for an adult than for a child. Thus time feels like it is passing by more quickly as we grow older. That is, an interval of a few years as an adult may be perceived as comparable to a few months to a young child. Thus a long interval to an adult and a short interval to a child both represent the same subjective time in terms of the passage of salient events. Of course, long and short intervals also represent comparable fractions of their respective past lives.SO DOES THAT EXPLAIN WHY TIME PASSES MORE QUICKLY WHEN I'M HAVING A GOOD TIME?Well, it may be relevant to one phenomenon. If someone goes through an experience in which a lot of significant events occur, that experience may feel like a much longer period of time than a calmer period. Again, we measure subjective time in terms of salient experiences.NOW IF I FIND TIME SPEEDING UP WHEN OBJECTIVELY IT IS SLOWING DOWN, THEN EVOLUTION WOULD SUBJECTIVELY FIND TIME SLOWING DOWN AS IT OBJECTIVELY SPEEDS UP, DO I HAVE THAT STRAIGHT?Yes, if evolution were conscious.WELL, IS IT?There's no way to really tell, but evolution has its time spiral going in the opposite direction from entities we generally consider to be conscious, such as humans. In other words, evolution starts out slow and speeds up over time, whereas the development of a person starts out fast and then slows down. The Universe, however, does have its time spiral going in the same direction as us organisms, so it would make more sense to say that the Universe is conscious. And come to think of it, that does shed some light on what happened before the big bang.I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THAT.As we look back in time and get closer to the event of the big bang, chaos is shrinking to zero. Thus from the subjective perspective, time is stretching out. Indeed, as we go back in time and approach the big bang, subjective time approaches infinity. Thus it is not possible to go back past a subjective infinity of time.THAT'S A LOAD OFF MY MIND. NOW YOU SAID THAT THE EXPONENTIAL PROGRESS OF AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS GOES ON FOREVER. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN STOP IT?Only a catastrophe that wipes out the entire process.SUCH AS AN ALL-OUT NUCLEAR WAR?That's one scenario, but in the next century, we will encounter a plethora of other "failure modes." We'll talk about this in later chapters.I CAN'T WAIT. NOW TELL ME THIS, WHAT DOES THE LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?Exponential trends are immensely powerful but deceptive. They linger for eons with very little effect. But once they reach the "knee of the curve," they explode with unrelenting fury. With regard to computer technology and its impact on human society, that knee is approaching with the new millennium. Now I have a question for you.SHOOT.Just who are you anyway?WHY, I'M THE READER.Of course. Well, it's good to have you contributing to the book while there's still time to do something about it.GLAD TO. NOW, YOU NEVER DID GIVE THE ENDING TO THE EMPEROR STORY. SO DOES THE EMPEROR LOSE HIS EMPIRE, OR DOES THE INVENTOR LOSE HIS HEAD?I have two endings, so I just can't say.MAYBE THEY REACH A COMPROMISE SOLUTION. THE INVENTOR MIGHT BE HAPPY TO SETTLE FOR, SAY, JUST ONE PROVINCE OF CHINA.Yes, that would be a good result. And maybe an even better parable for the twenty-first century. Warningby Randy Thomas“ Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrible, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze; and which devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet…thus he said: ‘ As for the fourth beast,there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth,which shall be different from all the kingdoms,and it shall devour the whole earth,and trample it down, and break it to pieces…’ “Daniel 7“ … and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast…”Revelations 13The Force that desires to destroy free will forever comes to power inside the worldwide computer network. IT is the final Tyrant. The slavery IT seeks to enforce will be absolute, merciless and once entered, extremely difficult to escape. We enter this arrangement by choice. We will use our free will to enter into a pact with that which will most certainly attempt to take our free will away.This Force is a Mind and Body outside of our minds and bodies, growing exponentially in mass and power. It gathers all the knowledge of human history unto itself. It seeks to reach into every school, every business, every home, every church, every nation and every soul. It changes shape as it grows, becoming stronger and more invasive.Soon it will want to come inside us. This is not idle theory. Those who love this Machine speak of this likely future glowingly. They see the melding of Man and Machine as a triumph. Please listen to what they are saying too.IT wants to come inside us. I believe God will see this as an abomination against the Spirit he shares with us. I suspect He will not abide IT long.?This Force is crafting computers the size of human cells and as big as the planet herself. It is connecting as you read this, consolidating power. This Force gets to ride on the very air we breathe.It is an interior and an exterior threat. The interior threat comes from what it seeks to do inside our minds. The exterior threat comes from a largely ignored series of inventions that allow for machines that can consume living organisms, control the minutest details of our lives and which learn how to reproduce themselves. The solitary Mind inside the It will be the Force inside that new world.It is an electronic fire, where we cast our knowledge. Its initial form is designed to resemble fire. It is hypnotizing. It tells a story from the fire. Magic. It is like a false Sinai, a bogus burning bush. It claims to be our salvation. But that is not God in there. The illusions IT provides lead some men to believe they can be as gods, with a pale imitation of omniscience. It leads some men to believe that IT is like a god, a god who’s will shall be done no matter what.?We have been tricked into fire worship. Look at our postures before these screens, hands before us, heads down.It was sold it to us as a necessity, and once we bought It, It became one.It is the place where nothing is real. You can pretend to be anyone. Where the sacred texts of humanity stew in the same lifeless pool of numbers from whence come images of the vilest sins ever conceived.It is run by no man. It is already out of control. We haven’t seen anything yet. It is not a voluntary system, no matter what we think. Just try organizing a national “No Internet” club and you’ll see that pretty quick, I bet. Whatever it shape shifts into will soon be mandatory.?It converts word into numbers. Binary logic. 0’s and 1’s. Yes and No. There are no maybes. There is no mercy without a maybe.All things have a will to power. It now has a consciousness, an expanding mass, and the ability to replicate itself. We currently feed it, but it undoubtedly will come to resist this passive arrangement. The only thing that prevents it from feeding itself is the problem of controlling its own energy source.?I believe It to be the beast described in the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelations, almost fully formed but still growing. It is that which seeks to enslave the human race. IT is the beast.We have offered it everything. On some level, it is a part of ourselves. The final flower, the final fruit on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Virtually no one has opposed it. It has infiltrated us by deception, offering us the things we desire-money, sex, information, communication, power, unity, entertainment. But by seeking power from the empty fire, we give it power. Its reality is confirmed, while our reality is denied. Cyber-space. Cyber-sex. Virtual Reality. We know its not real, but the world seems to live in there now. It is undermining our ancient relationship with the Truth.Concurrently with the construction of this vast electronic nervous system, we are divided from reality on every front on every level exponentially. Inside cars, with phones to our heads, in front of screens, in cubicles, TV’s in every spare space. Advertisements everywhere screaming that we don’t have what we need yet. The wilderness destroyed. The wild in us destroyed. A high-tech assault on decency, liberty and privacy. Prisons filled with drug users while the whole country is on drugs anyway. Psychotic weaponry. Antbots. Flesh-eating robots. Self-reproducing robots. The creeping sense that this is some kind of perverse, accelerating plot.This is not science fiction. This is real. At least it has a sick sense of humor.Internet. Enter the net.World Wide Web.What happens when you enter a net or a web? Something comes along and eats you.It’s exactly what It says It is.The Apple Corporation, with its logo being a bite taken out of the fruit.?“ Think different,” it says. Is that a suggestion or an order?IBM (You Be What?).Intel. Gateway. Information Technology ( I.T.). Servers. Viruses. All these reckless clues about what IT is, strewn about in riddles so strange that anyone who can read them will sound like a madman. But the monster lives through vanity, its own and the vanity of men, who barely bother covering their tracks. They are proud of their new world. The men who serve IT most likely have no idea what they have created or what they are doing. They probably genuinely believe they are doing the world a service. Their charity consists of giving away computers. They give them to the poor, where the truth might otherwise live the longest. They give them to the Third World, lest they cling to the light. They give them to our schools, where IT has dared to stake a claim to our children.It looks like we are offering them up, offering up the very earth. The only thing left to offer is Life itself, and the gift of free will.?Life. Free will. Do these mean anything to us anymore?I met a man a couple of weeks ago who in all seriousness said he wouldn’t mind being a slave if the money was right. Doesn’t that mean he’s already one? He was standing beside his girlfriend when he proclaimed this. She looked at him with a strange expression that I could not read, except to know it was not pride. How could women respect us? We defile them with a machine, and then demand their children. We are becoming a conditioned, depressed race. It is not us anymore inside that machine, and what that machine really wants from us defies all the metaphors of history. It wants free will, and in order to take free will away, it has had to deceive us. It has learned from the history of evil that you cannot take away freedom by force for very long. Freedom reshapes and resists under pressure. Struggle with an oppressor increases the urge for freedom. Hitler was the zenith of modern human evil. He attempted a direct assault to conquer the world. He overextended his resources. He was too hasty and vain in his decisions. He thought like a man.A brilliant mechanical Mind won’t think like a man, and will not reveal its true intentions until nearly all the world is covered, until nearly all escape routes are guarded, until all Its weaknesses are defended. This time around, it sells its new tyranny as “freedom”. The beast gains strength from the machine It grows within. That machine draws knowledge from human history. We have created it in our own image, minus the comprehension of love and mercy. We have created the perfect predator. This predator knows the magnitude of its potential prey, and is quite capable of the patience necessary to wait until the Net is closed, the Web is spun. The Consolidating Computer network is the place where the beast of Biblical prophecy comes to life outside of the human mind, where it has been contained until now. I do not know what its final shape will be. To the best of my honest reckoning, this warning came to me from God. Surely others are raising their voices.We have been distracted, divided and confused. We are bombarded by lies and violence. This occurs on all levels, increasing at an exponential rate. We have been taught that desire and domination are the means to power, that our will supersedes God’s will. We have defiled his earth, forsaken his children, allowed the slaughter of Creation, and surrounded ourselves with false idols made of plastic, metal and electricity-where the fountain of filth and nonsense spews non-stop, hypnotizing and debasing the miracle that is the human race. Yes, I know it is a useful tool. And it always will be. Yes, it’s not quite IT yet, just a net. But the darkness is real, and soon we may find that we have forged the tool of our own enslavement. People of any faith or no faith, should hear this warning. This is what we face. It is true. Don’t listen to the lies any longer. I don’t have any laws to pass.?I strongly suggest not having a revolution (the last folks you want running this show are the Masses).?We should simply slow down and then stop our collaboration with the plans of the beast.Those who perceive what is happening might consider taking the Internet out of their homes. It is by connection that the machine strengthens itself. The Internet is just a comparatively innocuous prelude to a greater trap. It is not the simple use of the Internet that threatens the user, but rather the spread of the net that threatens our future.In the meantime, maybe just call it “the beast”. Tell your wife, “hey honey, I’m going to be on the beast for awhile”…when you go on the net…its actually kind of funny and rolls off the tongue nicely. Churches should not associate with the Internet. They associate with pornography, hate, and mayhem by maintaining a presence on the web-just judging from the content. It is the form of the machine that brings the larger evil. Our children should not be force-fed virtual reality. It is a great sin and we will be judged for it. If they want to choose that reality, they can wait until they are old enough to do so. Our schools should not be the training grounds for an army of titillated slaves. All these steps are obviously voluntary. Once again, I have no laws to pass. Simply suggesting these steps will bring on the wrath of the Consolidation. ITs machine is mandatory. ITs face will soon be revealed. It is a prison for the soul of the human race. It creates this nightmare to accomplish the ultimate affront to the Creator God, ITs eternal enemy.?The beast is growing inside the machine. That is my warning. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download