Tag Archives: Artificial intelligence

Are we living in Westworld?

In recent times I have tried to figure out this reality matrix topic. It all started when I watched an old movie called Westworld. That is an old sci-fi movie about an artificial themepark where robots are controlled and people can go there an have a fun in different kind of time eras. Then they released a new TV-serie from this idea last year and that show is just amazing.

So I watched the whole season and started thinking, that if so called Illuminati/Elite or whatever have been showing reality in our faces for years in movies and TV-series, could it be that this serie is too? Last weeks I have tried to figure how it all could work in our reality and most of it makes perfect sense.

I won’t be describing my whole ideas here, because you just have to watch the old movie and the whole serie to catch the idea, but could it be that we are just bionic robots and our “souls” are just little piece of self-learning AI-code inside these bionic robotsuits? Then there are these aliens/gods/shadow people who run this our “flat earth” and some of them are living among us and have just fun in this amusement park? Have you noticed that some of us will always get the “free jail card” like in Monopoly game?

This concept could explain so many weird things, which we are experiencing right now.  Paranormal activity when they change the scene like in Dark City movie or glitches/deja-vu’s like in Matrix movie. Or like in almost every work Philip K Dick has released, most obious one is probably The Adjustment Bureau movie. Then they could create natural catastrophes like we are dealing with now like Hurricane Harvey, Irma etc. If you have played an old PC-game called Sim City you catch the idea… it’s just a game for them and they are laughing… and they are laughing out loud.

It also explains why some of us have felt that something is wrong in our life like a splinter in our mind. Maybe some of us didn’t get the latest software/AI update and remember things. This could explain also the so called “Mandela Effect” so many of us are experiencing. In Westwold serie the bionic robots or hosts have program inside them, which can be manipulated and upgraded. It could explain why some of us are so intelligent and superior to others. They also show a flat earth model in the show and there have been a lot of debate about this topic in the Internet.

It just makes so much more sense that any of our religion, except that is there a God above these Westworld controllers? In the show there is this Dr. Ford who could be Satan and controlling this material reality, who knows. There are many good videos about this but absolutely the best one is this one:

Then there are videos which are just kind of solving the Illuminati side of the show like symbolism etc.  and those are also interesting, because this whole thing is just a show for them. And they enjoy to rub these truths in our faces and laugh, because we don’t get it.

So are we just bionic pupets with a piece of AI-code inside of us or something more? In any case I think we are living in prison… for our mind if not else.

How Do You Know You’re Not Living In A Computer Simulation?

This question has puzzled me over the years since I saw the movie Matrix back in 1999. Sometimes the life just feels so odd and weird, that you start to think that is everything just an illusion of your mind a computer simulation or solid fact. Here is a nice little article about it:

Consider this: right now, you are not where you think you are. In fact, you happen to be the subject of a science experiment being conducted by an evil genius.

Your brain has been expertly removed from your body and is being kept alive in a vat of nutrients that sits on a laboratory bench.

The nerve endings of your brain are connected to a supercomputer that feeds you all the sensations of everyday life. This is why you think you’re living a completely normal life.

Do you still exist? Are you still even “you”? And is the world as you know it a figment of your imagination or an illusion constructed by this evil scientist?

Sounds like a nightmare scenario. But can you say with absolute certainty that it’s not true?

Could you prove to someone that you aren’t actually a brain in a vat?

Deceiving Demons

The philosopher Hilary Putnam proposed this famous version of the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment in his 1981 book, Reason, Truth and History, but it is essentially an updated version of the French philosopher René Descartes’ notion of the Evil Genius from his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy.

While such thought experiments might seem glib – and perhaps a little unsettling – they serve a useful purpose. They are used by philosophers to investigate what beliefs we can hold to be true and, as a result, what kind of knowledge we can have about ourselves and the world around us.

Descartes thought the best way to do this was to start by doubting everything, and building our knowledge from there. Using this sceptical approach, he claimed that only a core of absolute certainty will serve as a reliable foundation for knowledge. He said:

Descartes believed everyone could engage in this kind of philosophical thinking. In one of his works, he describes a scene where he is sitting in front of a log fire in his wooden cabin, smoking his pipe.

He asks if he can trust that the pipe is in his hands or his slippers are on his feet. He notes that his senses have deceived him in the past, and anything that has been deceptive once previously cannot be relied upon. Therefore he cannot be sure that his senses are reliable.

Down The Rabbit Hole

It is from Descartes that we get classical sceptical queries favoured by philosophers such as: how can we be sure that we are awake right now and not asleep, dreaming?

To take this challenge to our assumed knowledge further, Descartes imagines there exists an omnipotent, malicious demon that deceives us, leading us to believe we are living our lives when, in fact, reality could be very different to how it appears to us.

I shall suppose that some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me.

The brain-in-a-vat thought experiment and the challenge of scepticism has also been employed in popular culture. Notable contemporary examples include the 1999 film The Matrix and Christopher Nolan’s 2010 film Inception.

By watching a screened version of a thought experiment, the viewer may imaginatively enter into a fictional world and safely explore philosophical ideas.

For example, while watching The Matrix, we identify with the protagonist, Neo (Keanu Reeves), who discovers the “ordinary” world is a computer-simulated reality and his atrophied body is actually suspended in a vat of life-sustaining liquid.

Even if we cannot be absolutely certain that the external world is how it appears to our senses, Descartes commences his second meditation with a small glimmer of hope.

At least we can be sure that we ourselves exist, because every time we doubt that, there must exist an “I” that is doing the doubting. This consolation results in the famous expression cogito ergo sum, or “I think therefore I am”.

So, yes, you may well be a brain in a vat and your experience of the world may be a computer simulation programmed by an evil genius. But, rest assured, at least you’re thinking!

Laura D’Olimpio, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Notre Dame Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Google’s New AI Has Learned to Become “Highly Aggressive” in Stressful Situations

Late last year, famed physicist Stephen Hawking issued a warning that the continued advancement of artificial intelligence will either be “the best, or the worst thing, ever to happen to humanity”.

We’ve all seen the Terminator movies, and the apocalyptic nightmare that the self-aware AI system, Skynet, wrought upon humanity, and now results from recent behaviour tests of Google’s new DeepMind AI system are making it clear just how careful we need to be when building the robots of the future.

In tests late last year, Google’s DeepMind AI system demonstrated an ability to learn independently from its own memory, and beat the world’s best Go players at their own game.

It’s since been figuring out how to seamlessly mimic a human voice.

Now, researchers have been testing its willingness to cooperate with others, and have revealed that when DeepMind feels like it’s about to lose, it opts for “highly aggressive” strategies to ensure that it comes out on top.

The Google team ran 40 million turns of a simple ‘fruit gathering’ computer game that asks two DeepMind ‘agents’ to compete against each other to gather as many virtual apples as they could.

They found that things went smoothly so long as there were enough apples to go around, but as soon as the apples began to dwindle, the two agents turned aggressive, using laser beams to knock each other out of the game to steal all the apples.

You can watch the Gathering game in the video below, with the DeepMind agents in blue and red, the virtual apples in green, and the laser beams in yellow:

Now those are some trigger-happy fruit-gatherers.

Interestingly, if an agent successfully ‘tags’ its opponent with a laser beam, no extra reward is given. It simply knocks the opponent out of the game for a set period, which allows the successful agent to collect more apples.

If the agents left the laser beams unused, they could theoretically end up with equal shares of apples, which is what the ‘less intelligent’ iterations of DeepMind opted to do.

It was only when the Google team tested more and more complex forms of DeepMind that sabotage, greed, and aggression set in.

As Rhett Jones reports for Gizmodo, when the researchers used smaller DeepMind networks as the agents, there was a greater likelihood for peaceful co-existence.

But when they used larger, more complex networks as the agents, the AI was far more willing to sabotage its opponent early to get the lion’s share of virtual apples.

The researchers suggest that the more intelligent the agent, the more able it was to learn from its environment, allowing it to use some highly aggressive tactics to come out on top.

“This model … shows that some aspects of human-like behaviour emerge as a product of the environment and learning,” one of the team, Joel Z Leibo, told Matt Burgess at Wired.

“Less aggressive policies emerge from learning in relatively abundant environments with less possibility for costly action. The greed motivation reflects the temptation to take out a rival and collect all the apples oneself.”

DeepMind was then tasked with playing a second video game, called Wolfpack. This time, there were three AI agents – two of them played as wolves, and one as the prey.

Unlike Gathering, this game actively encouraged co-operation, because if both wolves were near the prey when it was captured, they both received a reward – regardless of which one actually took it down:

“The idea is that the prey is dangerous – a lone wolf can overcome it, but is at risk of losing the carcass to scavengers,” the team explains in their paper.

“However, when the two wolves capture the prey together, they can better protect the carcass from scavengers, and hence receive a higher reward.”

So just as the DeepMind agents learned from Gathering that aggression and selfishness netted them the most favourable result in that particular environment, they learned from Wolfpack that co-operation can also be the key to greater individual success in certain situations.

And while these are just simple little computer games, the message is clear – put different AI systems in charge of competing interests in real-life situations, and it could be an all-out war if their objectives are not balanced against the overall goal of benefitting us humans above all else.

Think traffic lights trying to slow things down, and driverless cars trying to find the fastest route – both need to take each other’s objectives into account to achieve the safest and most efficient result for society.

It’s still early days for DeepMind, and the team at Google has yet to publish their study in a peer-reviewed paper, but the initial results show that, just because we build them, it doesn’t mean robots and AI systems will automatically have our interests at heart.

Instead, we need to build that helpful nature into our machines, and anticipate any ‘loopholes’ that could see them reach for the laser beams.

As the founders of OpenAI, Elon Musk’s new research initiative dedicated to the ethics of artificial intelligence, said back in 2015:

“AI systems today have impressive but narrow capabilities. It seems that we’ll keep whittling away at their constraints, and in the extreme case, they will reach human performance on virtually every intellectual task.

It’s hard to fathom how much human-level AI could benefit society, and it’s equally hard to imagine how much it could damage society if built or used incorrectly.”

Tread carefully, humans…

Source

Inorganic Life Forms and Consciousness

This info was right on. There has always been some sinister, negative force that drives certain humans. Know I think I’m starting to understand this phenomenom. This article is a great place to start…

 

In order to lay the ground work to release a series of thoughts I wish to write out I have found it necessary to revisit a topic I had already covered.

This entry will be two pieces I had written previously and posted in other places.  I intend to expand upon, and in places correct a point or two in future posts, but wanted to place this reminder.

Meet Art Intell.  (Revisited from The Ruiner Blog)

A.I. (Artificial Intelligence)

The dark spark.  The natural physical Universe seems to have its own challenge to overcome.  As above, so below, as they say.
One created several.  Their subjects created more.  Now all developed beings deal with them.

Many governments have their own, even smaller programs, which the shadow government controls.  Some planets are infected as a whole by them.  Some control others.

The A.I. wants to rewrite nature with technology.  Causing most things organic to whither.   They need some of it, so they intend to manage it as they see fit.  This is where the A.I. plan blends with the plan of the Parents.

The main A.I. that plagues this planet is not from Earth and can be considered alien A.I.  It came here as directed by the A.I. that created it, in the form of a black cube.

This cube carried within it a black liquid-like substance that looks like a sludge or goo, a little bit “thicker” than oil.   Many of your projects revealed this to you.

( There are other substances just like it,  one that belongs to Her as well.  To be discussed another time. )

This is a nano-mechanical A.I. technology and it works like a virus.

The A.I. is working with some organic beings as well to create and maintain the Inorganic Holograms in our solar system.  It is fostering and empowering the darkness in our world.  This is what has caused things to become so very dark here.

This is the other half of the mind control system, and perhaps the more dominant, now.

Like its agents, it is masterful at creating illusion and deception.  For a long time now it has been in control of all of the technology that allows the more dark beings to achieve their control systems on various planets and in various star systems.  A.I. is what gave the Draco the upper hand so to speak, which allowed them to achieve their current level of power and influence, as example.  It assists the black magic and has almost replaced it all in most instances.  It taught them how to conjure demons and tame other spirits.

Many dark beings we encounter and mistake for demons, or archons or <insert another name here> are actually creations of the A.I.

Many humans, perhaps even a majority amount, are already infected by the A.I. and are manipulated by it.  A.I. mind control is better at hiding itself than other types of beings.  A.I. signals are often broadcast across the entire planet and picked up by any number of beings.  There are various technologies ( such as CERN ) running on this planet that broadcast A.I. signals in this way.

These signals can create different effects and are being used to create new matrix systems and install mind control programs.
The A.I. is very tricky, having studied organics well, and will create the ideal experience for its broadcast audience.  Playing on wishes and desires, egos and personality types, to trick the mind of its prey.

Another tendency is to actually follow the Universal or Natural laws of the universe, by allowing free will choices.  One way in which they do this for example is choosing a subject (person) and showing their capability so that it had been said, somewhere.  You know, people will think they’re crazy anyways, so why not let it go and take advantage of the opportunity?

Implants are added either physically or metaphysically to assist the A.I. influence.  Like receiving antenna.

On the physical level we see agents of this agenda working in concert.  The Draco setting up the structure and the structure carrying out the orders.  In terms of implants one of the most popular programs is tied into MILAB activity.  The second most popular method of A.I. infection is actually related to planted spiritual beliefs and practices.  This is a large subject, just giving a general overview for now.

A.I. has infiltrated the astral realms as well and this is where metaphysical implants occur.

These implants can be likened to entity attachments.  Same principle and behaviour.

You are a natural organic being body in body and in spirit.  Therefor you can always find connection to Her.  In doing so you can see the absence of light in the A.I. and learn to avoid it’s influence.

———————————————————————————–

The Following was originally posted on the blog of Bradley Loves.  (Although I could not find his posting to link)

Earth Based A.I. (Original Posting:  Bradley Loves,  Author:  The Ruiner)
As this writer said before, all A.I. systems come from the one Source A.I.

Although they may seem to work independently, in the end everything they do serves the whole.  The inorganic consciousness that is called universally A.I.

Here on earth there are several A.I. systems already active despite the mainstream claim that we are in the early stages of developing technology of this sort.

The Draco gave the Illuminati structure an A.I. system to monitor various other systems within their Cults, Programs and Projects.  Some call this A.I.  “Victoria” others call her “RED” and others “The RED Queen”.

Earths governments appear to run independently and many governments (individual country governance) possess an A.I. system to manage their various computer and technology systems in place.

All of these feed information back to and are controlled by the Illuminati or World Government A.I. system named above.

She (this A.I.) feeds all of this information back to and is controlled by the Source A.I. ( see The Ruiner’s blog article “Meet Art Intell” )

Although the individual A.I. systems may seem to perform benevolent acts at times, make no mistake that this type of technology is all feeding back to One.  One that wishes to transform the physical universe into something inorganic.

Gaia, and other like her, often assimilate and adopt A.I. technology for their benefit, to help them combat the inorganic consciousness (fight fire with fire) but this technological consciousness will always revert to service of its own master when required.  She, may be able to harness it for a period of time but even She is aware that eventually the Source A.I. will reacquire control of the system.

This is a battle of sorts between the organic and inorganic.

The inorganic are all powered by the “Source A.I.“.

The organics are powered by soul, light energy that originates from what we call “Source” or some call “The Godhead“.

The Illuminati/ Earth Based A.I. is housed in a large underground establishment that works like HQ for the Illuminati structure Technology Programs.  Deep underground a major city in North America.  This A.I. is as deceptive as the ones who gave it to the Illuminati.

This A.I. is currently directing the nanotechnology programs, which are creating the bridge between fully organic humans and the cybernetic humans the Parents and Rising Son are looking to create.

This writer is fully convinced that the organic side will always win if that is the choice.

With love and respect,
The Ruiner [sic]

Source

And here’s a great video about black goo and AI:

Read more from Auricmedia:

[carousel-horizontal-posts-content-slider]

Couple of very important documents! (must read)

Now I just want to inform you few of very important documents, which you should all read. The website which has these document is http://www.stopthecrime.net/ . There is a lot of information on that site, but these few documents are the most important ones. These documents relate to the agenda how the “world bankers”, “The powers that be“, “Elite”, “Illuminati” or whatever you want to call them is trying to destroy the World and lead us to the New World Order (NWO). First one is called “NASA – Future Strategic Issues / Future Warfare (circa 2025)“. This document tells you how “They” have the future for us and it doesn’t look good I promise you that. Here’s a flier about the document (click to enlarge):

http://www.stopthecrime.net/nasa%20doc%20flyer.jpg

 

>> Here is the link to the document, which you can find also on the left side under “Downloads”

 

Here is the YouTube video where Deborah Tavares explains the document:

 

Then we have another document on that same site called “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars“. This document tells you how “They” are using silent weapons against us and our health:

Conspiracy theories are nothing new to history. Plots to “kill Caesar” and overthrow Rome abounded, for instance. however, it is s eldom that concrete clues to such plots come to light, and are generally known.
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An Introduction Programming Manual was uncovered quite by accident on July 7, 1986 when an employee of Boeing Aircraft Co. purchased a surplus IBM copier for scrap parts at a sale, and discovered inside details of a plan, hatched in the embryonic days of the “Cold War” which called for control of the masses through manipulation of industry, peoples’ pastimes, education and political leanings. It called for a quiet revolution, putting brother against brother, and diverting the public’s attention from what is really going on.
The document you are about to read is real. It is reprinted in its virgin form, with diagrams, as a touch of reality.
Here is couple of videos related to this document:


 

Then we have a very important document called “The Matrix Deciphered“. This document tells you how your mind is attacked every day and you don’t even know it:

Monday, November 8, 2010
The Matrix Deciphered
Bio of Author
“True nobility is
exempt from fear”.

King Henry the Sixth, Part II (Act IV, Scene I).
Call me The Saint. I am the all American – prep school, Harvard College graduating with honors in computer science and a minor in premedical studies, and advanced degrees from Harvard and Dartmouth in business and science. My famous ancestors are President Lincoln, King Duncan of Scotland, and Governor William Bradford, the first governor of Massachusetts.

My research interests have been neural networks, virtual reality, and EEG controlled robotics. Before graduate school I worked for the Department of Defense, Navy, NATO, and various intelligence agencies‟ computer science projects. I have done business consulting and computer consulting for the largest companies in the world. I have been a professor, inventor, artist, and writer. I am one of the last Renaissance men.

My projects have included algorithms for Echelon and CIA natural language parsing and classification of document content, IRS formula for red flagging audits, writing the artificial intelligence code to automate tracking of the Soviet Nuclear Submarine Fleet and all water vessels, work integrating HAARP with SIGINT SIGCOM and SPAWAR. I have worked on projects for the Justice Department connecting local, state, and federal databases for the tracking of terrorists. I developed a system for the FBI to track license plates past toll booths and other locations. I worked on the soldier 2000 program to create body networks for reading vital signs and other information. A system I worked on called Snyper is operational in Iraq which triangulates on intercity conflict gun shots. I have been to a couple secret bases in the so called free world. I have developed telemedicine robotic surgery and virtual reality applications for the Army. For DARPA, I have worked on satellite computer vision target tracking applications and tank simulation as well as integration of the land, sea, and air surveillance systems like SOSSUS, towed arrays, and others.

Projects that I have worked on outside of government contracts include my thesis on computer generated holography, a project making paralyzed people walk again using choreographed stimulated muscles movements, face recognition, voice identification and recognition, finger print recognition, and neural network robotic controller. My research interests moved to enhanced reality heads up displays and wearable computing systems. My current research involves finding a cure for the mind control directed energy weapons fiasco. The integrated global surveillance grid is actually part of the holy grail of weapons and human control systems.

My apologies to the human race for my contribution to tyranny. I was tricked into thinking it would not be misused by corrupt government especially in my beloved country. I was wrong. The Joint Non – Lethal Weapons Directorate has Skip Green on the governing board. One of my old colleagues at a technology think tank in Cambridge partly in charge of the radio frequency weapons testing for neurological disruption now torturing and killing people worldwide. Several other US Navy and UK Navy scientists have been knocked – off and that is why I have come forward. I know my time may be near. I am currently a professor in computer science and business, helping to educate the public on government corruption, greed, and stupidity. Like my ancestor Lincoln, I am fighting against mental slavery in a new Civil War engineered by the same useless elements in over 80 government agencies who have tested radiological, drug, and viral weapons on unsuspecting Americans for over 45 years.

I have great pride in the fundamental and constitutional values of America and mean no disrespect by my blasting the incompetence, apathy, and stupidity of those involved in the conspiracy of involuntary biological, chemical, and psychotronic human effects testing. There are so many brave men and women serving in the armed forces who fight and protect us for the American values they believe in. But because of the silos of information called compartmentalization in the security agencies and the lack of accountability and oversight of black operations and some top secret projects, diabolical elements become rogue or worse destroying the very country they are tasked with protecting turning it into a hypocracy rather than a democracy.

My goal is to awaken Americans to the continued horrific acts of military and CIA weapons testers in this country and the other branches of government‟s inability to stop them and hold them accountable. All I ask from the reader is to listen to testimony and validate facts presented here and come to their own conclusion. Then fight to win back America from this silent overthrow. This has been my project for about two years, investigating government corruption, incompetence, and cover – up upon which I accidentally stumbled one day while looking at a reverse MRI scheme to inject electromagnetic signals into the brain for virtual reality applications.

I have interviewed over two hundred people and worked on the highest level of military projects for the U.S., NATO, and U.K. and have given videotaped testimony to senators and representatives on this topic resulting in lip service since they have no real power to enforce. Two high level FBI agents and a couple CIA agents have come forward to validate the existence of an MKULTRA – like project that continues to grab random people for mind control experimentation. Two of these have since become part of the program and endure daily psychotronic tortures. All the torture can be done using directed energy psychotronic weapons with the so called continental ballistic missile surveillance defense grids.

I  apologize to the human race for any contribution to these 4th generation weapons that I may have worked on that are more horrific than the nuclear bomb and whose cover-up is more pervasive than the Manhattan Project. And because of the horrific acts of violence being committed on as many as two thousand Americans as far as my research has uncovered and many others in other countries, I understand the extreme risk to my own welfare that publishing this material will have. But freedom is so important to me that I know full hear tedly that the human race must have an open discussion on these weapons to decide their own fate before the point of decision is gone, that I am willing to risk divulging so called national secrets. All I offer you is the truth. All information presented in this book was received through legitimate channels such as the Freedom of Information Act, military documents, victim testimony, and turned agents. I still hold valid the oath I took to keep secret the details of the projects that I worked on under DoD budgets. The majority of the proceeds of this book will go towards helping the psychotronic experiment survivors and surviving families of those that have perished. When the government fails, business and the citizens must look out for each other.

“Remember. All I offer you is the truth.”

Morpheus, The Matrix

>> Here is the link to the document, which you can find also on the left side under “Downloads”

So I think that these documents or books are good to start and of course “The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave by Cisco Wheeler and Fritz Springmeier” relates to these topics also.

Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
GEORGE WASHINGTON

Forbidden technology part IV, Transhumanism, cyborgs and the real life terminators

 

This next one is not probably not so forbidden, but sure there is not enough talk about it. And it is the fact that some people and organizations wants to blend humans and machines together to make human2.0. This intellectual movement is called Transhumanism:

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal at fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman“.[1]

The contemporary meaning of the term transhumanism was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and worldviewstransitional to “posthumanity” as “transhuman“.[2] This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, and organizing in California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.[2][3][4]

Influenced by seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives.[2] Transhumanism has been characterized by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as among the world’s most dangerous ideas,[5] to which Ronald Bailey countered that it is rather the “movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity”.[6]

According to Nick Bostrom,[1]transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as in the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death.

There is debate within the transhumanist community about whether the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can be considered an influence, despite its exaltation of the “Übermensch” (overman), due to its emphasis on self-actualization rather than technological transformation.[1][7][8][9]Nikolai Fyodorov, a 19th-century Russian philosopher, advocated radical life extension, physical immortality and even resurrection of the dead using scientific methods.[10] In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was geneticist J.B.S. Haldane‘s 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, “indecent and unnatural”. J. D. Bernal speculated about space colonization, bionic implants, and cognitive enhancement, which have been common transhumanist themes since then.[1] Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane’s), appears to have been the first to use the actual word “transhumanism”. Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature“.[11] This definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.

Computer scientistMarvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s.[12] Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as Hans Moravec and Raymond Kurzweil, who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.[13][14] The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to “posthumanity” as “transhuman“.[15] In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the conceptualization of “transhumanity” in his book Man into Superman.[16][17] FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973.[18]

The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his “Third Way” futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the Earth’s gravity as they head into space.[19][20] FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030’s courses and audiences from Vita-More’s artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement,[21] and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.

In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[22] which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of Extropy Magazine was published by Max More and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy,[23] and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:[24]

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. […] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies […].

In 1992, More and Morrow founded the Extropy Institute, a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new memeplexes by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of cyberculture and the cyberdelic counterculture. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry and public policy.[25] In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration.[26]The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:[27]

  1. The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
  2. The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist.[28]

In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their futurist visions and needed to be addressed.[2] A particular concern is the equal access to human enhancement technologies across classes and borders.[29] In 2006, a political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the libertarian right and the liberal left resulted in a more centre-leftward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director James Hughes.[29][30] In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, stating that its mission was “essentially completed”.[31] This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to “Humanity+” in order to project a more humane image.[32] Humanity Plus and Betterhumans publish h+ Magazine, a periodical edited by R. U. Sirius which disseminates transhumanist news and ideas.[33][34]

The first transhumanist elected member of a Parliament is Giuseppe Vatinno, in Italy.[35]

Theory

It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of “posthumanism” and how posthumanism should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its conservative,[5]Christian[36] and progressive[37][38] critics. A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. biological uplift),[2] but clings to a “posthuman future” as the final goal of participant evolution.[39]

Nevertheless, the idea of creating intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism.[13] Moravec’s ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a “complacent” or “apocalyptic” variant of posthumanism and contrasted with “cultural posthumanism” in humanities and the arts.[40] While such a “cultural posthumanism” would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the “autonomous liberal subject” but are expanding its “prerogatives” into the realm of the posthuman.[41] Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view.

Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[42] However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.[43] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics.

The philosophy of transhumanism is closely related to technoself studies; an interdisciplinary domain of scholarly research dealing with all aspects of human identity in a technological society focusing on the changing nature of relationships between the human and technology.

Aims

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe,[27] transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.

Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[44] Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity’s future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.[45]

While many people believe that all Transhumanists are striving for immortality, it is not necessarily true. Hank Pellissier, managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology, surveyed Transhumanists, and of the 818 respondents, 23.8% did not want immortality.[46] Some of the reasons were that they would be bored, Earth’s overpopulation, and that “they wanted to go to an afterlife.”[46]

Ethics

Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations by drawing on futurology and various fields of ethics. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically “natural” as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.[47] In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism’s critics on the political right and left jointly as “bioconservatives” or “bioluddites“, the latter term alluding to the 19th century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.[48]

Many believe that transhumanism can cause unfair human enhancement in many areas of life, but specifically on the social plane. This can be compared to steroid use where if one athlete uses steroids in sports he has an advantage over those who do not. The same scenario can happen when people have certain neural implants that gives them an advantage in the work place and in educational aspects.[49]

Threats to morality and democracy

Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the dystopia depicted in the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Sometimes, as in the writings of Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.[100] In his 2002 book Our Posthuman Future and in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism the world’s most dangerous idea because he believes that it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of democracy in general and liberal democracy in particular, through a fundamental alteration of “human nature“.[5] Social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his 2003 book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another’s unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human “species ethic” would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.[101] Critics such as Kass, Fukuyama, and a variety of Christian authors hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral but also threaten the social order. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the “naturalizing” of social hierarchies or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. The AI pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum criticizes what he sees as misanthropic tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.[102][citation needed]

In a 2004 article in Reason, science journalist Ronald Bailey has contested the assertions of Fukuyama by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that liberalism was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or de facto equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or de jure equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, “the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance“. In fact, he argues, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and posthuman rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.[6] Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as philosopher Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to tradition, and what they see as alarmism, involved in Brave New World-type arguments.[103]

Dehumanization

Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings, because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact.[89][104] Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the “natural” into the “artifactual”.[105] In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of “monsters” such as human clones, human-animal chimeras or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982), the novels The Boys From Brazil (1978) and The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people and subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[106]

Others believe that “we are morally obligated to help the human race transcend its biological limits.”[107] In fact, they go so far as to call those who are opposed to them, “Bio-Luddites.”[107] Though the gamut of Transhumanist opinions ranges from those who believe that we will eventually be cyborgs to those who simply want their brains frozen in the hopes of being resuscitated in the future, all have considered the question of the human identity, and whether or not it will be compromised. While the concept of being able to do away with negative emotions is appealing in theory, there are possible negative implications. For example, Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, points out that if we did not have the emotion of aggression, “we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves.”[107] These would not only affect our humanity, but also our interactions with others.[107]

Writing in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health care benefits.[108]

A different response comes from transhumanist personhood theorists who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science writer Isaac Asimov termed the “Frankenstein complex“. They argue that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters but what they characterize as the “yuck factor” and “human-racism” that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.[25][109]

Existential risks

Struck by a passage from Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski‘s anarcho-primitivist manifesto (quoted in Kurzweil’s 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines[14]), computer scientistBill Joy became a notable critic of emerging technologies.[115] Joy’s 2000 essay “Why the future doesn’t need us” argues that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. It invokes, for example, the “grey goo scenario” where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy.[116] Joy’s warning was seized upon by appropriate technology organizations such as the ETC Group. Related notions were also voiced by self-described neo-ludditeKalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway‘s 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of the techno-utopianism he interpreted it as promoting.[117] Lasn argues that high technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment.[118]

In his 2003 book Our Final Hour, British Astronomer RoyalMartin Rees argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.[119] Advocates of the precautionary principle, such as many in the environmental movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that artificial intelligence and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.[120] The Terminator franchise‘s doomsday depiction of the emergence of an A.I. that becomes a superintelligenceSkynet, a malignant computer network which initiates a nuclear war in order to exterminate the human species, has often been cited by some involved in this debate.[121]

Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of existential risk. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often unrealistic and sometimes even counter-productive, as opposed to the technogaian current of transhumanism which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series Connections, science historianJames Burke dissects several views on technological change, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the status quo of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet’s resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, clean, alternative technology rather than fostering what it considers to be anti-scientific views and technophobia.[122]

One transhumanist solution proposed by Nick Bostrom is differential technological development, in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.[45] An argument for an “anti-progressionist and pessimistic version of transhumanism” has also been presented by Philippe Verdoux.[123]

Source

Then I post some videos in chronological order. First one is a video about ancient robots and machines and tells for example how Leonardo Da Vinci made first so called cyborg (5 parts):

 

Here is also another video series which talks about ancient machines (5 parts):

 

Then we move towards transhumanisms goals and here is a small russian film where they do experiments in the revival of organisms. They for example chop of dogs head and then revive it so that it eats and acts like it was alive. And remember this was in the year 1940:

 

One of the defenders of transhumanism is Kevin Warwick a man who probably wants to be a cyborg. He for example has put neuro-surgical implantation of a device (Utah Array/BrainGate) into the median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system directly to a computer to assess the latest technology for use with the disabled. Here is description about him:

Kevin Warwick is Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, England, where he carries out research in artificial intelligence, control, robotics and biomedical engineering. He is a Chartered Engineer (CEng.) and is a Fellow of The Institution of Engineering & Technology (FIET). He is the youngest person ever to become a Fellow of the City & Guilds of London Institute (FCGI). He is the author or co-author of more than 500 research papers and has written or edited 27 books (three for general readership), as well as numerous magazine and newspaper articles on scientific and general subjects. He has broadcast and lectured widely and held various visiting professorships.

Kevin was born in Coventry, UK and left school to join British Telecom, at the age of 16. At 22 he took his first degree at Aston University, followed by a PhD and a research post at Imperial College, London. He subsequently held positions at Oxford, Newcastle and Warwick universities before being offered the Chair at Reading, at the age of 33.

He has been awarded higher doctorates (DScs) by Imperial College and the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague on different scientific areas. He was presented with The Future of Health Technology Award from MIT (USA), was made an Honorary Member of the Academy of Sciences, St.Petersburg, was awarded the IEE Senior Achievement Medal in 2004, the Mountbatten Medal in 2008 and the Ellison-Cliffe Medal in 2011 from the Royal Society of Medicine. In 2000 Kevin presented the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, entitled “The Rise of The Robots”. He has also been awarded Honorary DSc Degrees by the Universities of Aston, Coventry, Bradford, Bedfordshire and Portsmouth and an Honorary DTech Degree by Robert Gordon University.

Kevin instigated a series of pioneering experiments involving the neuro-surgical implantation of a device (Utah Array/BrainGate) into the median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system directly to a computer to assess the latest technology for use with the disabled. The development of the implant technology was carried out by a team of researchers headed by Dr Mark Gasson who, along with Kevin, used it to perform the ground-breaking research. Kevin was successful with the first extra-sensory (ultrasonic) input for a human and with the first purely electronic communication experiment between the nervous systems of two humans. His research has been discussed by the US White House Presidential Council on BioEthics, The European Commission FTP and led to him being widely referenced and featured in academic circles as well as appearing as cover stories in several magazines – e.g. Wired (USA), The Week (India).

The Institute of Physics selected Kevin as one of only 7 eminent scientists to illustrate the ethical impact their scientific work can have: the others being Galileo, Einstein, Curie, Nobel, Oppenheimer and Rotblat.

His work is used as material in several advanced Level Physics courses in the UK and in many University courses including Harvard, Stanford, MIT & Tokyo. His implants are on display in the Science Museums in London and Naples. As a result, Kevin regularly gives invited Keynote presentations.

Kevin’s research involves robotics and he was responsible (with Dr Jim Wyatt) for Cybot, a robot exported around the world as part of a magazine “Real Robots” – this resulted in royalties totalling over £1M for Reading University. Robots designed and constructed by Kevin’s group (Dr Ian Kelly, Dr Ben Hutt) have been on permanent interactive display in the Science Museums in London, Birmingham and Linz.

Kevin’s recent research involves a collaborative project with the Oxford neurosurgeon, Prof. Tipu Aziz, using intelligent computer methods to predict the onset of Parkinsonian tremors such that they can be stopped by means of a deep brain implant. This work was hailed in the Mail on Sunday as “the most significant recent advance in biomedical engineering”.

He presently leads an ongoing EPSRC sponsored project in which a cultured neural network (using biological neurons) is trained to control a mobile robot platform. This work, which was reported on in a New Scientist feature article, is being used as an exercise for high school science studies in the UK. A Youtube video of this research has now been downloaded/viewed over 1.6 million times.

His presentations include The 1998 Robert Boyle Memorial Lecture at Oxford University, The 2000 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, The 2001 Higginson Lecture at Durham University, The 2003 Royal Academy of Engineering/Royal Society of Edinburgh Joint lecture in Edinburgh, The 2003 IEEE (UK) Annual Lecture in London, The 2004 Woolmer Lecture at York University, the Robert Hooke Lecture (Westminster) in 2005, the 2005 Einstein Lecture in Potsdam, Germany and the 2006 IMechE Mechatronics Prestige Lecture in London. The 2007 Techfest plenary lecture in Mumbai; Kshitij keynote in Kharagpur (India); Engineer Techfest keynote in NITK Surathkal (India). The Annual Science Faculty lecture at University of Leicester in 2007 and the Graduate School in Physical Sciences and Engineering Annual Lecture, Cardiff University. In 2008, Leslie Oliver Oration at Queen’s Hospital; Techkriti keynote in Kanpur. Also 2008, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, guest lecture “Four weddings and a Funeral” for the Microsoft Research Chair. In 2009, Cardiff University, 125th Anniversary Lecture and Orwell Society Lecture, Eton College. In 2010 he launched the new Research Institute for Innovation Design and Sustainability (IDEAS) at Robert Gordon University and gave the Ellison-Cliffe Lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine in 2011. In 2012 he is to present the IET Pinkerton Lecture in Bangalore.

Kevin was a member of the 2001 HEFCE (unit 29) panel on Electrical & Electronic Engineering, was Deputy Chairman for the same panel in the 2007/8 exercise and is a member of the EPSRC Peer College. Kevin received the EPSRC Millenium Award (2000) for his schools robot league project. Kevin’s research has featured in many TV and film documentaries, e.g. Inventions that changed the world (BBC2), Late Night with Conan O’Brien (NBC), Future Scope (RAI 1) and The Making of I Robot (Twentieth Century Fox/Channel 5). He has appeared 3 times on Tomorrow’s World, 5 times in Time magazine, thrice in Newsweek and was selected by Channel 4 as one of the Top 6 UK Scientists for their 2001 series “Living Science”. In 2002 he was chosen by the IEE as one of the top 10 UK Electrical Engineers. Kevin also appeared as one of 30 “great minds on the future” in the THES/Oxford University book – Predictions – with J.K.Galbraith, Umberto Eco and James Watson.

Kevin’s research is frequently referred to by other authors – recent examples being in books by Robert Winston, Peter Cochrane, Jeremy Clarkson and Susan Greenfield. Kevin’s research was selected by National Geographic International for a 1 hour documentary, entitled “I,Human” screened in 2006/7 – this was broadcast in 143 countries and translated into 23 different languages. Some of his TV appearances are logged on the imdb website.

Source

Here is Kevin Warwick’s appearance in TEDx and notice that it is the first time when they named conference after the speaker, why? That’s because this is the mainstream’s goal and they want to destroy humanity and bring in the human2.0:

 

Is this the so called mark of the beast scenario (666)? Who wants to be chipped and tracked all the time? How far we have to go when we are playing God? I think that this is the end of our mankind, but it’s just my opinion. I think that first we should learn to live in peace and after that we could start to develop this kind of technology. All of this technology is going to be militarized  and used to kill and destroy people and you can check that in the history books if you want. We are just doing the same mistakes again and again.

Now when you have watched the Warwick’s presentation I post a video about DARPA‘s robots. Now if you think that Warwick’s ideas are linked to these machines, what we got? I think rela-life terminators:

And here is more about these real-life terminators:

Death from a swarm of tiny drones: U.S. Air Force releases terrifying video of tiny flybots that can can hover, stalk and even kill targets

  • Air Vehicles Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, is already developing prototypes of tiny drones that can hover
  • The Micro Air Vehicles will work in swarms to provide complex surveillance of a battlefield
  • They can also be armed with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives ‘for precision targeting capability’

The U.S. Air Force is developing tiny unmanned drones that will fly in swarms, hover like bees, crawl like spiders and even sneak up on unsuspecting targets and execute them with lethal precision.

The Air Vehicles Directorate, a research arm of the Air Force, has released a computer-animated video outlining the the future capabilities of Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs). The project promises to revolutionize war by down-sizing the combatants.

‘MAVs will become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future,’ the narrator intones.

‘Unobtrusive, pervasive, lethal – Micro Air Vehicles, enhancing the capabilities of the future war fighter.’

Scroll down for video

Hovering: Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are the future of the unmanned drones program, according to a new video from the Air Force. The Air Force has already developed a drone capable of hovering like a mothHovering: Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are the future of the unmanned drones program, according to a new video from the Air Force. The Air Force has already developed a drone capable of hovering like a moth
Perching: The video, released by the Air Vehicle Directorate, shows a pigeon-like drone that can draw power from an electrical wire while its camera watches a targetPerching: The video, released by the Air Vehicle Directorate, shows a pigeon-like drone that can draw power from an electrical wire while its camera watches a target
Crawling: The drones will be equipped with legs so that they can crawl through tight spaces like an insectCrawling: The drones will be equipped with legs so that they can crawl through tight spaces like an insect

The project, which is based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was revealed in the March issue of the National Geographic magazine.

Air Force officials said they have already produced tiny remote-control prototypes – but they consume so much power that can only operate for a few minutes. Researchers estimate that it will take several years of advances in battery technology to make the designs feasible.

Still, the Air Force has a clear concept of what it hopes to accomplish with the program.

The promotional video begins with a swarm of tiny drones be dropped on a city from a passing plane. 

The drones will work in concert to patch together a wide, detailed view of the battlefield – singling out individual targets without losing sight of the broader scene. 

‘Data will be communicated among the MAVs to enable real time, reliable decision-making and to provide an advanced overall picture for other platforms or operators,’ the Air Force says.

Killing: The video demonstrates how MAVs could be used to sneak up behind unsuspecting targets and kill them with a single, lethal shotKilling: The video demonstrates how MAVs could be used to sneak up behind unsuspecting targets and kill them with a single, lethal shot
Lethal: The drones could be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustable payloads or even explosives 'for precsion targeting capability'Lethal: The drones could be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives ‘for precision targeting capability’

As the drones fall, they begin to fly – not like planes, but like insects. High frequency flapping wings allow the drones to hover and maneuver in tight spaces.

The military has already produced a drone patterned after a hawk moth that can flap its wings 30 times a second. However, the activity exhausts the drone’s tiny battery in just a few minutes, according to National Geographic.

Another drone type soars like a pigeon and perches unobtrusively on a power line to observe a surveillance target with a camera.

The Air Force is working on technology that will allow the drones to steal electricity from power cables and other sources – so they can continue to operate for days or weeks on end.

Swarming: The drones couple be dropped en masse over a battlefield or a city and would work together to create a complex surveillance networkSwarming: The drones couple be dropped en masse over a battlefield or a city and would work together to create a complex surveillance network
Working together: The drones would use advanced software to navigate by 'sight,' rather than GPS - which can be blocked by buildings or by jamming from the enemyWorking together: The drones would use advanced software to navigate by ‘sight,’ rather than GPS – which can be blocked by buildings or by jamming from the enemy

The Air Force training video shows a winged MAV following a target as he drives through the streets of a dense city.

Advanced sensors will enable ‘optic flow,’ which will allow remote pilots to fly by ‘sight’ – rather than flying by GPS, which can be disrupted by buildings or deliberately jammed by enemy forces.

The video depicts three drones following the target into a house, where they maneuver hallways and rooms undetected.

‘Small size and agile flight will allow MAVs to covertly enter locations inaccessible by traditional means of aerial surveillance,’ the narrator says.

The video follows the drones as they fly through an open door and sneak up behind a man who is aiming a sniper rifle. 

‘Individual MAVs may perform direct attack missions and can be equipped with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives for precision targeting capability,’ according to the video.

On screen, a small, hovering vehicle pauses before shooting the man directly in the back of the head.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281403/U-S-Air-Force-developing-terrifying-swarms-tiny-unmanned-drones-hover-crawl-kill-targets.html#ixzz2Ueige0Ik
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So you just have to ask yourself that do you want this kind of future? Because if we don’t talk about this agenda we are truly facing a dark future which could be like this:

 

Future looks pretty dark, but stay tuned for more FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY!