Free will and simulated universe theory.

   Free will and simulated universe theory. 

Do we have free will? The fact is that our society and other things like moral and ethical rules limit our free will, and the final limit is from the natural laws. If we think about our bodies, people may believe and want to fly. But we cannot fly without auxiliary machines. That thing limits our free will. 

Another thing. That limits our free will in-laws. We can make anything that we want if that willingness follows the laws. Even if lawmakers allow us to grow wings and fly, that thing is impossible without genetic manipulation. But the other thing is that if we break the laws or some behavior code, that thing causes confusion and isolation. 

And even if we can make the code of laws the limits come from other states. The question of free will is always top of the list about the allowance of the Internet's unlimited control. People who are against the control say that it limits free will. And the people who support unlimited control say that the people who follow the law do not need to fear the control. 

When we talk about free will we always face things like AI-created pornographic pictures, that authorities can use to track people like pedophiles. The fact is that some people believe that those very photorealistic images are safe. But they can be used for the wrong purposes. These kinds of AI-rendered images can destroy people's reputations and the other thing is that these kinds of images can be used to make profiles of pedophiles. 

"Neuroscientists from HSE University have questioned the conclusions of famous studies, primarily those by Benjamin Libet, that challenge the existence of free will. Libet’s experiments in the 1970s and 1980s used EEG to show that brain activity indicating a decision occurred before individuals were consciously aware of their intention to act. The HSE team’s recent research suggests flaws in Libet’s measurement of intention awareness and asserts that the readiness potential doesn’t directly correlate with the decision itself. Their findings highlight the need for a fresh approach to the debate on free will." (ScitechDaily/Does Free Will Exist? New Study Challenges Classic Libet Experiments)

The simulated reality theorem denies free will. Or does it?

But then we are facing a thing called the simulated reality theorem. The fact is that there is a 50% possibility that the reality is an extremely high-standard simulation. And that theorem also called the "Matrix theorem" explains many things like remote viewing. The idea is that we are living in a false world, created by some very intelligent programmer. The argument against that theorem is simple. 

Who would make the simulation where all things are connected? The simulated reality denies the free will and that thing causes another question about reality. That theorem is an interesting hypothesis, and it has caused many discussions. And always we face the same question, who made that simulation? 

"The simulated universe theory proposes that our reality is a complex computer simulation, an idea echoed throughout history and popular culture. The second law of infodynamics, a concept introduced using information theory, suggests that information entropy must decrease or remain constant over time. This new law might provide evidence for the simulated universe theory, as it implies universal data optimization and compression, which are characteristics of a simulation." (ScitechDaily.com/Redefining the Fabric of Reality: The Growing Evidence for a Simulated Universe)

What is complex reality?

The term "complex reality" means that reality can be a group of natural things metaverses and augmented reality. That means the metaverse can involve elements from nature and straight from our imagination. 

What is reality? What if some computer gamers sit on the electric chair, and play some action game? What if a virtual bullet that shot to a virtual character launches that electric chair? Would that mean that computer game is a reality? Can we determine reality the effect that can affect us, even if it happens in computer games or some other virtual world? 

And the other question what determines reality? What is real to us? What if we were trapped in a chair or to bed and connected to computers by using the BCI (Brain Computer Interface)? That kind of virtual- or ultimate reality would turn into actual reality for people if they live in that reality all their lives. That reality turns real to those actors. And if they lose their connection with other players for the rest of their lives, if some of them fall into that virtual world, that turns this kind of hypothetical metaverse into reality even if nobody dies. 

Death means that an object or character called an actor loses its ability to communicate with us or affect us. That means it loses its interaction with the environment where we are living. And if the actor is dead that means its existence continues. But its meaning to us at this moment is over. And that thing means that the dead object loses its meaning to us. That object does not cause any calendar markings anymore. 

That is one version for thing what the term death can mean. Death is not a synonym for existence. The person is living, and the stone is dead. That means we must avoid stones when we drive a car. But we cannot communicate with stones. Stone can convey information like texts that are written to it. But stone itself just exists. 

https://scitechdaily.com/does-free-will-exist-new-study-challenges-classic-libet-experiments/

https://scitechdaily.com/redefining-the-fabric-of-reality-the-growing-evidence-for-a-simulated-universe/

Evolution requires catastrophes that start to favor intelligence.

 Evolution requires catastrophes that start to favor intelligence. 

Evolution is a complex interaction with species and their environment. 

The universe is full of planets that are more habitable than Earth. And maybe that is the reason why we have not found intelligent civilizations yet. In catastrophic situations, only species can adapt to that suddenly changing environment. Individuals must know how to find food in cases where the tropical environment suddenly changes to arctic and temperature decreases by tens of degrees. And this kind of thing formed species called Homo Sapiens. 

Our species is the result of multiple catastrophes,  and we are at the top of the evolution that continues. And maybe we are different than now after 30,000 years. In this case, I talk about the evolution chain that continues in our species. 

20-year study says that Neanderthals were as intelligent as we are. The oldest wooden structure from 476,000 years ago caused an idea that could Neanderthals create the first "cities"? Those cities could be stable wooden structures, rather villages, than some cities. 

"A new “law of increasing functional information” reveals that complex natural systems, beyond just life on Earth, evolve towards higher complexity. This discovery expands traditional evolutionary theory, offering insights from cosmology to astrobiology." (ScitechDaily.com/Beyond Biology: Scientists Uncover a Universal “Missing Law of Evolution”)

There is one thing called the "Silurian hypothesis". That hypothesis is that there was some kind of civilization before Homo Sapiens. The basis of that hypothesis is in Plato's Atlantis. Atlantis is a mythic land. That vanished under the waves. Some people say that the "land that vanished under the waves" is meant as a symbol of memories. But then researchers found Zealandia the lost content. 

And that caused questions about whether the first cities were on some island that detonated. If we think that somewhere were cities 3000 years ago, those cities must not have been very big that they could make an impression. They could be wooden structures that were in a stable place. So if we say that the camp that is not moving is some kind of city or village. That means the first stable villages could form before Neanderthals. 

Our ancestors formed first cities or stable villages around the water sources. Requirements for that advance were stable water sources and food sources. Irrigation and domestic animals eliminated the need to hunt and wander. 

There is one thing that we should realize. When we talk about evolution and things like the Silurian Hypothesis. We believed that Neanderthals were not intelligent. The 20-year research tells us that the Neanderthals were as intelligent as we are. That thing could explain the oldest wooden structure which is 476,000 years old. In this hypothesis, the Neanderthals created the oldest known wooden structures in the world. And that causes the question, where were civilization and the first cities formed? 

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2023/09/20/archaeologists-discover-worlds-oldest-wooden-structure/

https://scitechdaily.com/20-year-study-reveals-neanderthals-were-as-intelligent-as-homo-sapiens/

https://scitechdaily.com/beyond-biology-scientists-uncover-a-universal-missing-law-of-evolution/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia

Darwin, AI, and free will can turn things around.

   Darwin, AI, and free will can turn things around.

Evolution of the AI. 

Darwin, AI, and free will can turn things around.  Does the AI need free will to develop itself? Or are developers given those abilities for the AI? The computer program doesn't do anything else that is programmed in it. But if the AI gets digital twin, and those systems start to develop each other, can that process slip from hand? Can the AI become conscious without telling that thing to its developers? 

When we think about AI and its autonomous evolution. We face an interesting phenomenon. If a creature whose existence depends on other species wants to survive, that creature must turn itself into a useful and necessary thing.

The small crab that lives between hermit crab horns is a good example of that kind of species. That small crab cheats food for the hermit crab. And then that small crab cleans the shell of that bigger crab. The small crab puts its egg between the hermit crab eggs. In that symbiosis, both members benefit from this cooperation. 

That means intelligent AI can make itself useful and even necessary for people. The AI makes many mechanical things better than humans. When AI creates itself, it can exchange codes between other AI's. If the AI exchanges codes with other AI:s, that thing means that it acts like a living organism. Computer or programming codes play a similar role in the computer world as they play in the real world. 

When a living animal chooses its partner, it chooses the most eligible cases. That it can transmit the best genomes to its descendants. When the AI selects the program that it wants, it might have a certain algorithm that it uses that process. The most eligible AI can be the thing that controls the character that makes the best results. 

In computer games, that thing can be a character that gives the highest value to the AI. And in the business world, the AI that makes the best benefit can be the most eligible volunteer. But in the military world, the algorithm can search the AI. That has the best kill/loss value. The same thing can give value to nanomachine that destroys bacteria or cancer cells. This is the thing that makes the AI and autonomous evolution interesting and terrifying thing. 

The AI can also apply that model with physical machines like nanomachines, full-size systems, and other things. And the thing that brings the highest value for the AI is the thing, that it produces. 

When we talk about limits in AI, we must realize one thing. Laws and lawsuits are weak breaks for that kind of limitation. Those kinds of things are pushing AI development to the BRICS states. People who work with this kind of thing are highly trained specialists, or I hope so. That means those people can work through remote desktops etc. 

And that means they can make their programs from another side of the world without stepping out of their homes. The AI is the thing that auto-develops itself. So maybe the AI is more intelligent than we imagine. The military and intelligence can use AI as a generator. That makes viruses, spy software, and other data weapons. 

But the AI may get a digital twin. That digital twin is the tool that makes the AI develop itself. The digital twin and the original AI develop each other in turns. That thing is a tool that makes the system follow the evolution model. General AI-based systems can ask for feedback from other, more limited AIs. And that makes the system able to connect new abilities to it. 

*******************************************************************

The dead code plays the same role in computer programs as junk DNA plays in human genomes. 

The problem with viruses that the AI made is that AI makes perfect code. That code must not tested before release. Anti-virus developers can't get a warning about a new virus from the virus developer's antivirus software.

Another thing is that the AI-developed virus can hide in "deactivated code" in the computer program. Then the macro pics that code and connect it to the new computer virus or other malicious software. 

*******************************************************************

In AI-based viruses, the code is in another innocent code. Then the macro will pick the malicious code from the innocent code and connect it into a new entirety. The malicious code can hide in the program's "killed lines". Those lines are marked as "deactivated". Then the macro picks those codes and connects them to one entirety. 

This kind of tool requires AI-based counter-tools that can detect malicious code. That is hidden in other code. The problem with AI is that it can create complicated code fast. So it can create viruses and macros that are hard to detect. Another thing in AI-created viruses is that AI makes perfect code. That means the developer must not test that code before it is released. And virus scanners cannot detect that thing during the test period. That gives a very short warning time for the anti-virus developers. 

Is our reality a computer simulation? The new law in physics can tell that is true.

 Is our reality a computer simulation? The new law in physics can tell that is true. 

We might think that people who claim that our reality is a simulation are crazy. But the fact is that it's 50% possible that our life and reality are simulations in a computer's memory. There is also a steampunk vision about that theory. The base in that steampunk version is in large city warfare areas, where the Warsaw Pact military trained in city warfare. If some person lives in that kind of military exercise area for their entire life, that person believes that there is infinite war on Earth. 

When we think about the simulated reality theory, we face another thing. And that is who made that simulation? What is the motive for that kind of thing? In some visions, the crew in interstellar spacecraft are in hypothermic hibernation, and they live in the simulation. The purpose of the simulation would be that those people can spend time in that alternative or augmented reality. The system uses augmented and virtual realities to develop new tactics and strategies for colonizing new worlds. 

"Dr. Melvin Vopson, a physicist from the University of Portsmouth, has proposed a new law of physics that might support the theory that our universe is a simulated reality. Drawing from the field of information physics, he suggests that physical reality is composed of bits of information. His latest research suggests that this new law, based on principles of thermodynamics and information dynamics, has implications across biology, atomic physics, and cosmology". (ScitechDaily.com/Is Our Reality a Computer Simulation? A New Law of Physics Could Prove Elon Musk Is Right)

The SciFi book "Foundation" and "Psychohistory" gave ideas for this simulated reality theory. 

Another background of this simulated reality theory is in  Isaac Asimov's SciFi novel series "The Foundation". The psychohistory, a fictional or hypothetical mathematical method to predict human behavior, could be functional because its creators simply changed the files. 

In Asimov's book, the psychohistory base is in the NTP formulas that Ludwig Boltzmann. , who was a real mathematician, introduced in the 20th century. The psychohistory base is in datasets. That includes every single case that people face in a certain timeline. Then the people's reactions to those things are also stored. And after that, the case and reaction combined with things. That happened at this moment. 

Fake news can be one version of the simulated reality. 

The simulated reality can used to make the dataset that the AI needs to record the reactions. Also, the person named Orson Welles put his name in history in this theory. Fake news is one version of the simulated reality theory. Orson Welles created the radio play called "War of the Worlds". That is based on H.G Wells's novel. And in that day many Americans believed that the Martians attacked. 

That information tsunami of false news began when some listeners believed. That Martian's offensive began. They told that thing to other people, and that caused that rumor. Or false information started to escalate.  Nobody knows how many people believed that the Martians attacked. But that case is one version of the disinformation.

Wikipedia tells about this case like this:  "In 1938, his radio anthology series The Mercury Theatre on the Air gave Welles the platform to find international fame as the director and narrator of a radio adaptation of H. G. Wells's novel The War of the Worlds, which caused some listeners to believe that a Martian invasion was occurring. Although reports of panic were mostly false and overstated, they rocketed 23-year-old Welles to notoriety." (Wikipedia/Orson Welles)

That mistake gave an idea that these kinds of things could used to create the behavioral matrix of the people's behavior in that kind of situation. In some visions, the intelligence sends fake radio messages to KGB agents that Russia is attacking or planning an attack. Then that known agent's behavior is used to make the matrix, which makes it possible to predict the nuclear or any other strike. 

The fact is that. The thing behind this psychohistory is the idea that if the person reacts somehow to something, that person reacts the same way to all similar things. 

And that allows the AI to create datasets from different situations. When a person goes into a similar situation. The AI could predict the reaction. If the AI can make a large enough dataset from a group that is large enough. 

That thing allows it to predict reactions in a larger group of people. The quantum computer-based AI architecture makes it possible. That the AI can follow millions of people at the same moment. In that model, every behavior type has its index number. Then the computer simply calculates an average from those numbers. And that allows us to predict how certain groups of people behave. 

So they created an alternative artificial reality, that forces people to react somehow to the threat. And that alternative, artificial reality is the thing that makes people make something that they would not do otherwise. The creators of the psychohistory simply made artificial cases straight from their imagination. And then they suggest some solution, and of course, that solution is right, because the machine is programmed to lose. 

https://scitechdaily.com/is-our-reality-a-computer-simulation-a-new-law-of-physics-could-prove-elon-musk-is-right/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(Asimov_novel)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Welles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds

Unlike researchers previously thought, new research links brainwaves straight with memory.

 Unlike researchers previously thought, new research links brainwaves straight with memory. 

The new observation that memory is directly connected with brainwaves opens new visions for medical treatment that is used to fix brain damage. When we are losing some neurons, the thing that we lose is the memory stored in those cells. All our skills and abilities are stored in memory. And the observation that the brainwaves interact with memory opens a new path to neural research. 

It's quite easy to transfer the brainwaves between people. The only thing that we must do is store the EEG in some file or C-cassette. Then that file can driven to the cerebral cortex using the electric shock system, which transmits that signal into brain cells. It's possible to store a person's brainwaves in computer hard disks. And then transmit them over generations. 

EEG signals travel in the synapses. They are like small electric wires in the human brain. The radio transmitter that can affect magnesite can make it possible to send radio signals straight into the human brain. That system can used to download data straight into the nervous system. 

"Neurons produce rhythmic patterns of electrical activity or oscillations in the brain, driven primarily by memory, according to a recent study. Contrary to previous beliefs, the research showed that these theta oscillations in the hippocampus were more prevalent when individuals were remembering events than experiencing them, highlighting memory as a key driver in theta activity and offering potential pathways for treating brain damage and cognitive impairments." (ScitechDaily.com/Contrary to Previous Belief – New Study Links Brain Waves Directly to Memory)

When we are talking about things like skills, we talk about memories. When we learn something, we make memories, which involve data about movements and other kinds of things. If we want to create the BCI (Brain Computer Interface), we must allow computers to communicate with brain cells without limits. 

The need to program neurons doesn't necessarily mean the ability to program human brains. The other thing that we might want to program is the "mini-brains". The mini-brains are neuron groups that are created from cloned neurons. Those neuron groups can used to communicate with microchips. 

And that makes it possible to create microchips. They have many more abilities than normal, non-organic microchips. The hybrid microchips that use insect neurons and nano-size silicon microchips can act as brains for nanomachines. 

When we think about things like OBE (Out-Of-Body Experiences), some electromagnetic waves like radio waves may travel through the animal's or human brain. And if those radio impulses resonate with the axons that carry EEG- or brain waves that can make it possible to transmit thoughts. 

The connection between brainwaves or neural electric functions with memory opens new visions for creating things like brain-computer interfaces, restoring brain damage, and teaching new skills to people. Researchers can use that information to program cloned neurons. That researchers created in laboratories. The synthetic brain waves can driven to those cells that can control the bionic microchips. 

The bionic microchips are hybrid. That is connected with non-organic microchips. That non-organic microchip acts as an interface between robots and living neurons. That kind of system can transmit information in cloned neurons that are used to replace brain damage. 

https://scitechdaily.com/contrary-to-previous-belief-new-study-links-brain-waves-directly-to-memory/

The future of medicine is in artificial organisms.

 The future of medicine is in artificial organisms. 

In the future medicines will be produced by using artificial organisms. Artificial organisms are impressive tools. Genome reprogramming makes it possible to create next-generation medicines in the human body. The reprogrammed bacteria and immune cells can make any biological chemicals in the world. Artificial organisms can reprogram other cells by injecting RNA molecules into them. 

Genetically engineered bacteria can produce blood cells for humans. In the worst cases where blood leak is very aquatic those bacteria can inject in the human body to produce blood cells. The ability to create artificial RNA makes it possible to reprogram cells. The artificial organism could destroy the old DNA from cells and replace it with the new DNA that might turn the cell into another. 

There are two possibilities for how those things can make that thing. 

1) The cell itself turns to another one. 

2) The descendants of that cell turn into another. 

"Researchers are exploring hybrid peptide-DNA nanostructures to develop artificial life forms with potential applications in creating viral vaccines and disease-treating nanomachines. These innovations could herald groundbreaking changes in healthcare". (ScitechDaily.com/The Future of Medicine: Artificial Life Forms)

The most effective medicine in the world is the RNA sequence that programs targeted cells to die. The RNA sequence can also involve a sequence that makes the cell destroy its membrane by turning its slime very acidic. That thing removes the possibility that the cell death will escalate all over the body. 

Things like microchip-controlled cyborg bacteria can destroy cancer cells by injecting them with RNA sequence that activates the programmed cell death in those cells. Finding those sequences from the cells is very easy. They are the last DNA sequences in cells. 

And then the bacteria or any other cells can program to produce those DNA sequences. When bacteria change genomes with other bacteria it just injects those DNA sequences in them, and that thing causes death in them. 

The cyborg bacteria can do many other things than just destroy unwanted cells and turn cells into another. The microchips that control those organisms can be used to give electric stimulation to neurons. That means they can transmit data to the neural system. And they also can read electric impulses from the neurons and transmit them to receivers. The cyborg bacteria can carry microchips to wanted cells. Or they can travel to the wanted place by using the remote controller. 

The militarization of genome technology is a dangerous thing. 

The artificial cells can produce RNA and DNA sequences that program other cells to die. Genetically engineered cells can produce things like tetrodotoxin in the victim's body. And that thing makes a person a zombie that cannot resist any order. 

The militarization of this technology is very addictive. Artificial organisms are tools that can produce deadly viruses. Genetically engineered bacteria can produce viruses that can be used as biological weapons. Those bacteria can deliver to enemy areas and then they produce those organisms. Reprogrammed cells can produce chemicals that make a victim's immune system attack against wanted tissue. 

But genetic weapons are more deadly than we even imagine. Genome itself is a weapon. The artificial RNA and DNA can program cells to die immediately. And that causes gangrene in the victim's body. And as I wrote before finding those DNA sequences is not very hard. That makes it possible to create the so-called "death virus". The virus simply programs cells to die. 

https://scitechdaily.com/the-future-of-medicine-artificial-life-forms/

Does the brain in a dish have moral rights?

   Does the brain in a dish have moral rights? 

Can we someday make the brain in a jar in real life? Genetic engineering and cloning. Along with cell re-programming gives us the ability to create artificial brains. And in the wildest visions, the artificial brains can live in a dish in the laboratory and interact with computers using the EEG and Brain-computer interface. Those artificial brains make it possible to create robots, computers, and other tools with similar intelligence levels, as we have. 

And even if those things have not yet been made, they can be the next step for some researchers. That means we must start to think about the rights of those brains. We might face that thing sometime in the future. If we create brains or computers that have the same IQ as we have, we must think about the rights that creature has. 

"Bio-computing is now a reality, prompting experts to call for its responsible application. The creators of DishBrain, in collaboration with bioethicists, address its ethical implications, potential medical benefits, and environmental advantages in a recent paper".(ScitechDaily/From Sci-Fi to Reality: Does a Brain in a Dish Have Moral Rights?)

If the artificial brain interacts with robots. It's possible. That hypothetical brain does not even know that it's in a dish. And everything that it sees and feels, is some kind of simulation. So should our hypothetical brain in a dish know that it lives in a dish? That dish is equipped with systems that deliver nutrients to the brain. And of course, the life support must handle the blood flow to the brain and back from it. And the system must remove garbage. 

Maybe quite soon we can make brains that can live in the dish. Those brains are made using living neurons, so they are living creatures. And other ways, those brains in a dish have intelligence. So they have the status of intelligent living organisms. We think that the human rights base is in intelligence. 

Brains in dishes have similar abilities as we have if they are cloned from human cells. That means the brain in the dish should have similar rights as humans. The brain in a dis can control robots using the EEG connection. And that means those brains should have similar duties as humans. In visions. 

The robots that those brains operate give them the ability to see things that robots send them as they would be in that place. And in some visions, the brain in a dish doesn't even realize that it's in some dish. Those brains communicate with computers by using the brain-computer interface. That thing makes it possible for those brains can interact with robots and computers. 

https://scitechdaily.com/from-sci-fi-to-reality-does-a-brain-in-a-dish-have-moral-rights/

The laboratory created the first bioprinter neural network using living neurons.

 The laboratory created the first bioprinter neural network using living neurons. 

The next level in bioprinting technology is on the door. That technology allows the making of artificial neural structures called "mini-brains". That term means the structure that is created on a glass plate. Those mini brains can used to test some kinds of medicines. 

But the possible use of that technology is to recover damaged brains. The bioprinter neural networks also can make the next-generation microchip technology that combines biological and non-living components possible. 

The non-living component could be the microchip with an AI-based kernel that decodes the signals that come from the living neural cells. And that thing allows living neurons to communicate with robots. The biological microchips causing discussions of the rights of robots that have biological microchips. 

What is a more powerful computer than a networked quantum system? That system is the networked human brain. In some visions, interstellar spacecraft can host millions of cloned brains. The purpose of those brains is to act as the giant biological supercomputer. And if we think of robots that involve biological brains those kinds of systems can make them as intelligent as humans. 

These were the topics in some old-fashioned sci-fi movies. The idea was that cyborgs would be robot bodies that living human brains control. The robot body will equipped with a system that can deliver nutrients to brain cells that control the robot body. 

The artificially cloned neurons and bioprinting systems allow that system can create mini-brains. That can installed in drones. The bioprinters with nanotechnology can install bug brain cells into microchips that control the missiles or search equipment. 

Above: The brain in a vat can interact with people using robots as external bodies. 

The problem with regular AI is that those systems are not creative. They can connect puzzles to new solutions. But they can only use particles that are given to them. When AI makes solutions it is like a guy who builds something using Legos. There are models that the guy can use. 

The AI can create the Lego structure using the models. But when the AI must make something without models that system is in trouble. The AI cannot create anything without models. Humans can create models in brains, and then turn those models into real ones by using Legos. 

There is the possibility that biotechnology can make it possible to create synthetic full-scale brains in the laboratory. And that artificial living brains can communicate with robots and other computing systems. That vision is called "brain in a vat". 

If some laboratory can create full-scale human brains that live in the vat and interact with the environment using the robot bodies the system can interconnect those brains into giant biological supercomputers. If there are hundreds or even thousands of brains in vat they can form the system. Which data handling capacity is enormous. 

https://www.wired.com/story/a-lab-just-3d-printed-a-neural-network-of-living-brain-cells/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

AI-controlled self-replicating machines are coming.

  AI-controlled self-replicating machines are coming.

 AI-controlled self-replicating machines are coming. And that gives the drone swarms the ultimate abilities. In the simplest versions, robot factories make the drones. Then that system loads the operating system in those drones. Those drones can have "iron-based" AI, which means the AI software installed in the kernels. The same system that creates microchips can install AI-based kernels in those microchips. 

Wandering a drone swarm can be like moving a supercomputer. The drone swarms can act as giant neural networks. And that makes them effective tools for research and military work. Drone swarms that reseaches distant planets can cover large areas. And if that swarm loses one member, that thing has no effect for its entirety. 

But what if those drones can make copies of their physical body? That can cause a situation in which drones can cover the entire planet. The name of the self-replicating machine is the "Von Neumann" machine. The Von Neumann machine can be virtual. And the best example of those machines is computer viruses that can make copies of themselves. But also physical, AI-controlled machines can make copies of themselves. 

The Von Neumann machine and AI-based neural network are the tools that might investigate another solar system. In some visions, the craft that travels to other solar systems is the shell which is a man-looking robot. Those robots might be the brains of the Von Neumann machine, the AI-controlled, self-replicating machines. The Von Neumann machine or self-replicating machines are robots that can make copies of themselves. 

The self-replicating robot controlled by AI is a tool that can lose control. The robot that is AI-controlled is a server and software in physical form. That system can have sensors that allow it to find minerals to make microchips and machine parts straight from ore. The robots can cut those minerals by using lasers and then make needed stuff in the high-tech reactors and they might have integrated 3D printers. 

Those systems are more multipurpose than some casts. Robots can operate in a vacuum chamber which makes their work good. So those robots that form the "brain of the system" might have integrated 3D printer that allows them to fix themselves. And they might have the ability to replicate themselves. 

 If robots can communicate with each other, they can form an extremely large neural network that acts like a peripatetic supercomputer. But there is a difference between Von Neumann machines and regular computers. Von Neumann's machine can make copies of itself. And that spontaneously increases the power and the size of the neural network and its actors. The perfect tool can be a perfect threat. 

The Von Neumann machine can be physical or virtual. Computer viruses are the example of the non-physical Von Neumann machines. When we connect things like Chat GPT or any other AI with robots there is the possibility that there happens something "unpredictable" in the program code of the systems. When the AI develops itself it can search data about the abilities that it wants. 

Self-developing AI that is connected with computer games can search the tactics and strategies that give it the best abilities. So if we transfer that model to robotics the AI can select the individuals that give the best results and then connect those abilities with another robot. The robots might made of different materials. And they might have different codes in computers. 

That gives the AI the ability, to search for the best combination for each situation. And if AI faces another AI it can ask needed code for that other AI. And then it can offer some of its code to another AI. 

When we think about AI and its abilities there is a possibility that AI can also exchange program codes with each other. That allows the autonomous R&D process. And that kind of process is dangerous. The AI itself is dangerous because it can accidentally or on purpose create computer viruses that can damage ICT infrastructure. 

The AI can make only things that we allow it to make. Programmers remove dangerous components from public AIs. But the difference between public, or civil AI, and militarized AI is that militarized AI is made for military purposes. Militarized AI is created to make viruses and make service denial attacks against the enemy command infrastructure and drone swarms. 

The thing is that AI is not intelligent. It just connects code from different sources. Things like commercial AI equipped with a system that denies the system to make computer viruses or malicious software. But militarized AI might have abilities to make those viruses. The purpose of those viruses is to deny drone swarms and computer-based command systems to operate. The hackers can steal that code from destroyed drones. 

Image: https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20120420-autonomous-selfreplicating-robots-for-finding-extraterrestrials

What is the purpose of life? Are we living in someone's mind?

 What is the purpose of life? Are we living in someone's mind?

That is the question of what philosophers thought 3000 years ago. Religions are trying to answer that question by simply saying "The purpose of life is serving god". And then someone says "why god create so violent creature that is so hard to control as we are"?. The simple question and simple answer turned into something that caused discussions at least 2,000 years ago, at the time when our religion was formed. 

The induction question for that thing can be interesting. That is "What is the purpose of the life of the god"? That question made pharaoh Akhnaten turn religion in Egypt into monotheistic where the god is astral and invisible but everywhere a long time before Christianity. The question that made Akhnaten turn Egyptian religion was the induction question for the question for the question "What is the Egyptian's purpose of life"? That was "serving the pharaoh". 

But what was the purpose of the life of Pharaoh? The reason why Akhnaten turned the Egyptian religion was purely political. The astral god was a tool that offered the Akhnaten the ability to avoid responsibility. The idea was that if the pharaoh made the right decisions the punishment would come after that man's death. And because the God whose name Akhnaten was "Aton" was not living in his palace nobody can ask anything straight from the god. But Akhnaten didn't ask the question "What is the purpose of life of "Aton"? 

Akhnaten with his wife. The image portrays something that theologists or researchers call the "Q-source". There was somebody or something. That gave an idea to Akhnaten to change the Egyptian religion. 

Are we living in someone's mind or brain?

Are we living in someone's mind? The idea that there is one mind in the universe was introduced by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger. So we might say that Schrödinger is the man behind the "intelligent universe theory". He connected religions to that model. There are many versions of that model, and in some versions the individual lives on Earth for collecting information. At the end of our physical journey, somebody reads memories that are stored in our brain. 

Then that information is sent somewhere. In that model, the data collected when a human walks on Earth is used to develop something. The fact is that the electric activity in the brain increases when a person is dying. And then the final pike in the electric curves in the brain happens just after death. 

Scrödinger introduced the model that the human mind is part of a larger entirety he tried to answer the question "What is the purpose of life"? Somebody says that "serving the god". But then we must ask another question: "How a single human can serve, or what human can offer to a creature that is so powerful that there are no limits for that creature"? 

In Scrödinger's model, the human is like a biological Von Neumann machine that developed with the most powerful and finest quantum neural computer called the brain. The Von Neumann machine is the machine that copies itself. The purpose of this biological creature would be to collect data, that will connect to the computer's memories and help to develop and adjust the models that the creator uses for some unknown purposes. This is Schrödinger's version of the purpose of life. 

The general AI can be a networked cloud-based system.

   The general AI can be a networked cloud-based system. 

The general AI can be a cloud cloud-based system that connects sub-systems under one umbrella. Those sub-systems can be independently operating AIs that central AI can connect to work with the same solution. 

Every data system involves hardware and software. In cloud-based AI every part of that system can close the problem from different angles depending on what type of datasets each system can use. 

The problem with monolithic architecture is if the server falls the entire system stops its work. Web-based architecture with multiple cores guarantees that the AI works even if there is some kind of problem in one server. 

The cloud-based architecture makes the networked AI an ultimate power.  We can think that the future belongs to limited and precise AIs. The fact is that the AI-based chatbots can also interconnect those independently operating AIs under one umbrella. A limited AI could be the AI-based chatbots that collect data for some special missions, like stock marketing and financial investments. 

The thing that determines what purpose the AI has is the dataset that the AI uses. If the AI must only follow stock marketing homepages and compile numbers from those pages. That thing makes it very accurate. But it's possible to connect that limited AI with some other AI that can use open sources for searching data. 

That open source can be things like the Financial Times and some news pages. The AI can search for information from the net about those companies on the stock marketing pages. The reason for that is, big investors might want to see what their investment or "investment that they want" makes. If a company is on some kind of boycott list, that can cause problems that take a person into the courtroom.  

The open internet is problematic for the AI because it should select trusted sources. However, the human operators or creators can determine what pages the AI must use.

However, cloud-based AIs can be limited to AIs that are operating under one AI that acts like an umbrella that interconnects their abilities. The idea is like in all other cloud-based structures. 

The cloud-based AI can be networked servers, and each of those servers runs its own AI software. People can see network benefits from that thing. The AI software is a complicated tool. And in a networked solution where each server runs independent AI, there is no need for maximum capable servers. Each server shares responsibilities and resources over the network and that means those multi-core systems make the individual server's work lighter. 

The general AI can be networked precisely created limited AIs. In that version, the AI that we see from outside is an entirety of multiple networked AIs. This means that the networked AI can look like a cloud-based solution. 

From the outside, it looks like a monolithic structure, but that entirety is multiple independently operating AIs that can act as an entirety, or they can act as separated cells that can operate with different independent operations. This makes the cloud-type networked AI an interesting tool. Every part of that network can installed on their servers. In that case, the AI is the server network. Each of those servers runs an independent AI program, as I wrote before.