Part 3

The Ramifications for Genetics and Artificial Intelligence

If it is taken as archaeologically and historically demonstrated that we are a genetically engineered, bicameral species, the product of genetically melding two racial genomes, the past becomes a rich archive of anthropological, technical, historical and especially genetic information and data that applies directly to our development of genetic science and AI-AC. Just as the reluctant  tacknowledgmenthat ancient records from the Sumerian or Chinese civilizations contained accurate astronomical observations and data opened up a valuable resource to modern astronomers, so the history of our species’ genetic creation in a laboratory, pinpointed on the map of east central Africa precisely where the mitochondrial “search for Eve” locates the first human female(s), opens an astounding resource to modern geneticists. We can rethink the planet and the human. Ray Kurzweil’s comment about the meaning of life and the essence of humanity in the lead quotes of this paper is susupersededI submit that the Sitchin paradigm does no less than brings resolution to the discourse about the essence of humanity and turns the discourse over the meaning of life into an ongoing, planetary, species wide, unique evolutionary process. Within that context, the benefits and detriments of technological advances are easily and confidently determined because the criteria by which they are judged are species consensual. When we get there, when the common consciousness even just begins to assimilate the new paradigm, AI is going to be a piece of pie, er, cake. A virtual walk in the park. The light it throws on our current attitudes concerning AI is brilliant and the direct and indirect implications for the future development of AI are broad, liberating, as well as practically contributory. A brief highlighting of the major ramifications follows.

The most important advantage for genetics is that, enabled with this knowledge and perspective, geneticists can begin to understand and decipher and interpret our genome with the tremendous leverage of working within a robust context which provides major clues as to what to look for and where to look and why.

Bicameral Genetics 1A

Consider the facts of our unique genetics and differences from any other anthropoid or humanoid. Current investigation says our genetics are about 98 percent the same as a chimp's. Regardless, that two, perhaps only one percent obviously makes a vast difference. We have 46 chromosomes, primates have 48 and the fusion of the second and third chromosomes in primates is a mystery. Even today the anthropological sector is scrambling to find a viable ancestor species for us, Homo Erectus is currently being promoted. We were contemporaneous with Neanderthals or even preceded them. We showed up too suddenly in the chronology of the fossil record. We present with very many startling, obvious differences from primates, and those differences, suddenly appearing in our species, are radical: we have foreheads, hardly any brow ridges, eye sockets far more rectangular than round; relatively tiny nasal passages; small flat mouths and a chin; far less muscular strength and bone density; our skin, sweat process and glands, body hair, throats, and salt management are completely different. Human females don’t have an estrus cycle. We are bipedal. Our brains are remarkably different to say the very least. It becomes quite obvious why we (as a product of a melding of two racial gene codes where quality control was conditioned by pragmatic purposes) have some four thousand genetic defects and counting rather than none to a handful as all other species, in light of the complexity of the merging.  Homo erectus, our half ancestor, took a million years to go from rough flaked stone tools to smooth ones. You could hardly notice any change. We have come from square one to going to Mars in only some 200,000 years. If the Sitchin paradigm is correct, all these facts are explained easily. If we ignore this body of information as we read out and work with the human genome we handicap ourselves unnecessarily and deprive ourselves of valuable clues and understanding. Darwinian principles may generally apply to hominid species previous to us but they clearly do not apply to our unique genesis and subsequent development.

If the Anunnaki were interested only in engineering what clearly amounted to disposable units then it may reasonably be inferred that the completeness of the engineering would not have to have been taken to the maximum. This is, in the opinion of this author, the basis for the four thousand plus genetic diseases and defects we present. It has been argued, theoretically, that, although the vast majority of the species on this planet present with only a few typical genetic diseases, we show 4000  because of the relative complexity of our organism. But we are not that much more complex genetically than even the higher primates and this argument does not hold.

A Focus For The Genome Project And Genetic Research

Our current genetic status is a major clue as to how to approach genetics and our genome and the development of AI. We get born, no owner’s manual, to often dubiously qualified, puzzled and puzzling parents, subject to a multitude of diseases, struggle to make sense out of what the hell existence on this planet in this universe is all about and how to deal with it, wonder why there are so many conflicting philosophies and institutions claiming cosmic franchising and, often, why the universe seems so unfair and then we die. We are generally conditioned by theocultural traditions to accept these bizarre conditions as “normal”’ and the will of some god. If we rethink our situation in terms of our restored history, however, things make a great deal more sense although, for now, there may not be a planetary cure or relief for some of them. If we recognize that we are the product of a genetically engineered melding of two quite different gene codes, literally a bicameral species, displaying a decidedly non-Darwinian kind of evolutionary development, just now beginning to step out of racial adolescence, only now beginning to grasp our racial psychology, possessing a gene code that, significantly and disconcertingly, manifests four thousand and counting potential genetic defects, struggling desperately with a short life span and certain mortality, we will know precisely who and what we are. Genetic enlightenment will prevent us from the Big Mistake, Big Embarrassment of procreating AI’s as analogs with all the imperfections of our current, pitifully splintered, Babel-factor selves.

A primary practical tool would be the devising of a protocol through which a crossing of the two gene codes might be recognized. The ancient records could be interpreted to mean either a complete melding of the two codes or, alternatively, the impingement of selected Anunnaki genes on the Homo Erectus code to tweak up the more primitive code to at least a condition of intelligence and physical competence to handle the mining of gold. It is possible that in some 200,000 years of our existence the accommodation between the codes has smoothed and recognition may be difficult indeed. The obtaining of some robust Homo Erectus DNA samples from fossils would be a great help.  It may evolve that, in working on the genetic diseases from the perspective of the genome being bicameral, those defects may yield an indirect key in some pattern or mechanism that indicates the nature and extent of the splicing of the codes.
 
 During the genetic investigation now in process, therefore, it would be valuable indeed for geneticists, at the minimum, to be constantly inspecting the results of the decipherment for signs of the genetic merging, and to develop protocols to determine such, if needed, as well as following the clues mentioned herein. By doing so, interpretations and explanations may possibly be facilitated, progress accelerated and a far more comprehensive overview of the genome achieved. The information gained would, reciprocally, be a major, pivotal, invaluable resultant spin-off contribution to our species’ evolutionary, anthropological, and cultural generic history.

Sorting Through the Clues

The Sitchin paradigm provides a comprehensive context in which to understand and explain the enigmatic facts and anthropological anomalies of the Darwinian model of our species existence which we have already amassed. It provides the context and data for bringing the efforts of geneticists and the genome projects, often scattered for a variety of reasons, to a focus on correcting and perfecting the genetic code, eliminating all disease and handicaps, and providing us the option of immortality. Immortality is a pivotal topic in all considering and learning from all phases of the Anunnaki-human history. We know directly from the records of their decisions that the Anunnaki did not give us the relatively extreme longevity or immortality they possessed by conscious deliberate decision. It did not fit their purposes: we were invented as slave workers. The records also show, however, that, over time, a handful of humans were granted immortality also by deliberate decision as a reward for being good subordinates in various roles usually as kings/foremen or for carrying out some critical mission. Another lesson: there may well be identifiable gene sequences that control the aging and dying process that are clearly and definitely manipulatable giving indication that we will be able to rectify their possible deliberate suppression.

There are clear injunctions against procreation between brothers and sisters, including the Anunnaki custom of procreating with a half-sister (their approved way of procreating an heir). Our biological studies show this to be a widespread practice among Earth species including even wasps which has definite genetic advantages for producing superior offspring. I suggest that this general prohibition, which remains in the doctrines of various religions, excepted with regard to only specific humans as recounted in the Old Testament, was a deliberate means of keeping humans at a certain level just as was the withholding of extreme longevity or  immortality.

Several significant details in the records of our genetic genesis may hold clues. It is recounted that two kinds of females were created, those who would bear children and those who would not. Determining, genetically, how we, as sterile mutants when first created, were manipulated to be able to procreate may be a major lead. Finally, knowing that an advanced bloodline of humans, enhanced by additional Anunnaki genes, was created around 4000 B.C. is even more valuable a clue since that bloodline has been carefully nurtured and protected through to our day and, therefore, available for investigation and analysis and comparison.

As we progress in the development of AI and move it from the arena of computer RAM inexorably toward the full, conscious, android, genetics and AI will become entwined, although already clearly so, to a greater and greater degree. Even at this primitive stage it is not difficult to envision a time when we, analogous to the example of building a rocket ship as given by Eric Drexler some time ago in Engines of Creation, could throw a set of “genetic” analog type instructions into a vat of liquid nutrient and nanotechnologically grow an android AI ready to boogie. The flashy sequence in the Bruce Willis movie, The Sixth Element, in which an alien is cloned in a few seconds in a high tech device, no doubt will look like clunky Buck Rogers stuff sooner than we think.

AI and AC: Been There; Done That

Specifically, with regard to the question as to whether AI can actually be achieved, our history is  a strong source of a positive answer. The Anunnaki, even while here, according to the recovered records of their deeds and interactions, besides genetically inventing humans, quite clearly had developed robots and androids, some of the latter being so sophisticated that, it is written, it was difficult to tell one from a human or an Anunnaki. We can profit from the Anunnaki’s experience in both creating a new species and in their development and use of robots and sophisticated androids  as well as the awesome invention of a species such as we.

The new paradigm, elucidating our unique genesis and subsequent unique evolution (at least on this planet: it may happen similarly with synthesized species elsewhere) as, in a very real sense, an artificial intelligence, frees us to conceive the real questions we need to ask ourselves and the answers not only our science but the entire racial pool of experience and knowledge needs to provide with regard to AI-AC. One of the most important contributions our restored history provides relates directly to the novel wild card concept of self-aware artificial consciousness in that it furnishes a wealth of information on the sociobiology of the creation of a synthetic species and the resulting, evolving social relationship between the creators and the created, between the Anunnaki and us.

When we consider this kind of genetic engineering we might soon employ in creating full featured AI androids, we have, for the acknowledging, a history of the evolving attitudes, management and control techniques, problems, challenges and surprises of a technologically advanced species with regard to a genetically engineered slave species they created.  The Anunnaki wanted slaves to replace themselves in their gold mines. Their first attempts were animal and Homo Erectus combinations that lived but were unsatisfactory. It is quite probable that the centaur-like, horned, hoofed, human faced, composite type creatures represented on cylinder seals and tablets from the ancient civilizations are actual recordings of those products rather than mythological beings as previously held. (Lesson: animal-humanoid combinations may be more difficult than we anticipate.)

Then, after apparently some general consideration of the ethical and moral ramifications before they began, they simply took an existing creature, Homo erectus, and imposed at least some of their genes in order to enhance its intelligence to bring it up to the point of being capable of handling mining equipment and performing some relatively complicated tasks. This straightforward decision and act, consequently determining the millenniums of events that constitute our history, relates to most of the fundamental questions we are facing with AC. The ancient records clearly describe us as “the black headed ones” who, at least when we were first created, drank out of the ditch, ate the grasses of the field, went naked, and were considered to be simply inferior slaves. Little if anything is mentioned of the degree of self-awareness humans possessed in the beginning.
Because, at the time, around 200,000 years ago when they invented the first humans, the Anunnaki seem to have reached a level of genetic expertise not too far in advance of our present status, it is a reasonable speculation that they probably were not able to predict the long term outcome of their experimentation well enough to anticipate the precocity that we began to exhibit and the rapidity of the development we manifested, probably through the potential of whatever portion of the Anunnaki genes with which we had been imbued. If we have come from animal-like behavior, drinking from the ditch, eating the grasses of the field to going to Mars shortly, from abject ignorant slavery to independent space exploration, over a period of some two hundred thousand years, the clear pattern of rapid evolutionary development not only does not fit the usual slow changes in other species we see in the paleontological records but it gives us immediate insight into how a genetically engineered creature might express and manifest the effects of a combination of genes from different species. Lesson: anticipate rapid  ascendance of more evolved genes coding intelligence and the degree of self-awareness that could result beforehand and how to deal with it, ethically.

The Flood recorded in the Bible is dealt with in much greater detail in the Sumerian records that preceded the Hebrew by thousands of years. The original Sumerian accounts say that the decision was taken to let the human experiment be wiped out by the coming catastrophe (most probably a major disturbance caused by the periodic return of the tenth planet through the inner solar system)  as we had become too numerous, unmanageable and cross mating with humans by the Anunnaki had become a serious problem. We had been in existence some 190,000 years, spread over the earth, and there apparently was at least consciousness approaching that of the Anunnaki level. Yet they still considered us subservient to them and could let the mass of humanity simply be washed away. Enki, it is recorded, contrary to the decision of the Anunnaki counsel to which he had reluctantly agreed, selected a trusted human, Utnapishtim (Noah in the Old Testament), to save a tiny handful, along with what was probably seed and genetic material. The Anunnaki went into orbit to ride out the deluge, the Anunnaki women actually weeping bitterly at sight of the destruction of human being washed away like flies. Once humans began to propagate again, we became more limited partners with the Anunnaki than simply slaves but they still considered themselves to have absolute dominion over us.  The taking and holding of slaves by capture and brutality is a directly  inherited tradition from the example of the Anunnaki who used us as GI Joes in their political and personal feuds with each other or when they needed more human slaves.  I conclude,  from their exhibited attitudes, social interactions both between themselves and with humans, their level of technology and weaponry and the uses to which they put them, the level of violence in their culture and their politics in general, that they were, when last discernible on the planet, at a level of racial development that we perceive ourselves to experience, currently. That knowledge in itself is a major bit of data for the sake of comparison and learning just as a young adult can learn from a detached reflection on and evaluation of her or his parents’ lives, attitudes, mistakes, and strong points and general evolutionary --- or devolutionary ---- status.
 
In our case, because we are a bicameral species, we need to extend the retrospection to discern possible conflicts in our nature ---- and I think there are some glaring ones ---- arising from genetic conflicts between the two gene codes.  Clearly, four thousand plus genetic defects we manifest physically would provide fertile ground for our psychology and social interactions to be conflicted. There is a wealth of history to reflect on to avoid mistakes and to determine and sort out our uniquely human characteristics which, I suggest, are in some cases quite different from either Anunnaki or Homo Erectus. We may not be able to determine those relatively subtler differences until we have gotten out from under the ancient godspell slave code effects which still condition us and have reached a plateau of species independence and identity.