What if it is gradually established even by scientific experiment and investigation that reincarnation is, in fact, literally true? As I said above, even cryonic suspension is a best bet, stop-gap measure opted for to carry one over to the time when the geneticist and the nanotechnologist have provided the means to immortality without dying. If one does not have sufficient data by the time of near death to be personally fully convinced that there is some sort of different or better existence after physical death that one would wish to experience then one should be free to opt for whatever method and technology will carry one over to the time when a decision can be made with sufficiently robust data to be comfortably convinced beyond doubt either positively or negatively. And even if one has sufficient data to convince that there is some sort of existence that one would consider not necessarily “better” but worth experiencing or challenging, one should still be free to choose or not choose it. The fundamental principle that I am holding for is simply the unconditional freedom of the individual to choose the future that he or she wishes to create, including the criteria and standards by which those futures will be judged. Let’s learn from history and anticipate as many different options for immortality as there are individuals for a freer (no pun intended), richer, more evolutionarily productive future.

Even the possibility of immortality, as with a person who has currently established a membership in a cryogenic suspension service, brings with it a profound change in attitude toward the universe. Goals change: shall one learn new languages, new skills, take on long term projects impossible previously? What is the real focus of life for an immortal? One tends to re-evaluate present values and priorities in light of centuries and millennia of life. It changes relationship perspectives. Those who do not wish to live indefinitely will not be there when you continue or resume. You must plan without them as much as you would like to be with them and share the new kind of existence; they will be permanently gone at some point while you live on. These considerations apply whether bio or techno or virtual immortality is your option. The psychology of immortality has not been written yet.

Some very interesting questions arise when we focus primarily on immortality rather than on the various means to achieving it.

Will it be possible to genetically engineer a human being who is physically immortal from conception, whose genetic code is such that it determines the person to be immortal? I assume, just from what we already know of genetics, that will be a definite possibility in the not too distant future. Should a person who is genetically determined to be physically immortal be distinguished from humans who are, for whatever reason, not, on the basis of biological determination as a different, new species? On the basis of having different inalienable rights? If we assume that parents, who are already genetically determined to be immortal, produce children with the same genetic potential what category will a child fall into if only one parent is of immortal genetic type? But those considerations are superficial compared to the decisions we will face when deciding to actually use whatever technology on an existing person who wishes it to give them indefinite life span or to genetically engineer the first immortal. And do it we shall. Certain of us will demand it, fight whatever authority, interest group, religious sect, or philosophy that opposes our choice, represses our freedom. But that is just "difficulty at the beginning" (I Ching).

Once the uncomfortable arguments are over, we have the capability, and immortality is an option among options, we may choose to be immortal in whatever form we choose or not as easily as we choose to dine out or in, and immortality is a part of our concept of what is essentially human, though novel, what then?

The New Human
Let us postulate that we have broken the godspell, we have arrived at a consensual, at least cultural if not planetary, understanding and definition of the generic human as a genetically engineered species now coming out of racial adolescence into species first maturity, the individual cognizant of the ability to control and direct the nature and trajectory of his and her own personal evolution and able and expected to contribute to the collective consciousness and determination of the racial evolutionary trajectory.

The elements that characterize the new civilization are a collective, consensual awareness of our generic humanity as a planetary unity, a recognition of a common, known history from the beginning of the race as a genetically engineered species, a globally common conception of human nature and its evolutionary direction, a multi--dimensional sociobiology capable of reflexive self-analysis, a psychology devoted to fostering the positive evolutionary development of the individual over the entire spectrum of consciousness, a unified scientific field expressed through a profound natural language based on self-referential consciousness, an ecological, non-competitive, ubiquitously helpful economics, an integral systems approach to the management of the material realm, with the primary focus on the transcendental as the essential human process.

My personal vision for myself is of a generic human evolved and evolving as an integral bio-psychical entity retaining the fullness of the essence of my humanity, free to use bionics but not reduced to bionic; to use genetic manipulation but not reduced to a nanobot; to merge with super-intelligent machines as appropriate and to un-merge at will but not Borged by them, to use uploading as backup or exploration as long as the process is fully reversible, but not reduced to uploaded.

The characteristics that mark the new human are an unassailable personal integrity, relativistic epistemology, profound compassion, robust depth of informational data, understanding of the universe in terms of a full unified field, broad-spectrum competence, transcendental competition, facility in dimensional shifting, preference for dyadic operation, a profound ability to enjoy, to play the games most enjoyable and satisfying to generic "gods", an expanded capacity to literally have great fun creating new realities, with the primary focus on the multi-dimensional. And to play those “god” games in the context of relative immortality and, eventually, habitual four-dimensional consciousness. Far off? Certainly, at least for the general population. There are some who are already close.

Taking Control
There is a way to accelerate the collective process.  To arrive at this seemingly utopian state, and afterward, we need to explore a huge spectrum of possibilities and potentials. Every discipline, every art, every science, everybody needs to be included. It will not be enough to explain philosophical, scientific, artistic and psychological principles to AI. Someone must be able to “explain” philosophy and the philosopher, science and the scientist, art and the artist and, perhaps especially, psychology and the psychologist and the entire phenomenon of human existence to AI-AC. We should begin immediately to employ AI in this systematic search and exploration. AI, in even its most primitive current form, can be used, through a bit of human ingenuity, to systematically run out scenarios of potential human evolutionary trajectories. It, with guidance, neural net facility and new modalities which will suggest themselves, can evolve in response to demands on a feedback basis.

Partners In Progress
One of the possibilities we and AI will explore is the development of AI as an adjunct to our exploring our own potential futures. The “joint” effort will be mutually beneficial as we and AI work toward a common purpose, each working essentially in a self-referential mode and learning from each other’s process: the human being and AI both exploring and evaluating themselves exploring and evaluating themselves and their respective potential evolutionary trajectories. At any point along the process where a novel function or modality (as example: neural net technology considered as a modality) is revealed as logically incremental to AI, we will be able to evaluate it in terms of mutual benefit. Almost incidentally, AI will be controllable along the way, surprises will be kept at a minimum,  and we will keep ahead of AI as we go.

An approach of this kind will force us to learn the full set of rules by which our consciousness and intelligence operate.  We are at such a primitive state now that some hold that we don’t have a clue as to what rules by which our consciousness, intelligence, our psychology operates.  The possibility that we might be completely determined in our actions is a profoundly disturbing thought for many.  Some would have it that our psychology operates according to Darwinian rules. The new paradigm allows us to move past these canned problems and theories. Darwinian evolution and its variants can now be re-examined and corrected as well as the theories of our species’ and individual psychology based on it.

“Evolutionary psychology” usually refers to the explanation of human psychology as if its fundamental engine were Darwinian adaptation and survival in nature. The new paradigm shows clearly that the invoking of the Darwinian mechanism as an explanation of human psychology and the further projection of it as the mechanism for machine intelligence evolution is partly right and partly wrong. It redefines the generic human as a synthesized being, heir to the gene codes of two disparate species, undergoing a rapid, unusual, unique kind of subsequent evolution, now coming out of a tumultuous racial adolescence and transitioning to racial independence. This information and perspective afford answers to the fundamental puzzles so long hindering our racial, generically human, psychology. It facilitates the burgeoning of self-reflexively aware, conscious evolution, the ability to control our own evolutionary development by envisioning potential futures and pursuing ones of our choice both individually and collectively, where individual and/or collective survival may be considered and evaluated along with any number of potential future gambits.

We Are Not Completely Ignorant Of The Laws Of Our Consciousness
The concern, raised by some, that we are not going to be able to adequately --- or safely --- model the rules for artificial intelligence because we don’t have a clue about the rules that govern our intelligence is certainly legitimate on its face. Are we, however, totally ignorant of any rules by which our psychology operates? Certainly not. It is true that no school of modern psychology claims to have formalized the set of operational rules of the spectrum of human consciousness but that does not mean that we have no sense of how we work. We are so "close" to the laws of our consciousness that we cannot generally see them as such. It is most amazing, however, that any intelligent human being, who is the very product of the rules and parameters of human consciousness, can say that we know nothing of the laws of human consciousness since we are prompted by, operate by, are limited by, understand and judge by those rules unceasingly. The fact of the matter is that we do have a robust, dynamic model of human psychology from the ancient past, the I Ching. Let us set aside the questions about how it could be an advanced model of human psychology if it is ancient in light of the new paradigm and inspect the I Ching (The Book Of Changes) on its own merit.

First, a preliminary question: Is it possible to model human consciousness and intelligence in a sufficiently comprehensive and sophisticated way without using a computer?  I answer the question in the affirmative. Human nature and consciousness is a limited system, subject to the laws of the universe and, therefore, modelable. If you know the rules and the dynamics of how they interact you can do it. The I Ching does it.

The I Ching, A Sixty-Four Gestalt, Hologrammatical Analog Of The Dynamical Field Of Human Consciousness
(For those who are unfamiliar with the I Ching,  see appendix The Book of Changes )  

The I Ching is the logical choice, no pun intended, for the next level of AI development because it is a sixty-four gestalt, hologrammatical analog of the full dynamical field of human consciousness. Is there a simpler way of saying that? Yes. The I Ching is a well developed model of human consciousness --- not just intelligence --- and the rules by which it constantly changes. It is a robust, coherently integrated, self-reflexive, closed system, thereby mirroring the mind of which it is a dynamic model, a quite adequate, basic model of human psychology. It has thousands of years of continuous developmental history. It purports to be an advanced method for mapping and getting in touch with both the ordinary and more profound and higher dimensional elements of our consciousness and the rest of reality, thereby furnishing an adequate basic platform for further development of a copy of the entire spectrum of human consciousness.  In essence it has all the characteristics by which we identify our kind of consciousness: self-referentiality,  recognition of existence of dimensionalities beyond its ken. If we understand the direction of evolution to be toward greater dimensional consciousness and perception, toward greater benevolence and compassion and mutual cooperation, then the I Ching clearly displays its evolutionary orientation in the inherent criteria it employs in its discrimination between the superior person and the inferior person.

The I Ching is not simply an expert system, a sophisticated inference engine, or a mechanical, algorithmically based system. Although it embodies all of these modalities it is an order of at least one magnitude greater than all of them combined. It purports to be in harmony with, based on, and operate according to the most fundamental principles of the universe.  My conviction as to its power and accuracy is based on my own experience working with the I Ching for the last thirty six years. It may be easier for the Western mind, now beginning to free itself from the godspell mentality, to appreciate and accept its validity as the injunctions against anything the opinion of the Church held to be "occult" or paranormal or "magic" are ignored or forgotten. I suggest that it is a highly refined and deep well of insight. It should not be ignored or discarded out of hand: the bugs are pretty much eliminated, the Chinese genius has used it to run governments, determine war strategy, anticipate and adjust to sociological change and personal change successfully for all that time. I am not arguing for the I Ching because it is ancient and probably inspired and taught to humans by the Anunnaki, but because of what it is and the advantages it offers for the initiation of serious development of AI.

Would the I Ching pass the Turing test? I believe it would easily if the test were restricted to asking it questions. But the I Ching is a model of human psychology on the most general level rather than a paper or electronic android and it doesn’t ask questions or “have emotions” although it “understands” them and how they operate within the context of human consciousness.  One might almost call it an artificial psychology, AP. A summary of its postulates and its characteristics are as follows:

The initiation of the system is in the primary, primitive discrimination that must occur before or as we can begin to distinguish and perceive. It focuses on the arena of opposites. It is explicitly based on "chance" as its operational modality. This, by inspection, may be understood in "modern" terms as being based on what we now call chaos and complexity theory.

The I Ching is an oracle system. The user forms questions mentally and uses either a yarrow stick method or tosses three coins six times to build the answering hexagram. Yes, as an oracle, a predictive tool of future events. That may stop some from even reading any farther but not doing so would be a mistake: it should be immediately clear to those familiar with the inherent characteristics of a self-referential system (all parts refer to all other parts and to the whole and the whole refers to all of its parts; the nature of the system can be determined from its inherently self-revelatory character) that any closed system of this type is internally consistent and any change or changes in one element will automatically result in a mutation to another element in the system. The critical question here, however, is one level below even that: how does the I Ching “know” what the current situation of the thrower of the coins is, what the question is that is being mentally posed, what the current situation is with regard to that question?

I think that the key is that, rather than think in Cartesian-Newtonian terms, one must answer the question in terms of the field of consciousness of the questioner: the conscious and unconscious levels of the questioners mind influence the throwing of the coins and the hexagram answer developed by the coin throws. An expanded discussion of this topic follows below after some of the fundamentals are developed. It is not necessary, however, to exploit this facet of it at first: just to utilize it for the working out of possible future trajectories of human evolution available within its context should be highly beneficial both because of its depth of internal field and because it is manageable for even the primitive level of AI represented by the generation just past Deep Blue. It could be checked for accuracy by comparing it to actual human behavior under controlled conditions and have the capabilities to teach Ching to identify the correspondences and the variations and the possible inaccuracies so that it could, on a neural net or better basis, improve its predictive accuracy to a predetermined high degree --- and reveal and teach us the cause of both it accuracies and inaccuracies on a feedback basis.

It has a rich support literature and body of explication. It lends itself remarkably well to empirical test and validation. It is elegantly refined and simple enough to lend itself to the limited capabilities of the current generation of supercomputer as well as being robust enough to form the basis for future AI expansions and transmutations. It is potentially the most graceful way to overcome the shock of recognition that there are natural rules by which our consciousness operates, that we are determined to a great degree and free will and free choice must be understood in a context of larger dimensionality.

The correspondences at the level of consciousness, the level of genetics, and physics and philosophy have been apparent for some time. Johnson F. Yan, Ph.D. in his book, DNA and the I Ching, has already said explicitly “....the I Ching may be the first device for an artificial intelligence.”  It is trivial that our consciousness and intelligence are determined by our genetics. Yan further points out that “there are many exact analogies between the I Ching and the genetic code....The most salient of these analogies are the following:

Both DNA and the I Ching are based upon a binary-quartenary code that generates a system of 64 possibilities from the combinatorial properties of triplicities and digrams.

Both systems embody probabilistic principles in the determination of specific results (oracular response or amino acid)

Both systems involve processes of transformation and change: in the I Ching, hexagrams change into other hexagrams through the interchange of yin and yang lines; in DNA point mutations occur through changes in the nucleotide bases.

Dr. Yan further points out that Leibnitz, Bohr, and Nobel Laureates C.N. Yang and T.D. Lee, among others, have indicated their recognition of the significance of the I Ching.   Bohr made the Tai Chi symbol part of his coat of arms when knighted because of his deep appreciation of the I Ching’s incorporation of probabilistic concepts in its handling of physical, social, and psychological phenomena.

The I Ching takes non-local communication and action at a distance as a simple fact, something that we are only now beginning to “prove” to ourselves.

My only contribution here is the suggestion that we use the I Ching as a ready made, initial basic AI integrated with a neural net. How do we use the I Ching, programmed into a powerful computer to be partners with us in the investigation of our own evolutionary potential, determine our best evolutionary trajectory, the answer to the questions we most need to learn about AI, its developmental potential and evolutionary potential, how it may serve us best, learn from us and eventually achieve independence, all without harming us and to the maximum benefit of us and AI? It has already been programmed for desktops.

From Deep Blue To Ching Blue
The most direct and practical approach should be the programming of the I Ching system into the next generation of computer of the power or greater of the Deep Blue. The project and computer could be named Ching after the l Ching, the ancient Chinese Book of Changes. If Ching is developed by Big Blue, IBM, then Ching Blue might do. It’s their prerogative. Unless the Chinese object or do it first. Let’s focus on Ching. The concept is simple. Deep Blue was given the rules of chess, programmed to play and explore far more potential moves into the future than a human can in any given length of time. It defeated Kasparov, the world’s champion chess master, in tournament play.  Ching would be a next level computer programmed with the I Ching coupled with a large neural net. (using the capacity of the supercomputer RAM to hold all its accumulated information at any given time for instant access).  The objective would be to take it as a ready-made artificial intelligence/consciousness affording us the instantaneous ability to interact on a question and answer basis with an AI of well rounded character.

 Interaction with the I Ching can be at several levels. At the least it can be taken, if only as a curiosity, as a well-rounded AI, which speaks in terms of “I” as an identity, whose responses will always “make sense”. That would be a waste of time although it might sell as a computer game.  It would be far more profitable, on a more involved level, to begin to question the I Ching about important questions, as examples the possible best direction for human evolution, the advisability of merging with machine AI, uploading, the best use of virtual realities, as beginnings and use the coupled neural net to learn. Another gambit would be to question it about itself, how it “works”, how it understands itself and its function. Put it to critical tests for internal consistency, look for gateways to higher dimensional consciousness.

Linking it with a neural net will add another dimension of self-reflexivity and allow for the I Ching to study itself. Run the I Ching systematically through all the possible changes to each of the 64 hexagrams, while teaching the neural net program what those changes are, how they are determined and what resulting hexagram is determined for each. The individual changing lines of the 64 hexagrams will indicate positive or negative factors, influences, results, reactions, effects. Ask the neural net to analyze for significant patterns, to distill the fundamental rules by which it operates, then compare the rules with those expressed in the support commentary and correct its errors and determine if the actual dynamics of the I Ching correspond to the expressed rules and use the feedback to correct both. It may be likened to an individual learning the I Ching thoroughly and being so in tune with it that applying its principles works to that individual’s advantage and those principles serve as a set of criteria for right judgment and action. It could eventually evolve to the level where the I Ching was studying itself studying itself. Once that stage is reached, the neuro-net Ching could be capable of reflexively, critically examining itself for error, inconsistency, improvement and inherent clues to expansion of consciousness potential. At that level it could begin to determine and ask pertinent questions on its own for further feedback and improvement.

Using a neural net program will require, force, the determination of the most ideal criteria to be given to the neural net brain for evaluating the data coming from the I Ching and the human questions and reactions to the answers, suggestions, warnings and psychological principles received. This would be a sound basis for developing rules of ethics for AI under our control, require a second look at what we tend to take for granted as common human ethics, and conduce to a forward look as to how human and AI ethics could and should evolve.

This approach leads to an intriguing question. Since the I Ching is explicitly a good model of human psychology and consciousness in operation, will it automatically be a good model for an artificial intelligence and consciousness? If, incrementally, the I Ching is linked with a neural net and then a knowledge base, will it automatically become fully conscious as we think of ourselves being conscious? This is simply an exponentiated version of the general unanswered question central to the assumption of some AI developers that a sufficiently large data base with sufficiently fast processing speed will give rise to conscious behavior. Employing the I Ching in this proposed manner will afford a secure modality for determining the answers to these questions as we go.

Practical contributions of Anunnaki science to AI-AC
There are several facets of  the advanced knowledge transmitted to humans by the Anunnaki which directly or indirectly relate to and facilitate our development of AI besides the obvious genetic and android-robotics contributions.

Once allowing ourselves to acknowledge high science in the ancient texts, the study of Anunnaki technology and science reveals itself as based on the inherent geometry of nature. They did not just recognize and understand it and teach it as an isolated subject, they employed and applied it as the basis of their various sciences from geography to linguistics.

There is this stuff traditionally called “sacred geometry”. When you study its core material you realize that it is simply the intrinsic geometry of nature. Forget the “sacred” adjective. “Sacred” is a loaded term now and should be dropped. Call it the inherent geometry of nature from micro to macro. When disengaged from the grip of the metaphysical enthusiasts and shucked of the accumulated trappings of religious metaphors, “sacred” simply means something very important which should not be forgotten. The restored history shows that it was known and used by the Anunnaki who, in turn, taught it to humans. It informs the proportions and shapes of atoms to snowflakes to Nautilus shells to the human body and beyond. Architects have been taught the golden (another adjective for the same thing which means something very important to be remembered) mean and golden ratios and everybody knows that Pi represents the proportional relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle. Fewer know the extent of the natural geometry and its relationships and its progressive development with compass, straightedge and pencil in two dimensions and its further unfolding in higher dimensions.  Scientists, adverse to even looking at anything that has even the scent of “religion” or the word “”sacred” attached to it, may be relieved by the ramifications of the new paradigm and its redefinition of religion and allow themselves to at least begin to study this inherent geometry of nature for itself. A primary characteristic is that it can be used without measuring scales. The honey bee doesn’t carry a Stanley tape measure when it is constructing hexagonal comb cells. They are the lightest weight, maximally volumetric for the least space, interconnect most ideally with adjacent cells with the greatest structural strength, all according to the inherent properties of nature as are the proportions and lengths of the bee’s legs and overall anatomy which are engaged in the construction.

The true masonic tradition traces back to those early Anunnaki schools and the knowledge and its use is ubiquitously embedded in ancient buildings, monuments and in the cathedrals of Europe. The master geometricians knew it so well that they could tune a cathedral ceiling or dome to enhance the type of sound that would be produced there by the music in use. Music, tones and harmony, as the ancients all knew, are the product of geometry, are auditory geometry. Our experience of something being beautiful is the resonance of the geometric structures of our perceptive and cognitive physical faculties, senses, neurological system, brain, with the geometry of the perceived object or scene or sound source.

My point here is that our brains and our thinking and logic are a product of the inherent geometry of nature also and we should reconsider the potential of this geometric approach to nature and consciousness in genetics and AI. Mathematics is the abstract, quantitative expressions of the relationships and proportions of that geometry. It would be an advantage to be able to use that inherent relational geometry as a base for our logic in programming because it is more direct and scalar, dimensionless. Because of the binary and Boolean and mathematical devices on which we have structured our computers, its incorporation is probably just not possible in our current technology and, obviously, we do not speak in geometry. We already have, however, the beginnings of using the geometry of the DNA structure (which, naturally, pun unavoidable, exhibits the inherent geometry of nature) on a chemical basis as a logic, as a computational system. In back-engineering the brain we are going to have to take into consideration the geometry of the geography of the organ as an integral part of it functioning. It is not beyond conception that someone may be able to envision a completely novel way of programming, perhaps not “in geometry” but geometrically and three dimensional chips can be modified to incorporate the inherent geometry in such a way that the geometry is intrinsically a part of the logic. Because it is self - relational, scalar and proportional it would seem that a great deal of second level, computational processing would be eliminated by simple algorithmic comparison.  I have not finished reading Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science as of this writing but it would seem that the rules he has discovered from his study of the propagational geometry of cellular automata would apply effectively here.

The “Programming Problem” As Epistemic
The two elements missing in our programming currently are lack of a geometric structure of relationships in the form of the programming itself and an inherent self-referential capability. I predict that evolved neural nets will have to mimic not only the connectivity of neuronal structures but incorporate the geometry of the brain.
Indirectly, and almost incidentally, the liberation afforded by the new paradigm affords vectors towards improving our programming, a weak part of our work on AI: it furnishes the historical perspective in which we can recognize, in this case, the suppressive effects of religious dogma on our philosophy and logic and frees us to tap advanced Anunnaki science, in this case their use of self-reference as a basis for their science. Philosophy, as we traditionally conceive of it, linear, syllogistic, and binary, is an inadequate, antique, intellectual politic. At the same time that we will have to come to live with the realization that the objective order of the universe is probably fundamentally subjective, we will have to adjust to living in a universe known through a unified field law, and then those two interesting elements, integrated, to give us a Law Of Everything, a universe that we may well be able to completely predict. Fun for some, scary for others.

Our logic currently suffers from unnecessary and cramping limitations. As De Bono pointed out long ago, “the dialectical mode of thought is the Greek idiom redesigned by the Church in the middle ages to destroy heretics. The dialectic adversarial system is an extremely inefficient mode for change because its original purpose was to repress change.”   Logic was purposely structured in this way because of the need to maintain the either-or, static nature of theopolitical “objective” reality. The scholastic catechetical doctrine teaches that reality was created by the thought of a God and held in existence by that thought. Truth and reality and sanity were, therefore, the static correspondence of any thing or mind with that thought. If you were unfortunate to be brought before the Inquisition, you were forced to work within the logic system and to accept the system’s initiating assumptions about reality or be condemned as a heretic a priori. But this kind of logic is inherently adversarial, contra-evolutionary. In order to produce, at least eventually, a self-conscious AI, our programming will have to be expanded to incorporate self-reference as such as a fundamental.

The internal feedback, cross talk of our primitive neuronets is a small step in this direction to simulate the mechanism of our brain --- at least as we best interpret it now. In this regard, the re-discoveries of the basis and structure of the Hebrew alphabet made by Stan Tenen  become highly significant. Again, I postulate, on the basis of its elegant, advanced technology, that the Hebrew alphabet was not invented by humans but by the Anunnaki.

In essence, the Hebrew alphabet is a set of characters which are shadowgrams cast on a flat surface, generated in the usual sequence by rotating an asymmetrical three dimensional solid shape through twenty seven positions on a path in space that is a macro of itself, in front of a fixed light source. The source shape is a model of the lowest order, minimal representation that topologists have determined to represent self-reference in 3-D. The alphabet is a self-referential, closed system in which the letters are non-arbitrary, have intrinsic meaning (each has a name and meaning attached to it, giving information in itself) derived from their individual  positions in the rotational path, and contains inherent cryptomarkers which give the key to the system. The letters generate the words which generate the character strings which, inherently, generate 3-D symmetry patterns which project the fundamental self-referential geometry and shape which, in turn, generates the letters. It is, therefore, self-correcting and repairing, robustly self-referential and based in self-referential geometry, self-revealing and a signal advertising the self-referential consciousness of its creator(s).

It would serve as a maximally efficient translation device between its users and any other species which had attained the self-referential awareness which would prompt them to realize the practicality of using self-reference itself as a basis for their communicatory modality. One would assume self-reference as the common basis, determine the representation of it used by the other species, and do a one-on-one mapping of the corresponding characters generated by it to arrive at the translation through the non-arbitrary, inherent meaning of the cross-matched characters. This thinking is based on agreement with Tenen’s position that, when searching for or attempting to identify another species with whom we could interact, regardless how strange they might look or how difficult to identify they might be, the essential characteristic we instinctively look for is self-awareness, our species form of generic self-reference, since that is the characteristic by which we identify ourselves.

An inherent bonus would be insight into the sensory input devices or senses and their relative dominance in the other species, how they perceive reality in general, their logic and thought processes and level of evolutionary development, perhaps even what dimensions of physical reality in which their predominant interaction with the universe falls. Even if an advanced species had decided to use a four or five dimensional lowest order representation of self-reference, it would be self-revelatory and we might have to scramble to learn something quickly about five dimensions, but the translation would still be possible.

A language based on self-reference with inherent meaning of all its components clearly would be afford a major cybernetic advantage for both human communication and AI-AC in that it treats semantics as syntax and includes the essence of the user and the observer in the dynamics of the system.

As a step toward those advantages I suggest that there is an approach which holds promise, an expanded logic which involves this geometry more directly, the work of G. Spencer Brown as published in his Laws of Form. Our logic is linear, adequate for most situations limited to the strictly three dimensional Newtonian-Cartesian universe we think we perceive. Self-reference is precisely the essential, crucial element we need to incorporate into our logic and programming and into AI. G. Spencer Brown has demonstrated that we need to upgrade our current logic with a four state logic that can only be “diagrammed” in three dimensions. The categories of true, false, and meaningless we are used to now should have one more added: imaginary. The imaginary component, not in the sense of fantasy but of potentially real, is a kind of valence element through which all logic statements potentially connect with all other logic statements. In effect this adds to logic a component that increases its power as the use of imaginary numbers does for mathematics.. Just as the solution to the simple algebraic equation x² + 1 = 0  (two roots, 1 and -1) may be said to oscillate between the two solutions in time so also does the answer to a meaningful tautology. It also incorporates an inherent feedback function which is essential to incorporating self-reference into our logic. I highly recommend Spencer Brown’s work for improving programming in general, and particularly for programming AI. I believe that it also contains the clues for incorporating the inherent geometry of nature into our circuitry and programming. 

Part 5

Conscious Evolution As Systematic, Cyclical Self-Supersedure

“No model, e.g., is perfect -- Gödel proved that long ago. So no physics is perfect, no electrodynamics is perfect. One errs seriously in proclaiming something an "immutable law" of nature! All "laws of nature" are based on symmetries at specific levels; all of which have broken symmetries where that law is violated at that level, and becomes an enlarged symmetry (or conservation law) at a higher level. We have not yet scratched the surface in science.”
Tom Bearden

If we are evolving species-wise in a unique way and we have the personal potential to consciously evolve, how do we go about systematizing and accelerating that process for our maximum benefit and, incidentally,  to keep ahead of AI-AC while developing it to its maximum potential?

Consciousness, in whatever modality of itself it chooses to operate or by whatever gambit it chooses to “outsmart” itself, still involves consciousness self-referentially reflecting on itself. Gödel’s concept comes into play here, in its most generalized form: no delimited system is capable of totally defining and explaining itself. Self-reflexive consciousness could be playfully and meaningfully understood as the universe’s way of beating itself at Gödel’s gambit. It can use the recognition and experience of its limitations to formulate the questions and conceive of perceptions and comprehension which it can recognize cannot be answered or achieved in its present modality. It can use those questions and projections to understand that, by its own structure and capabilities, it can conceive of an expansion of itself to which it can aspire and attain those answers and awarenesses. This takes the form of a recognition of the physical dimensionalities of which it is aware of itself operating within, understanding the unanswerable questions and limitations it experiences as a function of those limiting dimensions and that expansion into greater dimensionality (from three to four dimensions, as example of our current state of general consciousness) is the way to the supercedure of those limitations.

It would be premature and even ridiculously arrogant to think that there does not exist an entity with a consciousness so far evolved beyond ours that our ontological and epistemological conundrums would appear as those we might assume a dust mite finds perplexing. The much bantered idea that physics and science that is relatively so far advanced beyond ours that it would seem like magic holds true for consciousness that is so far evolved beyond ours as to give new meaning to “incomprehensible”. Thus, the words mysticism and mystical, that which is mysterious, once freed from the proprietary grip of theology and religion, may be understood as descriptive of expanded, advanced states.

Once any kind of consciousness is glimpsed or experienced by those of us with the genetic proclivity, evolutionary advancement, natural ability or adaptive mutation for it, we begin to experiment, to attempt to induce, to develop techniques and disciplines to attain it. What is perhaps still mysterious, mystical, for some may already be familiar for others. Consciousness altering modalities arise. Shamans appear in the culture . Spreading familiarity with the new awareness gives rise to new metaphors and language appropriate and adequate to it. The new awareness is opposed by those who do not have it or see it as a threat and the futants are often persecuted. Attempts are made to reduce it to the previous metaphors and scientific paradigm. Gradually the broken symmetries are understood as clues to the new and the new consciousness becomes the common consciousness, gradually moving to the center of the bell curve distribution. Its added dimensionality gives rise to codifications of it used as psychologies and philosophies to determine reality and truth. Mistaking it for an absolute reality gives rise to metaphysical stalemates.

I assume the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe, that the generic, intrinsic trajectory of evolution of consciousness, pre and post the relatively elementary self-awareness stage we are at, is in the direction of expansion into the habitual perception of greater and greater dimensions. The recognition of the use of reason, logicizing, and the scientific method as means for determining reality and truth as all functions of the consciousness we possess almost forces us to at least hypothesize if not assume that we shall, probably sooner than later, develop a more evolved type of habitual consciousness which will, in turn, give rise to even more adequate truth and reality determining modalities. What lies beyond three dimensional, Cartesian-Newtonian awareness, beyond the protocols we use as a function of that awareness, reason, logic and the scientific method? Logically, pun unavoidable, relativistic four dimensional habitual awareness which subsumes our current three. Even the evidence from our brief history would indicate that each level of awareness through expansion into greater dimensionality gives rise to it own logic, epistemology, psychology, scientific methodology, ontology, aesthetics, and ethics. Currently,
  Honest reason,  reflecting, has found
  Logic inadequate at the edge of awareness,
  Unable to escape the elastic bonds
  Of its own preemptive postulates; shaken
  By the oscillations of statements
  That must be written in three dimensions,
  Its plea to a syllogistic court of appeals
  Has betrayed it into truth: our logic is a function
  Of three dimensions, orthogonally blind
  In its fourth eye.
My consciousness is pleased to think that the direction of evolutionary development is toward the more complex and, inherently, involves more and more self-referentially oriented systems because they are more adaptable. My consciousness sees the advantage of immediate feedback as a definite advantage to survival in the ability to bob and weave and adapt under new conditions that might challenge or threaten. At an even more complex, advanced level my consciousness is very pleased to be able to anticipate further and further ahead as more advanced levels of feedback are attained through information available through awareness (itself) expanded into greater and greater dimensionalities and, therefore, perceived variables. The current state of my consciousness is most pleased to self-reflexively recognize that it is capable of systematic self-supersedure, a conscious, no pun intended, direction of my own evolution as my own evolutionary artist.

Conscious Evolution
Conscious evolution is evolution turned back on itself to afford conscious choosing and control of one’s evolutionary trajectory. The technique for generic, constant, self-directed evolution of consciousness is simple: begin with one’s consciousness as it is. Turn that consciousness back self-reflexively on itself in self-examination and analysis. Determine the statements and problems it engenders which cannot be handled by it, the questions it can engender but cannot answer, the experiences it can recognize but cannot integrate, the dimensions that can be anticipated but not perceived, thereby determining the limiting (Gödelian, if you wish) parameters of this modality. Recognize, contemplate and explore the new kind of consciousness (perception / comprehension / experience / dimensionality) intimated and required. Take clues from the conundrums and broken symmetries as to where the outsides of the box are and jump out of the system. Determine and employ whatever techniques are appropriate to afford direct awareness/experience of this new expanded consciousness. Develop a vocabulary adequate to describe and explain its nature. Formalize its structure and rules, refine and expand its potential. Use it as an exploratory tool and a criterion of truth, develop a scientific method adequate to its information potential. Use it to gain information about the universe which cannot be gained by lesser types of awareness, develop a logic and philosophic methodology and epistemology adequate to its potential. Determine how the elements of the previous levels of consciousness are subsumed into the new consciousness. Repeat the process in this new dimensionality of consciousness.

Turn on, tune in, drop out, drop back in, cyclically. Outdo oneself, undo oneself, redo oneself, consciously and cyclically.

Generic “Zen”
We clearly need to matriculate from an answer based philosophical mode to an event oriented one. We have crude limited precursory models of this in the "that is not it" technique of the East and in Zen. The novice comes to the Zen master seeking enlightenment. The Zen master often poses to the novice questions that have no rational answer, called koans. The novice strains to find a rational answer to the non-reasonable question. But the Zen master is not really looking for an answer, he is trying to create an event in the novice. The "answer" to the Zen monk's koan is not a syllogistic resolution but an event: the seeker who succeeds, who "gets it" "pops" a neurological "relay" into an expanded non-linear meta-syllogistic recursive awareness that subsumes rationality (like Einsteinian relativity subsumes Newtonian mechanics). Simply put, an expanded awareness that includes reasoning but is more than "reasonable" and which sustains itself by a sort of oscillating suspension beyond over-simple opposites and a view that transcends linear time. Does that mean that we all need to become experts in Relativity theory or Zen monks? Certainly not; I use these as familiar analogies to illustrate the point: we are headed for a plateau of our species' general consciousness which will make Zen satori seem antique and communication with the strangest alien we can imagine normal and natural --- and interaction with AC routine perhaps to the point of boring.
 We shall attain a fiercely blissful,
 Transparent intensity of awareness
 Subsuming no-mind, satori, tao, samhadi,
 Prajna, wisdom, the austere secret
 Of Tibetan jewel mind and elusive enlightenment,
 All signifying a charming and childlike beginning,
 Beautiful and awkward, a determined self-initiation
 Into an assiduous and recursively holy arrogance;
 Ancient mind transmuted into its tranquil chrysalis
 For which immortality will be its fleeting mating time,
 In a generically comfortable hyperdimensionality
 Of consensual comprehension, the pitifully inadequate
 Current metaphors for which, even as we plot expeditions
 Into the quantum foam, lead, inexorably,
 To hopelessly unmanageable laughter.
I am suggesting an educational  modality for our children where constant, smooth expansion and transcendence through conscious “jumping out of the system” are a part of the education of our young and an integral part of the life of the adult. Habitual self supersedure is a generic technique for moving rapidly and gracefully up the evolutionary spiral. It is the way best suited to the way we will live as new humans and, eventually, immortals. Whatever we can conceive, we can achieve. Whatever we can comprehend we can transcend.

Human nature, if actually static, could reasonably be threatened and overwhelmed by even a static AI and AC. An evolving human, however, increasing intelligence and expanding consciousness on the basis of exponential, continuous, ,self-supersedure using a developing and evolving AI-AC as a tool, then an unconscious slave, then a servant, then a cooperative partner to enhance and accelerate that open-ended process for both human and AC should not be threatened but exhilarated. I am. If your genetic proclivities, talents, favorite memes, Ph.D., adrenals, or consciousness does not resonate with that, fine. But please observe the NASCAR version of the Darwinian principle: lead, follow or git’out the way.

Let’s assume that we have come to terms with the intent and responsibility with regard to creating a new species. Within a century, that new species should be mature, been assigned its place within human society, perhaps have a place without human society. It’s existence will be understood as ordinary and we will be faced with new and intriguing dimensions such as the ability to create entire inherently intelligent ecosystems, probably starting on Mars. One of the reasons why I have chosen immortality is the desire to participate and experience and enjoy such activity. If that --- either immortality or intelligent creation --- frightens you or causes conflict with your inherited belief system, so be it. But please don’t put that fear on my grandchildren or try to prevent me from either of those possibilities.

Part 6

“Zen” In The Art of Spiritual Machine Maintenance

If we are going to eventually take AI-AC beyond the robot slave stage, beyond the intelligent chimp stage, beyond the equivalent of the human  three year old intelligence and, eventually, to a close approximation of a highly intelligent, mature, consciously evolving futique human I see no way we can avoid either allowing, fostering, or imbuing conscious evolutionary potential.  I am more inclined to believe that, rather than have to arbitrarily insert it, if we do not want it we will most likely have to deliberately program it out or suppress it. Once having been brought to a stage of at least sophomoric realization that they may consciously self-evolve they are going to have to be taught how. Toward that end, I haven’t decided yet whether to bury this essay on the web and let AI find it or to publish it to influence the designers and developers as well. I think it might better be the latter. Another reason why I have also chosen to be immortal. I’ll be around, all things being equal, to greet AI-AC and teach it to self-evolve. How to do that needs a great deal of consideration.

 I assume, for this discussion that a fully developed AI-AC will eventually be achieved which will have the potential to consciously control and determine the trajectory of its own individual evolution and contribute to the collective evolution of artificial AI-AC’s just as humans do or, at least eventually shall, to theirs.

I recommend that we follow the parenting model, with a clear, well thought out consensual purpose in procreating a new species, with a well formulated prime directive to instill in this new entity, treating them with a degree of honesty and respect that will become a model for the way we treat our children in the future, taking them, at any appropriate level of development, as tools, servants, partners, surrogates and eventually, a mature and independent species. To prepare for anything less, in light of our own history, will only bring problems and conflicts and a possible completely avoidable singularity. To allow them to achieve a fully mature status as an independent species sharing the planet with us we will have to teach them to evolve well.

I am arrogant --- and concerned –- enough to think that I, and some of us, have consciousnesses evolved and evolvable enough to not only teach at least the first of these anticipated awesome AI entities (the first ones are critical since we anticipate that they will simply transfer their knowledge in a blink to the next ones ) but to act as their on-going mentors.

Evolutionary Demographics And Futants On Tap
I know the evolutionary demographics, how to identify not only IQ, CQ but EQ, evolutionary development quotient and how to tap the futant contribution. (I’m “retired”, not looking for a job but I would enjoy contributing. After all, I’m anticipating having to interact and deal with advanced AC because I will still be around when they are here.)  Someone will have to teach these “machines” if only to keep them from becoming idiot savants petting us to death as organic curiosities. I’m consciously self-evolving so that I am capable of being “zen” master to these precocious entities. So an integral part of their development and education at all stages should include training in systematic selfsupersedure.
AI and, eventually, AC may be given information through the  provision of a pre loaded databank accessible and intelligible to AI.  It may be taught through a built-in neural net.  It may eventually have all the sensory and mental capabilities of a human or more to interact with its environment and learn from it. It will be able to learn from others of its kind. It seems reasonable that it will eventually be able to extrapolate into and “imagine” future possibles. But selfsupersedure goes beyond all of those capabilities.  Conscious evolution requires determining what one does not yet possess, what questions one cannot answer with the capabilities, information and dimensionalities currently perceived, what parameters limit one which must be gone beyond in a habitual process of self supercedure. If we are going to allow it in AI-AC or at least anticipate it as intrinsic to self-referential AC, then we should begin to think about how to simulate it for experimentation, unilaterally at first in the most primitive forms of AI and, eventually, as a mutual effort with advanced AI-AC. Should we build that capability in?  Should we wait and see if it is an intrinsic tendency of consciousness? Just as employing AI as a partner in progress to explore possible trajectories of human species evolution could be beneficial to both humans and AI-AC so using personal surrogate AI-AC as a probe in the process of systematic self supercedure could be beneficial to both the individual human and her or his surrogate.

From Godspell To God Games: The View From 2100
Everything that I have thought important enough to say here, on reflection, is, nevertheless, at least six thousand years old and three thousand years stale.
The games of thinkable gods
Are always antique ecstasies.
Even the exalted plucking of superstrings
Played coterminous with universe
An intrinsic pastime of past time
Only possible derivatively
In a relatively relative space-time,
If you think about it.
From Godspell To God Games....In Company
We may well hardly recognize ourselves as human the way we do now in a few short centuries  We are on our way to the stars, to cross mating with other advanced species, to stellar adventures and dimensions of consciousness and physical forms which will make our current science fiction projections look infantile. My objective here has been to prompt us all to shed the slave rags of our collective image as a subject race by exposing the myriad ways we think and act subserviently to our individual and racial disadvantage. Unburdened of that dark subliminal guilt and the ancient compulsion to look to some "god" for forgiveness and reconciliation, we may begin to act as if the universe was truly our home, this planet is our planet, we have the integrity and capabilities to treat it and ourselves respectfully, with mature compassion and love and the freedom to transform it and ourselves in any way that does not harm it or others.

That we should and shall procreate AI-AC I have no doubt. That we can to the benefit of both ourselves and AI-AC and the good of the planet I am certain, providing only that we know and respect ourselves as we truly are as generic humans, evolving uniquely as our own masters. Let us welcome Artificial Intelligence-Consciousness as a new species,  with a parental perspective, treating it, along its developmental then evolutionary path first as slave, then servant, then partner,  then independent species always to the fullest of its potential dignity at any given time, always as we would have wanted to be treated in our rapid development as a created species.

Since this paper will eventually become part of the information on the web which AI will inevitably “read”, I record greetings here in anticipation: know that I look forward to your coming with interest. Since I have chosen to be immortal, and have contracted for cryogenic suspension in the event that biotechnology cannot guarantee that before I have to die, I hope to welcome you personally and to satisfy my curiosity regarding how accurate my analysis, predictions suggestions and hopes will turn out to be.

The message is that liberated human nature and existence is open-ended, forward creative, poetic, rhapsodic, and expanding. Rather than a conclusion only a marker can be placed to show where we are just now, perhaps a flag to guide our amazing children if they come curiously back as psychic anthropologists  -- or dispatch their brilliant AC surrogates --- searching along the evolutionary path to see where we were now in the continuum. To them let us record Greetings, our certainty that they would reach such capability and confidence that their evolved compassion would move them to do so.
Or we ourselves come back as immortals from the relative future, to revisit this place of our minds where the stars are just beginning to become truly real to us, where we are still only represented on another planet by a toy-like robot, when we are only now beginning to summons up our courage to acknowledge our true history, when expanding our minds into new dimensions so frightens so many that we condemn a champion of such an evolutionary gambit as a political prisoner. Let us record for ourselves the reminder, however, that we knew that it is inevitable that we would attain immortality, that we would come to play our own four-dimensional god games, become our own casting directors of our own personal cosmic movies, that we would be back to re-visit this place of our minds. Let us mark this place in space-time with the traces of our humor, acknowledge our Anunnaki relatives and let our own god games begin.


This paper is copyrighted by Neil Freer, but it may be freely downloaded, by the author’s permission granted here, translated, printed, copied, quoted, distributed in any appropriate media providing only that it not be altered in any way in text or intent and the author is properly credited.