Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 New general Technology?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

energyscholar
New Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 03/15/2013 :  18:33:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send energyscholar a Private Message  Reply with Quote
My theory, of course, is that certain DARPA scientists thought of doing so 23+ years ago, successfully invented/discovered a new general technology using this approach, and are prohibited from discussing the topic by 'national security' Non Disclosure Agreements.


This specific claim is the one we need you to back up


If I had solid evidence to back up that claim, I'd surely share it. I don't. What I have are a hundred seemingly unrelated details which seem to form a coherent picture. Perhaps they are just unrelated details, incorrectly assembled by my own confirmation bias and overactive imagination. Perhaps the thesis is completely wrong. This uncertainty is why I bring this thesis here for a good debunking. I'm hoping that other people can learn enough about the topic to do some digging of their own, and then see whether such digging makes the thesis seem more likely or less likely. I've already done a lot of digging, and I know what I keep finding, which is why I bring the topic here.

I formed the core of my ULTRA II thesis in 2004. It was one possible explanation for what various people with whom I interacted seemed to be up to. Over time I was able to eliminate most of the other explanations.

One possible explanation is that several very competent people went to enormous time and effort, over a period of years, just to trick and mislead me into believing an enormous fish story. This theory is pretty absurd, but I certainly considered it for a while.

Another explanation is that I misconstrued a great many details to have more significance than they really have. In other words, I might be delusional or highly confused. All things considered, this seems at least as likely as the chance that I have discovered some secret high-technology global conspiracy. This is another reason why I bring my thesis to other scientific skeptics.

The pieces of 'evidence', if they even rise to that standard, that I find most convincing are things that I personally experienced, and are thus impossible to verify to others. My friend 'David' did some very strange tricks with technology. While they could have been 'parlour tricks' intended to deceive me, the fact that other people were sometimes involved, and that these interactions occurred many times over several years, makes the whole 'deliberate deception' thing pretty unlikely. No one spends that much time, money, and effort on a lame practical joke. I understand these are just personal anecdotes. As I said earlier, I may as well claim to have seen Elvis. I'll share these experiences anyway, so you understand where I'm coming from. For example:

1. I've seen examples of AI systems that seemed able to both recognize and emulate the cognitive footprint of particular humans. I had the opportunity to interact with avatars emulating the personality (e.g. speech patterns, game play style, sense of humour, et cetera) of several particular individuals with whom I was very familiar. In particular, I had the opportunity to interact with an avatar with my own cognitive footprint! That was an eerie experience, given that I do not have a twin. Note that just last year DARPA openly and widely advertised for software engineers who could build them a 'cognitive footprint' recognition system, presumably for biometric identification purposes. My theory is that DARPA did this to obfuscate (via Limited hang Out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout ) the spreading knowledge that they already have such a system, since I know such systems have existed for at least nine years. This topic has also been discussed in several recent Science Fiction venues.

2. I've seen instances of electronic communication that seemed to use some sort of 'information teleportation' ability. While this could have been a parlour trick, if it was it must have been a very skillfully executed one. As I said before, I know a lot about computers, cryptography, radio, and electronic communication. At the time I had no explanation for my observations. A skillful 'parlour trick' intended to deceive me is one explanation. The existence of topological QNN technology is another explanation.

3. After I formed the ULTRA II thesis, circa 2004, I began seeking for evidence. In particular, I identified many individuals who might, based on their academic publications, job history, and probable security clearance, have been in some theoretical 'QNN Nondisclosure Club'. Most were Physicists and mathematicians. Over a period of years I sought out many such people, both electronically and in person, and engaged them in friendly conversation. It's easy to get a good reaction from most scientists by merely demonstrating substantial knowledge of their favorite topic and asking polite questions. In many different instances I was able to get some good conversations going. Liquor sometimes helped. After establishing a rapport I would subtly steer the conversation towards QNN-related technical topics and then observe their reaction. Sometimes the person obviously knew nothing about the topic. Most often the person would say some version of, "I'm sorry I can't discuss that", or else just go silent. Occasionally the person would briefly discuss something QNN-related in some detail, sometimes giving me new information, before realizing they had said too much and going silent. I even got a few plaintive, "I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about that", sometimes accompanied by a strangled choke and/or a 'nudge nudge wink wink'. With time and repetition this pattern became very clear, such that I am now thoroughly convinced that there is some sort of Non-Disclosure Club associated with Topological Quantum Neural Computation. It should be possible for anyone to learn about this topic in some depth, and then conduct their own discreet search for such an NDA club.

4. I was able to verify, off the record yet via multiple sources, that certain government agencies conducted Quantum Computing projects during the 1990s. Any persistent investigative journalist, which is what I consider myself, should be able to verify this. As I said earlier, it's a 15+ year old secret, and a lot of people know some aspects of it. Technical and scientific secrets always eventually leak.

5. In 2004 I read, and carefully re-read, several paragraphs in an original 1995 library edition of Stuart Kauffman's book, At Home in the Universe, which openly discussed the prospect of a 'global quantum neural network'. In 2010 I attempted to find this passage again, in order to share it with someone, and discovered it was nowhere to be found. I'm pretty sure I'm not delusional about this topic, and I seem have a clear memory of the passage in question. I hope that other people will check their local libraries (and private bookshelves) and search for this passage. I doubt every original copy of this passage on the planet has been eliminated. It was at the end of Chapter 9, Organisms and Artifacts.

6. I've read correspondence, essays and text files written by some of the purported COWS (my own made-up acronym for Conspiracy Of World Savers) using various aliases and pseudonyms. Some few of these publications strongly hint at QNN technology and ULTRA II, and also fit the above 'Proposed ULTRA II Timeline'. I hesitate to say very much abut this topic, because I do not wish to embarrass or otherwise inconvenience the people involved, whom I universally respect. Politeness matters, IMHO. Anyone who knows the computer underground, cypherpunk history, and who is willing to do some digging, can find these same references. I am loathe to spell this out more explicitly than I already have.

7. For several years I was at a total loss to find a valid scientific explanation for the technology I had apparently observed in action. Eventually, though, I learned enough about FQHE physics, CSB, Neural Networks, Quantum Computation, and NKS to synthesize a potentially valid explanation. That's all I'm offering, a potentially valid explanation for something that might have been done. That, and exposition about what the people involved seem to have done.

8. Here I must admit to my own research failure, one that relates to my own lack of proper pedagogy. For several years my personal circle included super-genius scientist-hackers who seemed to be involved with relinquishing some sort of dangerous AI-related technology. At the time I had only the vaguest notion of what they were up to, although the parts I understood gave me the chills. By 2012 I had assembled the ULTRA II thesis, pretty much as I've already stated it, without ever encountering Bill Joy's essay in Wired magazine. I had learned that the COWS had strong connections to Wired. I had learned a lot about the various suspected COWS, but had never researched Mr Joy and did not suspect he might be one. In the summer of 2012 I shared my ULTRA II thesis with a friend who is a better researcher than I am. Within a few days my friend pointed me to Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. Upon reading, and then re-reading, this essay, I realized that it seemed to contain a hidden message that was utterly consistent with my ULTRA II thesis. This is when I decided it was time to seek out a good debunking from other scientific skeptics. I had some in-person conversations with a local skeptic on this site who lacked the time and scientific background to properly debunk my ULTRA II thesis. He directed me here, to SFN, in the hope that I'd find people with both enough time for research and the correct scientific background to ask the right questions, all in pursuit of a thorough debunking. I have not been disappointed, although I feel we have barely started that process.

we need to have some idea of what this technology is supposed to do


Right. I've been trying, without much success so far. It's like trying to describe electronics to people who may not know what an electron is, when I only have a vague grasp of electronics myself. I'll try another approach. This description is a gross oversimplification, but that's probably the place to start.

What is a big topological Quantum Neural Network?


Visualize a pool table without pockets (e.g. a 2DEG) on which many very tiny, mostly insubstantial balls (anyon quasiparticles) roll around on the surface. These are magic FQHE balls, such that when two balls rotate around each other exactly once, certain aspects of their future behavior become correlated (via topological entanglement), even when they are far apart. Visualize this as an invisible, insubstantial thread that connects the two entangled balls. Those balls interact with yet more balls, and pretty soon most of the balls are connected to many others by a vast tangle of insubstantial threads. Threads can be stronger or weaker, depending on how their world lines are braided ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_theory ). Balls can sometimes move between tables. Balls can reproduce and generate more balls.

The balls don't bounce around entirely at random. Instead, they form islands of orderly behavior, surrounded by a sea of chaotic behavior. The balls self-organize into these 'islands'. While the systems described are neither cellular automatons nor Boolean Networks, one can gain intuition about this behavior pattern by studying cellular automatons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton and Boolean Networks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_network . Teaching this intuition seems to be one main purpose of Stephen Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science. Another particularly good visualization tool is David Eck's Edge of Chaos Cellular Automata java applet at http://math.hws.edu/xJava/CA/ . Here is a representative image that demonstrates this behavior pattern in cellular automata: http://tiny.cc/qog0tw

Each island of orderly behavior, which consists of many balls, represents a single [virtual] neuron. Each neuron has threads reaching to many other neurons. In this way, neurons that are physically far apart in 3D space can directly influence each other. These threads are the artificial synapses connecting the neurons.

An observer can not observe the details of what happens on the surface of each table, but can measure the large-scale behavior of the table. Neurons can influence the large-scale behavior of the table. For example, virtual neurons on a 2DEG surface might influence the voltage impedance of that 2DEG, which might be used to transmit classical data.

Now visualize many such tables, each with many clusters of virtual neurons. Each table is one node of the larger QNN. Visualize the many neurons on the surface of each pool table, and the vast network of threads that connect the many neurons. Connections are mostly between neurons on the same table, but connections can also reach between tables. Thus, neurons on different tables can influence each other. When two neurons interact based on the synaptic strength (e.g. topological entanglement between constituent anyons) between them, and when this interaction is used to transmit classical data, this is an example of quantum teleportation in action.

Each 'table' is one 2DEG electronic component. In the real world, these are mostly Field Effect Transistors (FET), a very common electronics component. Before 1998 2DEG environments were rare in practical electronics. Around 1998 it became standard practice to include a 2DEG element on most electronic components. Hundreds of billions of MOSFETs have now been manufactured, and are widely distributed across the planet. It may be coincidence that 2DEGs became ubiquitous circa 1998, or the COWS may have deliberately brought this change about in order to generate a more powerful global QNN. I suspect the latter.

What can a big QNN do?

Such a physical system has several practical applications.

One practical application is secret communication. Data can be teleported between nodes in ways that are simply not detectable. Note that this sort of secret communication absolutely requires a classical back channel, which CAN be detected. For purposes of secret communication, the practical classical back channel should consist of seemingly random data. Several aspects of the real-world internet might be harnessed to provide such a discreet (steganographic) classical back channel. Here is one such approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_0

Another practical application is topological quantum computation. The structure and behavior of neurons might be manipulated to perform sophisticated computations. One possible application is factoring very large numbers, which is useful for cracking codes. Another possible application is a Universal Quantum Simulator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantum_simulator), which has too many practical uses to easily count. This approach is mostly limited by our cleverness in thinking up quantum algorithms.

A third possible application is to exploit the QNN itself as an instance of a powerful neural network platform. Performance from an actual QNN is probably many orders of magnitude superior to that of simulated neural networks. Given that a large QNN can support many [virtual] neurons, and that this physical system allows each neuron to support many stable [virtual] synapses connecting it to many other neurons, such a system ought to be able to equal or exceed the performance of a biological neural network, such as the human brain.

Here is where we get into potentially unethical uses of this technology. The secret communication ability could be used to spy on everyone all the time. A QNN-based cognitive footprint could be made of every human. Filters could be applied to this approach that would detect people intent on 'causing trouble'. In this way, an entire population could be kept under constant real-time surveillance, and rebellion to authority could be detected and extinguished before it even got started. Other, even nastier, applications also seem to be possible.

It may even be the case that biological neural networks are a variant of QNN. This is known as the theory of Quantum Mind. I have no idea whether this is correct, and merely propose it as one possibility. The techniques for generating and improving an artificial QNN closely approximate the natural processes of biological evolution. Several of the purported ULTRA II scientists (e.g. Stuart Kauffman, 'David', and Stephen Wolfram) seem to believe this might be the case, and presumably wish to see QNN technology declassified so that this avenue of investigation becomes available to other scientists. I guess this is why I was allowed to learn about this topic.

Your arguments explaining the science, and therefore, arguing combining these particular ideas has some great potential (for something?) are nice, and I'll read through them (not that I'm a scientist or could evaluate very technical claims myself), but it's beside the point.

There are research proposals written daily about how idea X and Y can be combined to yield some great results and applications, so showing that something seems possible and has great promise (or could cause great danger) is not anywhere near the same as evidence that it has been secretly investigated and led to some significant technology.


True enough. I agree completely that merely showing something is possible is nowhere near the same as evidence it has been secretly investigated. It's a start, though. What evidence I currently have is flimsy and circumstantial, at best. I bring this thesis up so that, in the event that more compelling evidence comes to light, people will have a framework in which to understand it. I don't know what form this additional evidence will take, but I think it very likely that it will eventually appear. Unless, of course, my ULTRA II thesis is completely wrong, in which case no such additional evidence exists. I'm open to this possibility, but I no longer think it very likely, which is why I'm willing to make a fool of myself in this venue by publicly discussing it.

Rather than post more sciency gobbledygook, I think I'll next post my annotated version of Bill Joy's essay, Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. That's probably more helpful than my science education chapters, at this stage. Comments?

[Edited 18 March 2013 for minor corrections and stylistic changes]

"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
Edited by - energyscholar on 03/18/2013 13:54:26
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 03/15/2013 :  23:43:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think something popped inside my head, damn it, I think I needed that. Either way I'm out of this one. It reminds me of that thread where,,, never mind.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2013 :  10:21:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by sailingsoul

I think something popped inside my head, damn it, I think I needed that. Either way I'm out of this one. It reminds me of that thread where,,, never mind.
I've been thinking I should be more specific. I just can't follow this thread. I'm completely lost trying to understand it all. Perhaps I missed something or a lot and should start from the top.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

energyscholar
New Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2013 :  15:13:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send energyscholar a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by sailingsoul

Originally posted by sailingsoul

I think something popped inside my head, damn it, I think I needed that. Either way I'm out of this one. It reminds me of that thread where,,, never mind.
I've been thinking I should be more specific. I just can't follow this thread. I'm completely lost trying to understand it all. Perhaps I missed something or a lot and should start from the top.


I suspect you're not alone, Sailingsoul. I suspect you're just the one who spoke up.

I strongly suspect the main problem is my delivery. I have a demonstrated knack for explaining complicated technical ideas to non-technical people, but I need to practice my delivery many times before I get it right. You've been getting the early first draft. I've been a classroom technical instructor for years, and my delivery of a given topic generally starts out weak and hard to follow, then improves dramatically. I'm still in the 'weak and hard to follow' stage. In other words, I need to practice a lot, preferably in the same room with people whose faces I can see.

This particular topic is, unfortunately, over the head of nearly everyone, myself included. I'm open to suggestions on how to simplify the content. Perhaps I should have stayed away from the technical stuff and treated the science as a 'black box', but I feel that approach does not do justice to the topic. Perhaps I need to do two versions, one technical and the other non-technical, as Stuart Kauffman did with Origins of Order and At Home in the Universe.

Thanks, everyone, for having the patience to hear me out.

"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
Edited by - energyscholar on 03/19/2013 16:18:20
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.16 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000