James Hughes interviewed by Tricycle about transhumanism, Cyborg Buddha project

Buddhist magazine Tricycle recently interviewed the IEET's James Hughes about his unique take on transhumanism and Buddhism -- and how the two seemingly disparate philosophies should be intertwined.

Excerpt:

As a former Buddhist monk, Professor James Hughes is concerned with realization. And as a Transhumanist—someone who believes that we will eventually merge with technology and transcend our human limitations—he endorses radical technological enhancements to humanity to help achieve it. He describes himself as an “agnostic Buddhist” trying to unite the European Enlightenment with Buddhist enlightenment.

Sidestepping the word “happiness,” Hughes’ prefers to speak of “human flourishing,” avoiding the hedonism that “happiness” can imply.

“I’m a cautious forecaster,” says Hughes, a bioethicist and sociologist, “but I think the next couple of decades will probably be determined by our growing ability to control matter at the molecular level, by genetic engineering, and by advances in chemistry and tissue-engineering. Life expectancy will increase in almost all countries as we slow down the aging process and eliminate many diseases.” Not squeamish about the prospect of enhancing—or, plainly put, overhauling— the human being, Hughes thinks our lives may be changed most by neurotechnologies—stimulant drugs, “smart” drugs, and psychoactive substances that suppress mental illness.

More.

Richard Eskow, who did the interview, followed it up with a rebuttal of sorts: Cerebral Imperialism. In the article he writes,

Why “artificial intelligence,” after all, and not an “artificial identity” or “personality”? The name itself reveals a bias. Aren’t we confused computation with cognition and cognition with identity? Neuroscience suggests that metabolic processes drive our actions and our thoughts to a far greater degree than we’ve realized until now. Is there really a little being in our brains, or contiguous with our brains, driving the body?

To a large extent, isn’t it the other way around? Don’t our minds often build a framework around actions we’ve decided to take for other, more physical reasons? When I drink too much coffee I become more aggressive. I drive more aggressively, but am always thinking thoughts as I weave through traffic: “I’m late.” “He’s slow.” “She’s in the left lane.” “This is a more efficient way to drive.”

Why do we assume that there is an intelligence independent of the body that produces it? I’m well aware of the scientists who are challenging that assumption, so this is not a criticism of the entire artificial intelligence field. There’s a whole discipline called “friendly AI” which recognizes the threat posed by the Skynet/Terminator “computers come alive and eliminate humanity” scenario. A number of these researchers are looking for ways to make artificial “minds” more like artificial “personalities.”

Hopefully more to come on this intriguing debate.

Speaking at the H+ Summit at Harvard, June 11-12

I'll be at the H+ Summit @ Harvard during the weekend of June 11-12 and I hope to see you there. The Summit is an educational, and scientific outreach event that covers the themes of the impact of technology on the human condition. It is hosted, and organized by the Harvard College Future Society, in cooperation with Humanity+.

Tickets are still available, so register now.

Weaving in futurism, technoprogressivism and transhumanism, the H+ Summit is part of a larger cultural conversation about what it means to be human and, ultimately, more than human. This issue lies at the heart of the transhumanist movement -- and a common topic on this blog.

Key speakers include Ray Kurzweil, Aubrey de Gray, Stephen Wolfram and Ronald Bailey.

Oh, and little old me.

Here's the title and abstract of my talk:

When the Turing Test is not enough: Towards a functionalist determination of personhood and the advent of an authentic machine ethics

Abstract: Empirical research that works to identify those characteristics requisite for the identification of nonhuman persons are proving increasingly insufficient, particularly as neuroscientists further refine functionalist models of cognition. To say that an agent "appears" to have awareness or intelligence is inadequate. Rather, what is required is the discovery and understanding of those processes in the brain that are responsible for capacities such as self-awareness, empathy and emotion. Subsequently, the shift to a neurobiological basis for personhood will have implications for those hoping to develop self-aware artificial intelligence and brain emulations. The Turing Test alone cannot identify machine consciousness; instead, computer scientists will need to work off the functionalist model and be mindful of those processes that produce awareness. Because the potential to do harm is significant, an effective and accountable machine ethics needs to be considered. Ultimately, it is our responsibility as citizen-scientists to develop a rigorous understanding of personhood so that we can identify and work with machine minds in the most compassionate and considerate manner possible.

See you there!

Lost Leaders Sink or Swim in Oil Filled Ocean

More new oil spill animations from June 3rd are seen and described here.

And here’s the new live BP oil spill video feed showing a new picture of semi-captured oil! (Maybe)  PBS reports: We modified our original Gulf Leak Meter because the video takes our sliding scale out of the abstract and into reality.

Their original Gulf Leak Meter is seen here in the right-hand column.  You can slide the scale back and forth, depending on who you believe.  But today it looks like we can celebrate.    BP has had a semi-success with their new capping procedure, and some of the oil is now being channeled. That means some of the oil gushing from the ocean floor is now going to be captured. Then it can then be stored, refined, sold and burned, where it will pollute our atmosphere and climate instead of our oceans.  That’s considered progress.  At least there is no major food chain living in the sky.

President Obama will be talking again today in the Gulf Coast region. I don’t expect him to use this as a teaching moment to educate the public about climate change and the wrong-headed increased use of fossil fuels. Climate change is something he has barely mentioned since becoming president. I don’t expect him to not embrace oil and gas and coal in the near future.

I expect him to talk about how offshore oil is great for “our energy needs”. He inappropriately talks about how great offshore drilling is at every possible public moment. It’s almost obscene. I don’t expect Obama to express much genuine or sincere concern for the environment at all, but he will probably mention jobs and the economy a lot. Preserving temporary jobs and economic systems is much more important to all national politicians than preserving a livable, habitable planet. That’s the way it is.

A new memo was released yesterday, and  UN climate leader Yvo de Boer states his opinions on America’s contributions to climate talks. It’s not a flattering picture.  Reported in New Scientist:

According to de Boer, the document was “unbalanced” and heavily biased in favour of western nations. “The Danish paper destroyed two years of effort in one fell swoop,” de Boer wrote in a memo shortly after the conference ended. The memo was obtained by Danish journalist Per Meistrup, author of Kampen om klimaet, and can be seen online at bit.ly/aanbGg.

I don’t expect much from our political leaders at all anymore. They are too busy dealing with the next upcoming election to ever do what is necessary for climate change. (That’s just reality. We need to face reality in order to decide what we can do to fight climate change. I have written off federal level politicians entirely.)  As Dmitri Orlov wrote recently,

It is embarrassing to be lost. It is even more embarrassing for a leader [...]

DTC Genomics adjusts for regulations. 23andCGC?



In a blatantly obvious, why the hell werent they doing that in the first place? move.


23andSerge acknolwedges, finally, that they ARE Providing clinically important work. Duh,

Since the website won't let me copy the presser, I will quote, with my own translation through business BS speak.

"23andMe customers now have the option to speak with a board certified genetic counselor"

-Translation, we realized that by testing BRCA mutations we put people at risk and needed some back up from someone who knows what the FCUK they are doing opposed to a VC billionaire babe and ruby on rails programmer kids.

-Because, frankly, we don't want to get sued or go to jail......Like Liz Dragon......

"We chose Informed because they were the leading independent genetic counseling provider"

-Translation, we alienated/pissed off the entire rest of the FCUKING community by saying they were stupid. Thus these were the only guys who would work with a company getting ready to be pilloried by Congress

IMHO, Informed are a great service, we are modeling genetichub after them, but... No one else would work with them on this. NO ONE, or so I am told......

"We wanted to be sure that the information our customers receive would be completely objective"

-Translation: We didn't want to have egg on our face when the geneticists said, "Well Andre, that finding essentially means nothing to your long term health and happiness"

"Customers who want a more thorough review of their family and medical histories can chose the Comprehensive Clinical Genetic Counseling"


-Translation: Yes we know we have been pushing this "It's not clinical" thing, but let's face it, no one is buying it. So we said Clinical, yes we did. See Henry, we are trying Congressman. See. Please no pre-market review.

The Sherpa Says: Well 23andMe, I am proud you came around. Too bad it only took an FDA review and being called to testify before congress before you "acted" in the best interests of your customers. 3 years later and I can say it. I told you so......

Art of Photography Show – Entry Deadline June 7th

The Art of Photography Show

“The Art of Photography Show is the very best photography competition among all of the competitions which were represented at the APA-LA panel, by far. You guys stand alone as being a pure high-end photography exhibition, produced with excellence and with integrity.” – Jim McHugh APA-LA Vice Chair

The Art of Photography Show 2010 is a world-class international exhibition of photographic art which will occur August 28 ? November 7 at the elegant two-level Lyceum Theatre Gallery, a perfect venue for exhibiting a large showcase of photography. We are very pleased that our esteemed judge for 2010 is Natasha Egan, the Associate Director and Curator at the Museum of Contemporary Photography in Chicago.

This is the sixth year of the Art of Photography Show. This major photographic exhibition is an ideal forum for photographers to exhibit and sell their work, reaching our very large community of art collectors, affluent individuals, corporate heads, civic leaders and very influential people who make up the Art of Photography Show audience.

Our Judges:One of the distinguishing characteristics of this competition and exhibition is that our judge is always a highly acclaimed museum curator. It’s our view that getting one’s photographs exhibited in a museum is the ultimate goal. Yet, getting exposed to museum curators is normally very difficult. Our project provides that opportunity. Here is a list of our judges so far:

  • Neal Benezra – Director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
  • Arthur Ollman – Director of the Museum of Photographic Arts
  • Charlotte Cotton – Director of Photography at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
  • Hugh Davies – Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego
  • Tim Wride – Director of Photography at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
  • Carol McCusker – Curator of Photography at the Museum of Photographic Arts

Our goal is to provide as many tangible benefits as possible for the exhibiting artists. The cash awards, accolades, media coverage and sales revenue that we provide to the artists who are selected by our acclaimed judge are substantial. You can read many testimonials from artists in our previous shows here.

Show Highlights:

  • $10,000 in award money will be given to artists in the Art of Photography Show 2010.
  • Our key goal is to sell the art for the photographers. This is not a “vanity show”.
  • Over 30,000 people will view the Art of Photography Show 2010 during the ten week run at the Lyceum gallery.
  • Over 1,500 people will attend the Opening Reception Gala on Saturday August 28th. Our attendees are a mix of art collectors, high net worth residents, advertising executives, architects & designers, executives of major San Diego corporations, and civic and government leaders.
  • An elegant 80-page show catalog will be given to everyone at the Opening Reception Gala and is made available for free at each special event during the exhibition.
  • We sell a very large percentage of the work, of which the artists receive most all of the revenue.
  • We donate 100% of our portion of the art sales revenue to an international charity called The AjA Project.

Marketing and Promotion:

  • Marketing and promotion for the Art of Photography Show is extensive, with national media coverage, numerous cross-promotions, coverage on television and radio, as well as promotion to thousands of fans and friends on social networks, including Facebook, Twitter, etc.
  • We send numerous email messages to our proprietary list of over 25,000 San Diego art patrons, collectors, civic leaders and upscale residents.
  • We distribute tens of thousands of exhibition announcement cards about the Art of Photography Show to major cities across the US.
  • Cross-promotions with numerous organizations is arranged, including the San Diego Museum of Art, the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Museum of Photographic Arts, the Downtown San Diego Partnership and ArtWalk ? resulting in a plenitude of additional exposure for the Art of Photography Show.

Our great love of this art form (and being photographic artists ourselves) prompts us to ‘pull out all of the stops’ in order to showcase a truly excellent presentation of photographic art, to provide substantial benefits to the exhibiting artists, and to elevate and promote this art form.

Choose your best images to present to Natasha Egan.  Entry deadline: June 7th at 11:59 pm PDT.

For more information please contact the Producer, Steven Churchill:
Email: steven@artofphotographyshow.com
Phone: 1-619-825-5575
Website: http://www.artofphotographyshow.com

Bravo Premieres “Work of Art” Reality Show



Lowbrow meets highbrow on Bravo’s new reality-television series Work of Art: The Next Great Artist. The show, which premieres next Wednesday, tracks 14 contestants as they compete to win $100,000 and a solo show at the Brooklyn Museum.

“Look—we’ve done it with food and fashion and hair and interior design, I think we can do it with art,” says Bravo senior vice president Andy Cohen, when asked if developing a high-concept show about art was a programming executive’s worst nightmare.

Cohen attributes his confidence to the producers: Sarah Jessica Parker, and her production company Pretty Matches, and Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz, of Magical Elves. Since Cutforth and Lipsitz banded together in 2001, the Elves have been busy shifting the focus of reality television from double-dare matchups such as Survivor, to creative competitions. Their collective hits, including Project Runway and Top Chef, have earned the duo an impressive reputation and secured Bravo a loyal, and growing, 18-to-49 demographic. Even better, the shows are cheap to make.

Nonetheless, the Elves didn’t see a television show about art as a particularly sure thing. “We definitely recognized it was a challenge,” Cutforth says. “But we were excited to embrace that. It’s hard to break open a new area of artistic expression that hasn’t already been mined. Art is one of the last frontiers because people are scared of it.”

The producers used their traditional casting formula to appeal to a broader audience. Although they said that the cast dynamics are organic, it’s difficult not to see the contestants as archetypes. In the first episode, there’s the villain (snippy Nao), the misunderstood ingenues (saccharine Jamie Lynn and sex pot Jaclyn), the misfits (veteran Judith and rookie Erik), and the likable front-runners (quirky Miles and earnest Abdi). Without much effort, one can connect the dots from these characters to their counterparts on past Bravo shows. The conventions extend to the stacked judges’ panel as well.

In a series of sculptural cocktail dresses, host China Chow does her best Heidi Klum while delivering the show’s signature, damning proclamation: “Your work of art didn’t work for us.” Phillips de Pury chairman and auctioneer Simone de Pury is the compassionate mentor who’s quick with a catchphrase. (“Be amazing!” “Wall power!”) Pulitzer Prize–nominated art critic Jerry Saltz is the tough but fair judge, and gallery owner Bill Powers is the resident cool guy. Collector Jeanne Greenberg-Rohatyn garnishes the mix with sophisticated criticism.

It works. If you choose to “sample the show,” (network parlance), the Magical Elves will hook you, just as they have before. Still, the notion of throwing the art world into this particular sausage factory is unsettling for some.

“There’s a lot of, ‘We’ll be watching you!’” says Powers of his contemporaries’ reaction to his judging gig. “You’re not sure if it’s a warning or an endorsement.”

Although many prominent artists (Jon Kessler, Jonathan Santlofer, Andres Serrano, David LaChapelle) agreed to appear on the show, others shied away, perhaps concerned with how it might affect their image.

Artist and guest judge Richard Phillips said the paranoia was unwarranted. “I’m certainly not fearful about what it could possibly do to my production.” he says. “When Warhol appeared on The Love Boat, he wasn’t concerned about how it was going to read on his Jackie in Mourning painting.”

Phillips also allowed his work to appear on Gossip Girl. He sees both shows as a way to engage a wider audience in contemporary art. “This form, the so-called reality show, is omnipresent. Whether we like it or not, it encapsulates a lot of entertainment production today. We need to raise the level of discussion and not run away from it,” he says. “My work is conventionally called a type of realism. For me, the opportunity to engage in what is known as a reality show is consistent with my objective. It’s a choice to be a part of the first projection of pop culture rather than merely being a passive reflection of it.”

Putting aside the impact of the show on established artists, a viewer would have to have a heart of steel not to be swayed by Work of Art’s potential impact on contestants. There’s Mark, the “fry cook by day, photographer by night,” who could leverage his Bravo celebrity to quit his day job. And there’s Ryan, who might be able to stand by his maxim, “I live to create and I create to live.” Even the contestants’ ecstatic expressions upon seeing their art supplies call to question the pragmatism of knocking an endeavor that gives struggling artists the means to create their work. (I’ll reserve judgment about what their ecstatic expressions upon seeing Sarah Jessica Parker might indicate.)

There’s the optimistic possibility, as well, that Work of Art could affect the viewers as much as the contestants. The show may encourage mainstream dialogue about art by lessening the quiet concern many feel when asked to discuss it. By validating viewers’ judgment, the judges could give the audience permission to have opinions about art while teaching them a language in which to express their ideas. How many people learned about “color blocking” on Project Runway, or “flavor profiles” on Top Chef?

“I hope that people will feel more comfortable talking about their opinions about art, or wanting to have opinions about art,” says Magical Elves’s Jane Lipsitz, “That’s our goal.”

For now, the producers can be satisfied with modest praise. “Good news,” announced the industry blog Art Fag City after the show’s first screening, “Work of Art… will not embarrass the art world.”

Work of Art premieres June 9 at 11 p.m. E.S.T.

http://www.bravotv.com/work-of-art

Original article found here

Various Works by Stephen Pan

These beautiful paintings were created by artist Stephen Pan. Stephen Pan was born into a family that has been renowned in China for artistic talent. At the age of five, his grandfather, Bo Yin Pan, gave him his first lesson in drawing and painting.

Although Pan had an intimate relationship with formal Chinese art traditions, he fell in love with the Renaissance and French Impressionist paintings. Already at the age of thirteen, he had a solo art show, and had won first place at National Art Excellence awards in China for his beautiful oil paintings.

Pan began teaching in Shanghai, China at the age of 20. To continue his artist career, his uncle supported his immigration to the United States. Stephen Pan was offered a teaching position at the Academy of Art College in San Francisco in 1997.

You can learn more about Stephen Pan and view additional work through the following links:

Stephen Pan at New Masters Gallery