“That Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2Thessalonians2:3-4NKJV)
I have the eerie feeling that that person is me. Once upon a time i was indeed a “man of sin,” but now an adopted son of God and even a Son of David by decree. We Christians understand this cleansing very well even though many do not act as they do. But for Hindus, Jews and Muslims they will perhaps once again tear their robes and say: This sinner will be “doomed to destruction.” I believe God has those sticky verses in Bible so that only someone who is really and truly a god like Jesus based on what God Himself told him, could be brave enough to take his seat there in the Third Temple. If those verses were not present in the Bible, surely Trump, who claims to be the Chosen One, would have taken his seat there by now. (See Could American Evangelicals Spot the Antichrist?) But now that those uncomfortable verses are present in the Bible, and as Christ must rule the earth eventually, only the true Christ will have the guts to take his seat there in the Third Temple. In other words, the Throne of David is well protected! “Truth is so precious that it should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies” (Winston Churchill as cited by Ravi Zacharias).
In view of Injil/Gospel John 10:35 of the Bible, which by virtue of the sap/Holy Spirit/Rhema-Word indeed flowing to me directly from God, makes me a true god (a Son of God by decree & right—a part of יהוה/God/الله/ईश्वर/దేముడు) over and above any “so-called god or object of worship.” As for you, do not be among the “condemned who did not believe the truth (incl. my testimony that i am in communion with the Creator God) but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2Thessalonians2:12 NKJV)–the unbelievers, who “crave” (Matthew 12:39) for signs and wonders such as a physical rapture.
Therefore, it is too simplistic to say: “It is the antichrist who will take his seat in the third temple ‘proclaiming himself’ to be God.” I ask: “Where then is room for the real Christ for whom we pray daily and ask God, saying, ‘Thy kingdom come and thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’?”
Accordingly, as i also have the eThrone invention, which is designed to be set up in the Distributed Augmented Third Temple in Jerusalem for providing World Governance services to prevent machine tyranny, globalization tsunami, terrorism, etc. See eThrone.org
I see right there👆🏾 the prophesied “cloud” (Daniel7:13; Matthew24:30) and the 24 Elders seated on their thrones (Revelation 11:16). The tech world has caught on to cloud computing & cloud services much faster than the children of righteousness. Using my SuperAugmented Persona (5A) invention (patent pending), the Distributed Augmented Third Temple can be seen with a meatspace of the physical Third Temple in Jerusalem virtually merged/ integrated with the distributed spiritual membership of Christ’s Body. Therewith, we have the fulfillment of the prophecy, “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Revelation 21:22).
SUPER-AUGMENTED PERSONA: Meatspace (20) Integrated and Augmented with Cyberspace (21) (group setting):
AUGMENTED PERSONA: Meatspace Integrated and Augmented with Cyberspace (individual level):
eThrone & Third Temple — A Solution to the Present Crisis:
But as for riding the clouds, i literally did ride the clouds on September 1, 1988 AD. In the fullness of time, God prepared an aeroplane for me to do just that.
As for AGAPE.CLOUD Online Rapture, please check out these two short videos:
And there are others who say that the “bodily resurrection of the dead” must take place first, before the Second Coming of Christ. Here is my short answer to that misconception:
In there👆🏾 i also share in simple language the design and architecture of the Third Temple–the “One New Man” (Ephesians 2:15).
Christ needs nothing from us but He rejoices in using simple things like mud, 5 loaves of bread and two fish, clothes for himself, etc. He does not need even a body. But He rejoiced to use Mary as a vessel for His birth. Likewise, he will use our gifts of technology for His glory.
My Callings:
Among many other titles, God has also called me “Immanuel” (god with us). You can’t get better than that!
As you can see, it is not me who exalts me. It is God who is exalting me! See Matthew 23:12.
As i very well know what delusions are by nature, and even wrote my autobiography with the subtitle, “At Crossroads with Faith & Delusions,” i have made a foolproof mechanism to ensure that it is good LORD Almighty God–someone external to me, not my own mind playing tricks on me–who is talking to me.
I commit to you these two verses for your meditation:
“For thrones are set there for judgment, The thrones of the house of David.” (Ps 122:5)
“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David” (Luke 1:32)–a promise conferred to me twice by God.
Moreover, these three things the Jewish people believe is the mark of their Messiah, who will be one risen from among humanity and that which some Church leaders say is the mark of the antichrist:
1) One who will form a One World Government; 2) One who will bring peace between Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus; and 3) One who will build an Augmented Third Temple in Jerusalem with an eThrone.
I for one am pursuing those very three things using God-given gifts.
Thanks for prayerfully considering these things.
🐕 Caleb Suresh Motupalli Son of David by election of God
The Disciples of Jesus asked Him, “Tell us…what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3). Jesus responded, “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14). At that time, 2000 years ago, Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew to a mountain by himself (John 6:15). Withdrawal made sense then, because His “kingdom was not of that world,” meaning, not of that realm of the Roman Empire, which did not extend to the ends of the earth for which He is Lord (Philippians 2:6-11; Acts 10:36). But in the fullness of time, today, the Gospel has reached the ends of the earth and therefore, the kingdom of God is now really at hand!
In 2018 at the United Nations General Assembly, in rejecting‘global governance‘, Trump had alluded to and rejected this Son of David’s proposal and patent pending eThroneinvention as if they were just another earthly proposal that had come before him for review. My dear brothers and sisters, do understand that globalism is good under the present conditions of anarchy and austerity brought about by the “automation beast”. Globalism is the purview of Christ. Please follow this link where I make a Case for a World Government (slideshow).
In his pride and conceit, Trump had a messianic complex that made him unfit for any work in the kingdom of heaven let alone blow the trumpet and therefore God rejected him and so do we. On the other hand, i for one, have a real Call of God to serve the world as Son of David, Capstone, Immanuel and Christ. Dear Brothers and Sisters, kindly understand that I am not self-promoting myself. These are real “Callings” of God. I am just self-actualizing!
Since the Church is dragging its feet to ratify my Proposal, this Son of David is reaching out to venture capitalists, who are good at identifying potential and taking a risk, which is really a leap of faith!
“So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin [in yet another person of a sinless life], but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Hebrews 9:28 ESV).
Honorable Jerrold Lewis Nadler Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, US Congress 201 Varick Street, Suite 669 New York, NY 10014, United States
Dear Honorable Mr. Nadler:
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!
I am a citizen of India, who lived in the United States for over ten years for graduate studies and work.
In 1989, while i was still doing my master’s in Computer Information Science at NJIT, i conceived of the Necktie Metaphor Persona Extender invention, which has matured, and is today called Augmented Intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT), Augmented Reality, Wearable Technology, Christocratic NWO, and Big Data in its various forms in the marketplace of technology. I happen to be the inventor to all of these technologies, which are offshoots of the initial formulation in 1989.
Today, i am the CEO and Managing Director of AgapeJUST [P] Ltd., which is a hi-tech company, started in 2017 here in India, dealing with these technologies. The company hopes to start an operations HQ in the United States very soon and employ over five hundred high skilled people and even make every user of our technology an indispensable member of the workforce amidst the “automation beast” and even amidst Corona Virus. Per our solid business plan, we expect to touch revenue of over $1B by year 2025.
I am now appealing to the US Congress from the US Supreme Court’s denial of justice on my utility patent application for these inventions of mine.
Unfortunately, the inventions have now become public domain, where everyone, including Google, Microsoft, MIT Labs, Cisco, and IBM, are helping themselves to it, while a patent is denied this inventor.
The US national stage patent application no. 13/516,443 was filed in 2012. The application passed all the three major tests for patentability, namely, Eligibility (§101), Novelty (§102), and Non-obviousness (§103). However, the USPTO’s Examiner rejected all Claims under §112 Enablement requirement, primarily because he alleges that the Specification is not enabling to “a person having ordinary skill in the art” (PHOSITA) to make and use the invention. Applicant had argued that not only was the Patent Application assigned to the wrong technology center at the USPTO, but as the invention is interdisciplinary in nature, a single examiner from Artificial Intelligence art unit will not suffice for instantaneous enablement. At least two or three persons from relevant disciplines are needed for enablement of this interdisciplinary invention. The prosecution dragged on till the US Supreme Court.
On April 20, 2020 the court of last resort has denied my petition in my patent case No. 19-8094, titled:
Caleb S. Motupalli, Petitioner v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
My case stands or falls over the Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C §112 ¶ 1 Enablement Statute.
The Supreme Court has maintained its “avoidance canon.” Instead of invalidating the Pre-AIA Statute and declaring it erroneous, it has simply denied the petition and avoided making a decision on it.
No doubt, “striking down a legislative act is the most momentously delicate thing a constitutional court ever does. The political costs of doing so can be great, and in any case, courts are often queasy about nullifying the work of a body whose democratic legitimacy seems more obvious and straightforward than their own. On the other hand, protecting citizens against unconstitutional legislation should make up a central part of a constitutional court’s raison d’être. By enjoining the Court to avoid statutory interpretations that would render a law unconstitutional, or even suspect, the avoidance canon purports to limit the use of the Court’s most fantastic power and to promote deference to the legislature.” (Appealing to Congress, Justin Collings, Law Review, Univ of California at Davis)
The US Supreme Court simply does not want to appear as ordering the legislature around. Therefore, it has simply denied my Petition without any opinion.
The challenged law, namely, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1 Enablement, is erroneous(!) and perhaps even unconstitutional, and must be accepted as such by US Congress in view of the following rational:
35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 1 (Pre-AIA) provides in relevant part (with the portion in square brackets [] added in the America Invents Act of September 2012):
“[In General,] the specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any (one) person(?) skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.”
The Statute requires that the specification of a patent application describe the invention in such terms that those skilled in the art are enabled to make and use the claimed invention. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way.
With current computer applications, it is not unusual for the claimed invention to involve two or more prior art areas, or more than one technology area. Typically, corporations have separate departments that deal in specializations, and are collectively enabled to make and use such inventions. It is also reason why patent offices elsewhere have three examiners examining a single patent application for maintaining objectivity. “Where different arts are involved in the invention, the specification is enabling if it enables persons skilled in each art to carry out the aspect of the invention applicable to their specialty.” In re Naquin, 398 F.2d 863, 866, 158 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1968)). Also, “the Board stated appellants’ disclosure must be held sufficient if it would enable a person skilled in the electronic computer art, in cooperation with a person skilled in the fuel injection art, to make and use appellants’ invention.” In Ex parte Zechnall, 194 USPQ 461 (Bd. App. 1973). See USPTO’s own MPEP 2164.05(b).
The Federal Circuit Court had retroactively(?) applied Pre-AIA, which possesses this US Congress-acknowledged legislative drafting error, and shockingly overturned the aforementioned precedent (Naquin & Zechnall) by insisting that it be asingle person working alone having a single skill who must be enabled to make and use the full scope of the specification. See In re: Motupalli, No. 19-1889 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Clearly, the 35 U.S.C. §112 Statute is in principle as well as per precedent fully satisfied when the specification of a patent application is enabling to an interdisciplinary team of two or three persons, working in cooperation, to make and use the claimed invention. That is, said PHOSITA, in addition to taking the form of a single person, can also take the form of a two-or-three-persons-PHOSITA, and still satisfy the §112 Enablement requirement.
The US Congress itself became cognizant of the above legislative drafting error and made amendments/corrections in the America Invents Act (AIA) of September 2012. However, since my application had a filing date of June 2012, the Federal Circuit applied Pre-AIA and disqualified my patent application from the benefits of the amendment to the §112 Statute that came with the AIA.
This retroactive application of Pre-AIA by the Federal Circuit is clearly erroneous because the US Congress itself made the pertinent amendment by qualifying the Statute with the phrase, “IN GENERAL,” which was prefixed to ¶ 1 of the Statute. The amendment now allowed for exceptions such as a team of two-or-three-persons-PHOSITA, who would need to be enabled by the disclosure. Though it was clear that the Pre-AIA Statute has this legislative drafting error, the court refused to apply legislative intent that conflicted with the Pre-AIA text of the law. Instead of deferring to the Legislature, the court should have taken the high ground and invalidated the Pre-AIA Statute from being applied retroactively. The Federal Circuit preferred applying the Pre-AIA Statute even though the legislative intent of the Statute itself pointed in the other direction, and even though it was actually corrected by the US Congress in the AIA. The Federal Circuit’s retroactive application should have been struck down at least by the court of last resort–the US Supreme Court. Appellant had hoped that in the interest of justice the Supreme Court would make a favourable decision on it. But it denied the Petition.
The US republic has a rich history, a noble goal, and is magnanimous. Appellant therefore appeals to the higher virtues present in the United States Congress.
In conclusion, the Appeal to US Congress can be summarized as:
Even though the US Congress made corrections to the 35 U.S.C §112 Statute in America Invents Act, the Federal Circuit Court has shockingly overturned precedent (Naquin & Zechnall) and said the erroneous Pre AIA Statute applies for my case since my application falls 3 months before the Amendments to the law, took effect. Apparently, its hands were tied. And the US Supreme Court avoided making a decision on it, deferring the case to the legislature.
This retroactive application to an erroneous Pre-AIA law is also erroneous.
Since the AIA already has the requisite amendment/correction in place for the §112 Statute, now it is just a matter of ordering that:
The Pre-AIA not be applied retroactively in this case because the intent of §112 Statute is self-evident that allows for a team of two-or-three-persons-PHOSITA for ensuring that the interdisciplinary invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way, as even the precedent declares; and
USPTO reopen prosecution of my patent application or better still, outrightly allow all Claims.
Prior to the machine being called a computer, it was called a Difference Engine. In other words, the Computer, as we know it, came into existence with a simple declaration of a system, which had been integrated from various sources. But to the uninitiated, it was still an “Electronic Gizmo.”
The point is: To make the leap from a mere “electronic gizmo” to “Computer,” the strength is in the Metaphor User Interface.
Though the Computer metaphor UI is better than Robot or Android, the arrangement — made possible by the metaphor UI — sets the user at the same level as the machine. The demerits of this arrangement is that it does not take into consideration the user’s strengths and has a trajectory of supplanting and enslaving humans to the point of extinction. Self-thinking or autonomous systems are extremely dangerous to man (Omohundro 2013; Wakefield 2016).
“The human brain has some capabilities that the brains of other animals lack. It is to these distinctive capabilities that our species owes its dominant position. Other animals have stronger muscles or sharper claws, but we have cleverer brains. If machine brains one day come to surpass human brains in general intelligence, then this new superintelligence could become very powerful. As the fate of the gorillas now depends more on us humans than on the gorillas themselves, so the fate of our species then would come to depend on the actions of the machine superintelligence.”
Therefore, it is naive to say: “The transfer of labour from humans to our inventions is nothing less than the history of civilisation.”
The Wall Street Journal article on April 21, 2017 is more true and demands an urgent solution:
“The AI revolution is unlike the historical, liberating industrial revolution in that it reverses this relationship: It puts the machine at the controls to command the humans”.
Terry Gou, Foxconn’s CEO, told his annual meeting that “We have over one million workers. In the future we will add one million robotic workers.” This means, of course, that the company will avoid hiring those next million human workers.
Jack MA of Alibaba is more cutting in saying:
“The first technology revolution caused World War I. The second technology revolution caused World War II. This is the third technology revolution.” With machine learning and artificial intelligence eliminating jobs, “the third technology revolution may cause the Third World War.” (Source: CNBC)
Seth Godin too points out that it is not just blue-collar jobs that are disappearing but white-collar ones as well.
“This is why we will soon be looking at hordes of citizens of zero economic value.Figuring out how to deal with the impacts of this development will be the greatest challenge facing free market economies in this century.” (Harvard Business Review)
If you are intrigued do watch:
Basic Solution
Ironically, the machine itself can potentially enable humans to transcend humanity and become divine. Framing the basic direction of thought for human endeavour, the Computer metaphor UI offers an affordance that inhibits the electronic machine to be perceived as a real extender to the mind for augmenting our intelligence. The affordance impedes research because it limits our thinking of the machine as a mere substitute to the human mind rather than as a compliment and an infinite Extender. There is no deliberate synergy because both the human and the machine are meant to operate independently in an unresourceful arrangement of egalitarian relationship that uses up resources uneconomically. Mechanical models transliterated, are always less efficient. It has been not just the grunt work that is being taken over by the machine but unfortunately it has also been the more common traits that make a human, human.
Human-to-Human interaction paradigm
Operating the machine in the same paradigm as the human computer, new ways of operating the machine are precluded. The user is limited to essentially that which could be done in the world of human-to-human interaction. Reliance on human-to-human communication paradigms have blinded the designers of prior art GUIs such as the PARC User Interface to the far greater potential of the machine to extend the user and augment his/her intelligence.
Elon Musk says:
“If humans want to continue to add value to the economy, they must augmenttheir capabilities through a merger of biological intelligence (?) and machine intelligence. If we fail to do this, we’ll risk becoming house cats to artificial intelligence.” (Source: The Guardian)
Garry Kasparov says:
“Disruptive as they (Intelligent Machines) may be, they are not a threat (?) to humankind but a great boon, providing us with endless opportunities to extend our capabilities and improve our lives.” (Source: WallStreetJournal)
The problem before us is this: Can we avert becoming “house cats” to Artificial Intelligence (or worse, locking horns with it and the “digital robber barons”), and at the same time extend AND augment our capability?
Metaphors are very powerful because they offer affordances. They enable whole architectures of systems to be instantaneously and readily programmed in the minds of the users. Therefore, the metaphors themselves are the user interfaces! The purpose of the metaphor UI is to give the user instantaneous knowledge about how to interact with the system. Since metaphors offer instantaneous knowledge, mere declaration is sufficient to program the UI comprising of a framework. The refining of the tech is secondary.
With the patent pending arrangement & framework that is made possible by the Necktie Persona Extender metaphor UI, humans are brought into the equation, unlike in the case of Artificial Intelligence which takes after the Computer metaphor UI. In this new arrangement, the machine is a compliment and an exponent, offering synergy to the user, rather than as a mere additive, offering only summation of capabilities. This arrangement offers a framework for not only engaging with the current AI Computer in this new useful way (i.e. as a Persona Extender) by co-opting it, but also for future research and development in this direction rather than in the direction of substitution and imitation. Whereby resources are apportioned accordingly while the bandwidth of the machine is reassigned to the user. And their persona is extended with intelligence augmented andtranshumanity and evendivinity is realized.
The Necktie Persona Extender metaphor UI itself provides the arrangement between the user and the apparatus! The metaphor UI offers an affordance where premium is automatically or intuitively placed on the fuzzy logic or other innate processing ability of humans. And Boolean logic processing ability of the machine is appraised as mere “movement-of-muscle” rather than as a high valued mental process. You see, “Logic — a capability of the machine — takes you from A to B. But imagination — which is of a higher order and possessed by humans alone — takes you everywhere” (HT: Albert Einstein). And with such leveraging of our innate faculties, co-opting AI — made possible by the metaphor UI — headship is given to the human user, who is being extended and augmented. And thus, the autonomy of the machine is revoked and its bandwidth is reassigned to the user, as is the case with both of Inventor’s commercial products, namely:
Agape TiE®, where the center of attention is the person, who is co-opting it, moreover by wearing it; and
Person®, where the attention is drawn to the transhuman person, who has co-opted the AI.
The Central Processing Unit (CPU) is now called a Delegated Processing Unit (DPU), which again reinforces the headship of the human user, who delegates tasks to the DPU. With headship rendered to the user in addition to an optional wearability of the machine, also comes oneness with the system for the user to become a cyborg with godlike powers. The Operating System (OS) is now called Operating Environment (OE) or Ecosystem of Things (EoT) for the purpose of re-configuring the closed system into an open integratable system for extending the bandwidth further by “necktying” (which includes a regulation because it throttles big data, allowing at the most only 7±2 units of information to flow and thus not overwhelming the user) things into the persona whereby a onenesswith things and an eThrone affordance is offered to the user to virtually sit on as head-on-the-neck-of-the-persona in the ecosystem.
In short, with this arrangement, using the Necktie Persona Extender metaphor UI (basic claims for persona augmentation), the machine complements the user and together they offer synergy and thereby a higher bandwidth (i.e. greater capacity to deal with a situation—Oxford Dictionary) is made available to the user.
Individuals see oneness through a single head, the headship of which is offered to the actor by the Necktie Persona Extender metaphor user interface, being that it extends out from the user, rather than substitutes the user, in which case there is no oneness because there are multiple heads — one for the human and another for the computer. It took the unstable condition of outer space for a worm to grow two heads. But oneness is disputed! As Pastor T. D. Jakes puts it, a car with two drivers is very likely to have an accident.
Said unit providing the user:
said high bandwidth,
said oneness,
said synergy, and
said headship,
the unit is operative to revoke the autonomy of the AI Computer and reassign its bandwidth to the user and ultimately augment his persona for transhumanity purposes. So one would refer to it as Extender, which is part of self, rather than with a proper noun such as, Watson, Alexa, Cortana, Siri, or Assistant.
This is the basic invention upon which inventor’s other claims (also significant) rest.
Though this invention addresses the problem to a large extent, if governments and people do not change their country’s educational systems to focus on fuzzy logic and innate abilities of humans, we are in for a rough future.
A book titled, ”Augmented” is the singlemost affirmation of Inventor’s basic claims. The author goes so far as to say that the next age will be the “Augmented Age.” However, the author’s attitude toward those who will be losing employment to AI is controversial.
In passing, because these basic claims are valid, they are expanded and extrapolated for offering superintelligence viz. a collective intelligence of 144,000 rightful users (“bridespace”) each equipped with a Necktie persona extender, arranged likewise in a Christocratic Necked Service Oriented Architecture or Christocratic New World Order, offering super-synergy to a super-cyborgor wedded-avatar of Christ.
IBM Research has seen the benefits of this invention and is using it under the banner of Cognitive Systems. The “extend” indicium–protected under the pending patent–is used by them in relation to the machine/system.
Being Bio-inspired should not mean Substitution
Considering what Blaise Agüera y Arcas said in a “TED talk“:
“Computing was very much modeled after the idea of how could we make machines intelligent. And we finally are starting to fulfill now some of the promises of those early pioneers, of Turing and von Neumann and McCulloch and Pitts. And I think that computing is not just about accounting or playing Candy Crush or something. From the beginning, we modeled them after our minds. And they give us both the ability to understand our own minds better and to extend them.”
And looking closely at a neural network, it has become clear to the Inventor that the “Extender” indicium is better than the “Augmenter” indicium. (Change: 2nd June 2017)
Elon Musk is also attempting to develop a method to supposedly “augment the capability of humans.” But Inventor believes, he is on the wrong track trying to increase the conventional bandwidth — the speed at which our brain communicates with the machine — rather than the second meaning of bandwidth as used by the inventor and defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “the mental capacity to deal with a situation.” The Neural Lace method or Brain-Computer Interface of his is really a brain hacking method, which can be abused for arresting and imprisoning humans in their own skull by tapping every thought they make. To augment our capabilities it is not necessary to go underneath our skin to do so. Unless you are looking for some macho solution, my invention is simple, non-invasive and does not require cracking open the skull or even sending nano electrodes into the brain, but achieves the desired effect nonetheless of extending the persona and augmenting the intelligence with said arrangement and framework offered by the Necktie Persona Extender Metaphor UI. Even if such an invasive technology as Neural Lace were present, it can perhaps be used only for spying on the user himself and not for ethical applications such as the Extended Persona with Intelligence Augmentation for transhuman experience. The machine there seems to be getting its tentacles around man, instead of the other way around. Already U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities.
Mark Zuckerberg too is dabbling with such an invasive idea. When we say ‘invasive’ we mean invading privacy as well. Not even God encroaches into the privacy of our thoughts. Since God gives us freewill, without which there is no such thing as love, we as sons of God have to actually give permission to God to search our hearts and minds (Ps139:23-24NIV). What’s more, Satan’s own “deep secrets” are out of bounds and not to be learned (Rev2:23, 24). Father God says through Jeremiah the prophet:
“I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”
Because we have Freewill, notice in the above verse that even God doesn’t judge us by our thoughts–though he can know them–but rather by our deeds. So i believe, it is out of bounds for even governments, under any pretext, to encroach into the private space of our skull. So let’s not play God and get His wrath stayed upon us!
Whereas with our application, we are not merely talking about “Surviving AI,” a book written by Calum Chace, who writes:
“Artificial intelligence is our most powerful technology, and in the coming decades it will change everything in our lives. If we get it right it will make humans almost godlike. If we get it wrong… well, extinction is not the worst possible outcome.”
The scope of the application is for co-opting AI, extending user’s persona with augmentation of his/her intelligence or capability, and ultimately of engineering the rightful users’ divinity.
Agape® JUST Labs presents:
Agape TiE®
Persona Extender | EoT | eThrone
Person®
Transhuman Experience | Co-opted AI | Augmentation
Gary Reber comments in HBR:
“Given that there is no question that robotic technology will continue to expand the productivity and in large measure destroy jobs and devalue the value of human labor, the question that SHOULD be urgently addressed is WHO SHOULD OWN THE FUTURE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMY? Will ownership continue to concentrate among the 1 percent wealthy ownership class who now OWNS America, or will we reform the system to provide equal opportunity for EVERY child, woman, and man to acquire personal ownership in FUTURE non-human capital assets paid for with the FUTURE earnings of the investments in our technological future?”
John M. Carroll and John C. Thomas, “Metaphor and the cognitive representation of computing systems”, IEEE, 1982.
K. Wallnau, “A Survey of Black-Box Modernization Approaches for Information Systems,” IEEE, 2000.
etc.
If you are a Christian Researcher wishing to implement Christian values in emerging systems such as Person® Augmented and Agape TiE® Ecosystem or a Church leader and wish to support Operation Agape TiE® please give your:
Computer was originally a person!
And looking closely at a neural network, it has become clear to the Inventor that the “Extender” indicium is better than the “Augmenter” indicium. (Change: 2nd June 2017)
