A space where I, as an Empath, in these incredible times, describe my senses of Earth and Human Energies happening both in my inner world and in the outer, where I resolutely claim my Feminine Mind, Heart and Spirit and Wisdom. This blog is not for the feint of heart nor for closed minds, it is open to the infinite realities of this universe. I hope you join me and share with those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Of Viruses, Gray Goo, A.I. and Replicators

My journey down another Carroll Lewis rabbit hole.

I have been feeling a bit off, maybe with slight flu or something. This tends to happen when I expend more energy than I have. But I have several natural remedies which work well for me, and I had one last bottle of my own Queen of Hungary Formula based on this youtube recipe . Since I found this I have been making several bottles every year and they keep well and work perfectly.
This time though I have been wondering about virus and bacteria and what the differences are. So I got online to look up the differences and a whole world of new insights was opened up to me along with some answers to questions I've had a while about some of our ''microbial'' life on Earth being of alien nature.
I'm not going to give my speculations, but am going to just offer the information I came across and you can form your own beliefs, ideas whatever. But I have some more clues now that are confirming and this is fascinating stuff.

I went to one sight and found this:  http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bacteria_vs_Virus

Virus - Bacteria Differences 




Scanning electron micrograph of Escherichia coli bacilli
  • Viruses are the smallest and simplest life form known. They are 10 to 100 times smaller than bacteria.
  • The biggest difference between viruses and bacteria is that viruses must have a living host - like a plant or animal - to multiply, while most bacteria can grow on non-living surfaces.
  • Bacteria are intercellular organisms (i.e. they live in-between cells); whereas viruses are intracellular organisms (they infiltrate the host cell and live inside the cell). They change the host cell's genetic material from its normal function to producing the virus itself.
  • There are some useful bacteria but all viruses are harmful.
  • Antibiotics cannot kill viruses, but can kill most bacteria, with the exception of most Gram-negative bacteria.
  • An example of a disease caused by bacteria is strep throat and an example of an affliction caused by a virus is the flu. See video below.......

When I saw the image of the virus in the above video I was floored. Does anyone else see what I see? Apparently someone else did and will post that further below. The differences are huge between virus and bacteria.
Many images online of viruses look like this, like machinery.



 Dose this not look like machinery to you??!! or are these just artistic renditions?

 http://historyoftheuniverse.com/images/bacteriophage500.jpg



Some virus look like a medieval flail.




Then I went here, fascinating site:   http://www.timeenoughforlove.org/Virus.htm


Viruses (why do they exist)


"The sheer prevalence of viruses, however, is forcing a reconsideration about how these entities fit into the biological world. Researchers have characterized some 4,000 viruses, from several dozen distinct families. Yet that is a tiny fraction of the number of viruses on Earth. In the last two years, J. Craig Venter, the geneticist who decoded the human genome, has circled the globe in his sailboat and sampled ocean water every couple of hundred miles. Each time he dipped a container overboard, he discovered millions of new viruses—so many that he increased the number of known genes 10-fold. Although we tend to think of viruses only in terms of the damage they do, a broader and more benign picture is emerging. Scientists estimate that they have discovered and documented less than 1 percent of all the living things on the planet. But for every organism in that unidentified 99 percent, at least 10 times as many unknown viruses are thought to exist—the vast majority of which are harmless to life and yet integral to it."

~ By Charles Siebert, DISCOVER Vol.27 No. 03/ March 2006



Take a look at the virus to the right and tell me it doesn’t look like a piece of technology. 
I contend this is an obvious example of nanotechnology. (Figure 1 Composition of T-Even Bacteriophage)   While I encourage you to perform your own search on the T-Even and other viruses here is another page.   How could something that is not even alive become so mechanically organized?  No wonder some people don’t believe in evolution.  I did a quick search on T-Even Bacteriophage and there are apparently several different kinds (T1 through T7).  While I have not found another example of another variety of viruses as angular and mechanical in appearance as the T-Evens I can think of no reason why they should appear so 'non-organic' then to communicate the message, "This was manufactured."  Considering our recent advances in both nanotechnology and gene sequencing I think it’s rather easy to see how with a little more time even we could develop such technology.
    If you don’t think it was engineered then try to imagine the shape and structure of a virus if you were to design one. It looks a lot like a Borg Nanoprobe and the "bug" in The Matrix, no?  Not surprisingly if it is intended to serve a purpose analogous to a Borg Nanoprobe they should carry a large set of genetic instructions, which they do.  Note the similarity between 'dust of the ground' and 'chemicals' in the following citations.  Forming man from the 'dust; of the ground sounds like terraforming to me.  If I wanted to modify or regulate 'all' life on a planet from single cell bacterium to the largest and most complex organisms I would find sub-microscopic machines the most effective. ~end.



Lots of good stuff there about all kinds of things,

but then I went here:

Engines of Creation - K. Eric Drexler written in 1986.


Some excerpts:

The Threat from the Machines

In Chapter 4, I described some of what replicating assemblers will do for us if we handle them properly. Powered by fuels or sunlight, they will be able to make almost anything (including more of themselves) from common materials.

Living organisms are also powered by fuels or sunlight, and also make more of themselves from ordinary materials. But unlike assembler-based systems, they cannot make "almost anything".

Genetic evolution has limited life to a system based on DNA, RNA, and ribosomes, but memetic evolution will bring life-like machines based on nanocomputers and assemblers. I have already described how assembler-built molecular machines will differ from the ribosome-built machinery of life. Assemblers will be able to build all that ribosomes can, and more; assembler-based replicators will therefore be able to do all that life can, and more. From an evolutionary point of view, this poses an obvious threat to otters, people, cacti, and ferns - to the rich fabric of the biosphere and all that we prize.

The early transistorized computers soon beat the most advanced vacuum-tube computers because they were based on superior devices. For the same reason, early assembler-based replicators could beat the most advanced modern organisms. "Plants" with "leaves" no more efficient than today's solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an inedible foliage. Tough, omnivorous "bacteria" could out-compete real bacteria: they could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop - at least if we made no preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies.

Among the cognoscenti of nanotechnology, this threat has become known as the "gray goo problem." Though masses of uncontrolled replicators need not be gray or gooey, the term "gray goo" emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be less inspiring than a single species of crabgrass. They might be "superior" in an evolutionary sense, but this need not make them valuable. We have evolved to love a world rich in living things, ideas, and diversity, so there is no reason to value gray goo merely because it could spread. Indeed, if we prevent it we will thereby prove our evolutionary superiority.

The gray goo threat makes one thing perfectly clear: we cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with replicating assemblers.

 ..........

Throughout history, states have developed technologies to extend their military power, and states will no doubt play a dominant role in developing replicators and AI systems. States could use replicating assemblers to build arsenals of advanced weapons, swiftly, easily, and in vast quantity. States could use special replicators directly to wage a sort of germ warfare - one made vastly more practical by programmable, computer-controlled "germs." Depending on their skills, AI systems could serve as weapon designers, strategists, or fighters. Military funds already support research in both molecular technology and artificial intelligence.

States could use assemblers or advanced AI systems to achieve sudden, destabilizing breakthroughs. I earlier discussed reasons for expecting that the advent of replicating assemblers will bring relatively sudden changes: Able to replicate swiftly, they could become abundant in a matter of days. Able to make almost anything, they could be programmed to duplicate existing weapons, but made from superior materials. Able to work with standard, well-understood components (atoms) they could suddenly build things designed in anticipation of the assembler breakthrough. These results of design-ahead could include programmable germs and other nasty novelties. For all these reasons, a state that makes the assembler breakthrough could rapidly create a decisive military force - if not literally overnight, then at least with unprecedented speed.

States could use advanced AI systems to similar ends. Automated engineering systems will facilitate design-ahead and speed assembler development. Al systems able to build better AI systems will allow an explosion of capability with effects hard to anticipate. Both AI systems and replicating assemblers will enable states to expand their military capabilities by orders of magnitude in a brief time.
 
But with advanced technology, states need not control people - they could instead simply discard people. Most people in most states, after all, function either as workers, larval workers, or worker-rearers, and most of these workers make, move, or grow things. A state with replicating assemblers would not need such work. What is more, advanced AI systems could replace engineers, scientists, administrators, and even leaders. The combination of nanotechnology and advanced AI will make possible intelligent, effective robots; with such robots, a state could prosper while discarding anyone, or even (in principle) everyone.

The implications of this possibility depend on whether the state exists to serve the people, or the people exist to serve the state.

In the first case, we have a state shaped by human beings to serve general human purposes; democracies tend to be at least rough approximations to this ideal. If a democratically controlled government loses its need for people, this will basically mean that it no longer needs to use people as bureaucrats or taxpayers. This will open new possibilities, some of which may prove desirable.

In the second case, we have a state evolved to exploit human beings, perhaps along totalitarian lines. States have needed people as workers because human labor has been the necessary foundation of power. What is more, genocide has been expensive and troublesome to organize and execute. Yet, in this century totalitarian states have slaughtered their citizens by the millions. Advanced technology will make workers unnecessary and genocide easy. History suggests that totalitarian states may then eliminate people wholesale. There is some consolation in this. It seems likely that a state willing and able to enslave us biologically would instead simply kill us.

The threat of advanced technology in the hands of governments makes one thing perfectly clear: we cannot afford to have an oppressive state take the lead in the coming breakthroughs.

Tactics for the Assembler Breakthrough

Some force in the world (whether trustworthy or not) will take the lead in developing assemblers; call it the "leading force." Because of the strategic importance of assemblers, the leading force will presumably be some organization or institution that is effectively controlled by some government or group of governments. To simplify matters, pretend for the moment that we (the good guys, attempting to be wise) can make policy for the leading force. For citizens of democratic states, this seems a good attitude to take.

What should we do to improve our chances of reaching a future worth living in? What can we do?

We can begin with what must not happen: we must not let a single replicating assembler of the wrong kind be loosed on an unprepared world. Effective preparations seem possible (as I will describe), but it seems that they must be based on assembler-built systems that can be built only after dangerous replicators have already become possible. Design-ahead can help the leading force prepare, yet even vigorous, foresighted action seems inadequate to prevent a time of danger. The reason is straightforward: dangerous replicators will be far simpler to design than systems that can thwart them, just as a bacterium is far simpler than an immune system. We will need tactics for containing nanotechnology while we learn how to tame it.

One obvious tactic is isolation: the leading force will be able to contain replicator systems behind multiple walls or in laboratories in space. Simple replicators will have no intelligence, and they won't be designed to escape and run wild. Containing them seems no great challenge.

Better yet, we will be able to design replicators that can't escape and run wild. We can build them with counters (like those in cells) that limit them to a fixed number of replications. We can build them to have requirements for special synthetic "vitamins," or for bizarre environments found only in the laboratory. Though replicators could be made tougher and more voracious than any modern pests, we can also make them useful but harmless. Because we will design them from scratch, replicators need not have the elementary survival skills that evolution has built into living cells.

Further, they need not be able to evolve. We can give replicators redundant copies of their "genetic" instructions, along with repair mechanisms to correct any mutations. We can design them to stop working long before enough damage accumulates to make a lasting mutation a significant possibility. Finally, we can design them in ways that would hamper evolution even if mutations could occur.

Experiments show that most computer programs (other than specially designed AI programs, such as Dr. Lenat's EURISKO) seldom respond to mutations by changing slightly; instead, they simply fail. Because they cannot vary in useful ways, they cannot evolve. Unless they are specially designed, replicators directed by nanocomputers will share this handicap. Modern organisms are fairly good at evolving partly because they descend from ancestors that evolved. They are evolved to evolve; this is one reason for the complexities of sexual reproduction and the shuffling of chromosome segments during the production of sperm and egg cells. We can simply neglect to give replicators similar talents.

It will be easy for the leading force to make replicating assemblers useful, harmless, and stable. Keeping assemblers from being stolen and abused is a different and greater problem, because it will be a game played against intelligent opponents. As one tactic, we can reduce the incentive to steal assemblers by making them available in safe forms. This will also reduce the incentive for other groups to develop assemblers independently. The leading force, after all, will be followed by trailing forces. ~ end.

 ****************
This all makes me wonder about the scale of virus. On Earth we find these tiny ones, but what of the scale of Universe?  I remember seeing images of the sun when I used to follow soho daily images  and saw some ''thing'' that could look like this spidery virus by the sun which would make it absolutely enormous!

The archons an ancient form of AI ''gave us their mind'', I'd bet we'd find a piece of that virus in every brain. And lots of people who are speaking of black goo also report seeing spider like beings in their peripheral vision, the two are related. The author spoke of ''gray goo'' as rabid replicators in 1986.
I find the authors ''what we can do solutions'' quite lame, given the psychopathic nature of those who conceive of such inventions as AI in the first place and whose inventions in every instance are co-opted by the regressive dominator types, be they men or aliens, and simple observations of world affairs screams at us that we are all infected to some degree or another and are hosts. Are we totally hosts and don't even realize it as the Matrix Trilogy says? or is something keeping the viral takeover at bay? Maybe some are not taken over fully yet, these may be the dissenters, the rebels, the misfits etc., the T cells of the biology of the human species.
I just wonder really what is the nature, potential, and scale of virus that cannot be killed because its not alive......is not alive and replicates itself through the materials of its hosts of all kinds, but unleashed upon the entire spectrum of Earth biology from human beings, to animal, to water, air, earth and sky.

I remember reading in the Anastasia series of books by Vladimir Megre about the children who could command the microbes, and because they didn't like war, didn't like the war taking their papa away from them, they decided to command their ''tiny friends'' the microbes, to eat and digest all the madmens nuclear weapons, and the weapons were indeed destroyed.
What if? What if we are being brainwashed into thinking and believing there is nothing we can do because this is all so invasive both microscopically and externally in the outer world even in space? What if, organic natural microbes have enough intelligence to be able to be telepathically, symbiotically in relationship with benign beings such as children who want peace and who have command of those microbes? Water has these properties as does DNA. Experiments have been done with both water and DNA with people on one side of the planet having an experience or thought which took NO time to affect the DNA or water on the other side.
What if the alien microbes or A.I viruses can be programmed in some way to self digest? Or maybe the organic microbes can eat and digest the inorganic ones?
Something to think about and work on.





Serena, Lady of the Woods
http://serenaladyofthewoods.blogspot.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment

I enjoy hearing from you.