http://www.kurzweilai.net/bina48-is-first-humanoid-robot-to-address-a-conference

http://www.kurzweilai.net/bina48-is-first-humanoid-robot-to-address-a-conference

Bina48 is first humanoid robot to address a conference

Three-year-old Bina48 (the 2012 version) will keynote the Enterprise Learning! Conference & Expo 2012** on September 26 in Irvine, California — the first humanoid robot in history to do so.

One of the world’s most advanced social robots, Bina48 will offer a challenge to the assembly of senior learning executives: “could a humanoid robot be a teacher or personal tutor in the next decade?”

Bina48, part of the LifeNaut project, will be joined on-stage by Bruce Duncan, Managing Director of the Terasem Movement Foundation Inc. and Principal Investigator with the LifeNaut Project.

Commissioned by Dr. Martine Rothblatt and created by Hanson Robotics, Bina48 is one of the world’s most advanced social robots. a composite of information from several people, including Bina Aspen, co-founder of the Terasem Movement. She uses video interview transcripts, laser- scanning life-mask, facial-recognition, AI, and voice-recognition technologies. to learn and interface with her human counterparts.

Mindfiles

Lifenaut is a free online networking and personal data storage service that will “preserve one’s individual consciousness so that it remains viable for possible uploading with consciousness software into a cellular regenerated or bionanotechnological body by future medicine and technology,” says Duncan. “It allows people to build a rich personal profile that preserves their essential, unique qualities as ‘mindfiles.”  (Lifenaut can also store your DNA.)

“Mindfiles are database files with uploaded digital information (videos, pictures, documents, and audio recordings) about a person’s unique characteristics (such as mannerisms, attitudes, values, and beliefs),” he explains.

Mindfiles (there are about 12,000 so far) are stored online at lifenaut.com. Future AI programs, Terasem believes, will use a mindfile and a person’s DNA to create a digital clone of that person that can interact with future family members and others.

* The issue could arise in a real court within the next few decades, as computers achieve or exceed the information processing capability of the human mind and the boundary between human and machine becomes increasingly blurred, says Rothblatt.

** Elearning! Media Group offers learning professionals a free pass to hear Bina48’s keynote address, and gain entrance to the exposition hall and innovation theater. Register here, select “Expo Pass,” and enter the code “FREE.” Bina48 is speaking at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday Sept. 26 at the Hyatt Regency in Irvine, CA as part of the closing presentations.

http://www.terasemjournals.org/GNJournal/GN0301/ck2.html

I am going to touch briefly on technologies that are currently under development and then move a step ahead, into more of a philosophical regime rather than a scientific regime, and see what should be done, the main goal of us scientists, in moving ahead to these technologies.  

Nanotechnology is no longer a myth, it is science based on real life successes.  It is going to bring in a market value of about $25 billion by the year 2011, which is not very far away; it is just four years more.  It is truly a revolution, competing with some of the great revolutions there have been so far such as textiles, railroad, automobile, computer, and so on.     

Having really seen the impact of the nanotechnology revolution, I want to give you a heads-up on exactly what the nano scale is. It takes about one nanometer to reach one billionth of a meter; the depiction that you see is equal to one nanometer.

There are several examples that we could use to define nanoscience [1] and nanotechnology, both natural as well as manmade.

Nanoscience is all about understanding the scientific aspects of materials and technologies of the nano scale. Present nanotechnologies are about converting this basic science into applied benefits. I am going to outline why these nanomaterials are important, and why we feel the importance of the nanomaterial is not only within the manmade things, but also in the natural environment.  The nanomaterials are really important because the materials possess very, very unique properties.  

Take gold for example; we are all familiar with gold.  You can see these ornaments are owned by many people in different countries.  Solid gold is bright yellow in color, whereas the nano-sized gold is bright red in color. The optical and mechanical properties of the gold change with size.             

Think of any property, the nano scale has very unique properties.  The idea is to convert,  take advantage of these nano scale properties, and build items by utilizing those unique advantages.     

Nanotechnology is not really new; it’s been there in nature, we now have the opportunity to understand the presence of nanoscience and nanotechnology in nature. There are several, very exciting examples. For example, abalone pearls.  I am sure we are all familiar with abalone pearls, which are extremely expensive and are made up of nanostructured calcium carbonate with protein and carbohydrate mortar. That's what makes these abalone pearls worth millions of dollars.        

Whereas the familiar chalk that we use for writing on the board is also made of calcium carbonate.  Chalk is worth pennies when compared to the millions of dollars of value of associated with abalone pearls. That is the kind of value that nanotechnology and nanoscience possesses within the natural environment.

There are a few more examples, the gecko for one. The gecko has the ability to provide an extreme and aggressive competence in climbing mountains. The ability of the gecko comes from the structures of the gecko’s foot, which is all made of nanostructured material.   Such nanostructure provides unique properties and unique advantages.         

Similarly, there are power plants, literally power plants which are chloroplasts in various plants that we've seen, and that is what is responsible for energy, and this is again a nanostructured material.

Another example is the the Manuka beetle cuticle, which has a nanostructured liquid crystals that have very interesting optical properties that makes the cuticle iridescent.

While there are innumerable number of examples in nature, it is exciting to know that we are now, slowly unraveling these mysteries.

When you look at this beautiful Monarch Butterfly, you see beautiful colors; different colors of the butterflies which are shown in nature. What you see here is the wing of the Morpho butterfly, and those colors are due to the nanostructure, which is responsible for the tint in the blue line.  

Having learned all these lessons from nature, we are slowly trying to mimic nature. Trying to see how best we can incorporate the nanostructure process of the materials in nature, and how to convert them to our advantage.  A recent publication of Nature and Nanotechnology [1] describes how a tobacco mosaic virus conjugated with nanoparticles is being developed as a digital memory device (Nature Nanotechnology 72(1), 72-77, 2006).

What good example is greater than the human body itself?  The human body is an array of various nanotechnological materials and nanotechnological principles, so the human body is really an epitome of the advantages that nanoscience and nanotechnology can offer.        

Having really looked at what the life sciences offer in nature, man is trying to translate those into the laboratory.  When you look at the manmade nanotechnologies of what we have today, one could literally make a variety of different sizes and shapes of these nanomaterials.

You have rods, nanocubes, nanotetrapods, carbon nanotubes, nanowires, nanofiber,   nanoplates, and so on.  These are all being made on a commercial scale in laboratories.

The commercial potential of the advantage is very obvious.  Look at the way the carbon nanotubes are being developed for a variety of products for their unique and excellent properties being the lightest and yet the hardest material ever known to humankind.

The technologies that are being developed in terms of biomedical applications are multifunctional polymeric nanoparticle platforms; nanosensors for in vitro bio-analysis, drug delivery, and diagnosis, and so forth.         

There are also technologies that are close to commercialization or already commercialized. For example, the technology that has been recently commercialized in Japan is a drug delivery system for topical applications.  This is a nano-based technology that really changes fine wrinkles of an aged hairless mouse. The treatment helped in ridding the wrinkles (Pharm Tech Japan   (2005), 21 (12, Rinji Zokang), 2000-2004).

Another very interesting nanostructured material that is being developed for integrated cancer imaging and therapy is silica core gold shell nanoparticles.    

The beauty of these materials, the way they are being designed, is that by just tuning the optical properties of near-infrared rays, one image the tumor, as well as subject it to thermal therapy.  These technologies are, again, under commercial development (C.Loo et al 2005).

One of the papers that I am very fond of and citing all the time was published in 2005 -- it's “An Elegant Design of Polymeric core-shell Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Angiogenesis.”[2] The design is so elegant that it has shown tremendous promise in the mice studies, and is currently under development for human trials. Once injected into the bloodstream, the core-shell particle is selectively taken up into tumor tissues, where the lipid layer rapidly releases a drug that kills endothelial cells and disrupts blood vessels. The inner core gradually releases a chemotherapeutic drug to destroy the cancer cells.  (Sengupta et al 2005).

This brings us back to my own laboratory where we are trying to engineer new site specific, controlled released drug delivery systems what my colleague, Professor Leuschner [3], described as integrating the LHRH Ligand Based Therapy [4] for controlled release of anticancer drugs.

This release is unique in the sense that we are trying to have a magnetically modulated controlled release.  Wherein one could, in principle, have a three-pronged approach targeted and controlled release delivery of anticancer drugs.

This is currently under development in our laboratory.  We are looking at various specific aspects. For example, the first thing we demonstrated is to see if the oscillating magnetic field can control the release of drugs in this material.  We have shown by looking at magnetic polymer composite materials, and then we have demonstrated it is indeed possible when you apply oscillating magnetic fields (Langmuir, 21(5), 2042 -2050, 2005).

I think I can properly address the question: Why are you looking at commercialization aspects and technology for LHRH based materials or imaging as to the treatment?

The first thing being developed is LHRH-SPION contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging of cancer and the preliminary  results that we got, both in animal studies,  as well as intra studies, are very, very encouraging (Breast Cancer Research and Treatment,99(2), 163-176, 2006).                  

This is where nanotechnology is so far and there are several more exciting opportunities that  nanotechnology provides, and those nanotechnologies  have to be screened, but are not far away.

This is no longer science fiction, it is science based on real life examples. For example, there are military suits that are being developed which can monitor health (which can ease injury), and communication, enhancing a soldier’s performance.    

In addition, such military suits are so lightweight that one could literally leap into tall buildings in a single bound.              

Similarly, imagine going to a doctor and having the cancer detected as well as treated at the same time on a single visit. It is a possibility; it is no longer a myth.  One could talk about space elevators [1] -   these are all technologies that are currently being developed.

While such technologies are being developed, one may be worrying about the concepts on nano wars.  There’s much discussion going on in trying to understand what fine control and influence one could have utilizing these nanomaterials for biomedical applications.  I think such dialogue is very, very crucial and important while the technologies are being developed.            

I recommend a very interesting book by Michael Crichton, Prey[2]. I think this also helps one to really understand the various other aspects of these new technologies that are being developed.         

Having given you a brief idea about how these nanotechnologies are revolutionizing different disciplines and different phases of life sciences, I think one may ask the question as to where this is all leading.  I think that is the most important question in my view.          

The purpose of moving into higher end technologies, day in and day out, is to enhance our quality of life, or is there something else?  I think that's the crucial question which one needs to answer.               

I think the most important lessons that nanotechnologies provides is for our lives.  That crucial understanding is what I would call nano-thinking.  Nano-thinking is the ability to think small while thinking big. It is the difference between a commercial thinking and an integrated thinking. When you have such thinking, you cannot only enhance your ability to do wonderful science, but also increase your ability to look inward. 

Coming back to my question of what all of these technologies and continuous enhancements in our level of thinking - level of implementing our minds leads to?  I think it all leads to universal consciousness.

Our mind is an extraordinary source of highest potential. The mind is really responsible for bringing out these new technologies and new approaches, and helping us to understand nature and the world better.   The mind is what is really sharpening us, and then the sharpening is what is going to bring us towards universal consciousness.       

There is a very interesting statement from ancient Scriptures, VEDAS, from the Hindu religion, The statement is “Anoraniyam Mahatmayam”. What it means is that the universe, or the universal consciousness, is just one, which is the smallest of the smallest, and biggest of the biggest. This statement truly conceptualizes nanoscience.         

I would like to end with two very important statements from Einstein that really summarize where all of these technologies are leading to. The first one is:

 "The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science.  He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.  To know what is impenetrable to us does really exist, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms.  This knowledge, this feeling is the center of true religiousness."

Another rather very profound statement from Einstein is:

"Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical applications of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind."

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/transplant/html/fda.htm

Definitions

Xenotransplantation is the use of live nonhuman animal cells, tissues and organs in human patients. These cells can be implanted or enclosed in a device that is used outside the body ("ex vivo perfusion"). Zoonoses are defined as diseases of animals that can be transmitted to humans under natural conditions (e.g., toxoplasmosis, Salmonella infections).  A xenogeneic infection is a transmissible disease introduced from animals into humans through xenotransplantation. BG 96-6

September 20, 1996  Background  Limited availability of human organs and tissues, coupled with recent biotechnical advances, has increasingly led to implantations of living cells from other species when human donors are not available, when a bridge organ is needed, or when animal cells may provide a unique benefit. This is called xenotransplantation.  Between 1990 and 1995, an average of 4,835 people each year donated organs after death, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that oversees the national organ and bone marrow transplantation programs. Nonetheless, approximately 48,000 people are now on the waiting list for organs, and the number of individuals awaiting transplants continues to grow. For example, more than 33,000 patients were awaiting kidney transplants in August 1996. Approximately 3,000 people die each year because donor organs are not available to them.  The draft Public Health Service guideline was prepared to help minimize public health risks associated with xenotransplantation while not restricting access to promising therapies for individuals with life-threatening and chronic debilitating illnesses. The guideline applies to all types of xenotransplants, including cells, tissues and solid organs.  Concerns about potential infection with both recognized disease agents and new ones arising from xenotransplants are real. For example, an infecting microbe may change when it is transmitted from its natural host into a new species. A virus that does not cause disease in its animal host may cause serious disease or even be fatal to a human transplant recipient.  Protecting Public Health: The Draft Guideline for Xenotransplantation 1. The Clinical Plan

The transplant team should include individuals such as the surgeon, infectious disease physician, veterinarian, transplant immunologist, infection control specialist, and clinical microbiologist. The clinical center should be associated with an accredited virology and microbiology laboratory. The protocol should be reviewed by the clinical center Biosafety Committee, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and the Institutional Review Board. Protocols are subject to review and approval by FDA. The protocol should describe the screening methods for known infectious agents before transplantation. The informed consent process should include disclosure of the potential risks to the recipient, the family, or close contacts (especially sexual), and the need to archive pre- and post-transplant serum specimens for long-term follow-up.

2. Animal Sources

Animals should be procured from screened, closed herds or colonies that are well-characterized and as free as possible of infectious agents. Animals should have documented lineages and be bred and reared in captivity. Other outlined issues address the animal facility, including record-keeping, screening for known infectious agents, animal qualifications, and archiving of animal medical records and specimens.

3. Clinical Issues

The health status of xenotransplant recipients should be monitored clinically and through laboratory tests. Laboratory testing methods should be established and documented before the transplant is performed. Recipients should be educated concerning potential infectious disease risks to themselves and to their close contacts. Hospital infection control procedures should be in place. Laboratories should be available to culture and identify both known and novel infectious agents. The health-care team should be educated about the possible infectious disease risks. Serological samples should be archived for retrospective investigation of possible infections. Health-care records should be systematically maintained in ways that protect patients' confidentiality.

4. Public Health Needs

A national registry is recommended to provide information to assess long-term safety and to help in epidemiological investigations. FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health are collaborating with the Health Resources and Services Administration to develop a pilot program to define the scope, focus, and optimal design of a national registry. Such a registry would help to identify xenotransplant-associated health problems that have public health significance.

	FDA's Role  The infectious disease risks inherent in all forms of xenotransplantation warrant a consistent regulatory framework. FDA soon will publish a draft guidance document to provide further practical information to the transplant community.  FDA regulates numerous products intended to prevent, treat or diagnose diseases or injuries under the authority of the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Clinical studies of new experimental biologics, such as xenogeneic cells, tissues and organs, should be performed under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application that is filed with FDA. IND applications should contain information on product manufacturing and testing to ensure that trial subjects will not be exposed to unreasonable risks, taking into account the potential for benefit.  Critical Events Leading to the Guideline Nov. 17, 1994: Philip R. Lee, M.D., the assistant secretary for health, requested that FDA, NIH and CDC hold a consensus conference on infectious disease risks associated with xenotransplantation. At about the same time, several institutional review boards contacted FDA regarding proposed xenotransplant studies at their institutions, expressing concern about the safety of donor animal tissues. A meeting was planned for early 1995 to discuss the need for specific guidelines. January 1995: CDC, FDA, NIH, HRSA, the Department of Defense, academic institutional review boards, animal-care committees, transplant surgeons, the National Organization of Rare Diseases, and the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine met to discuss public health concerns regarding xenotransplantation. It was decided that a comprehensive guideline was needed. Several working groups were formed to discuss what key elements needed to be included in the guideline. April 1995: At FDA's Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee, infectious disease issues were discussed. Here also, a sponsor of a xenotransplant experiment described one approach to controlling infectious disease risks. The committee outlined preliminary public health safety concerns that should be included in any guideline for xenotransplantation. June 25-27, 1995: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) held a public workshop on scientific, medical, public health, socioeconomic, legal, and ethical issues. The Public Health Service agencies brought the issue of infectious disease risks to the workshop for further public discussion and comment. June 28, 1995: A day later, PHS held a "Federal Day" workshop to bring the PHS working groups together to discuss their progress on the guidelines and to create a guideline that would address the issues presented at the IOM meeting. The goal set was to create a draft guideline for discussion by July 1995. July 13-14, 1995: FDA's Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee met on July 13 to discuss xenotransplantation issues. Issues discussed included animal source qualification and exclusion criteria, location and review of experiments, a national patient data base, surveillance and specimen archiving, screening and post-transplant patient surveillance, and informed consent.  On July 14, the committee discussed a highly publicized experimental protocol that had been submitted to the agency for review--a baboon bone marrow transplant to treat a patient with AIDS. The committee recognized the need for well-designed protocols to control infectious disease risks. Although questions were asked about the outcome of the experiment, from the perspective of both the patient and the public health, the committee recommended that this protocol be approved for one patient. The committee also discussed extracorporeal liver-assist devices, which may contain live animal cells such as pig liver cells. Nov. 30, 1995 New England Journal of Medicine: Sounding Board article "Xenotransplantation and Xenogeneic Infections" discussed the potential risks for transplant recipients and to the public health. Written by Drs. Chapman and Folks (CDC), Dr. Salomon (Scripps Research Institute), and Drs. Patterson, Eggerman and Noguchi (FDA), the article clarifies the reasons why guidance is needed in the field of xenotransplantation. March 1996: PHS met with representatives of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the American Society of Transplant Physicians to discuss principles of the draft guideline and the perspectives of the transplant community. The transplant surgeons recommended that FDA, CDC and NIH collaborate with HRSA in establishing a national registry, since that agency currently oversees the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. April 1996: The British Nuffield Council on Bioethics published a study calling for national regulation of xenotransplantation to be in place before any clinical trials could proceed. July 1996: A request for proposals was published for a pilot study of the National Xenotransplantation Registry operated under contract by HRSA. July 1996: The Institute of Medicine issued a report on xenotrans plantation calling for national guidelines. Both the IOM and Nuffield reports supported the concept of a national registry as proposed by PHS. September 1996: The draft PHS guideline for xenotransplantation is published.

			Public Information About
		Phase One (Safety) Clinical Trials Involving Xenotransplantation
	1. Fetal pig neuronal cells for Parkinson's Disease, Diacrin, Inc., April 1995 phase I clinical trial begun. The initial clinical center was Lahey Hitchcock Clinic, Mass.  2. Genetically modified pig liver is used for ex vivo perfusion in the treatment of fulminant liver failure, Dr. Platt, Duke University, North Carolina.  3. Baboon bone marrow transplant for HIV, Dr. Ildstad, UCSF General Hospital, single-patient IND. FDA allowed IND to proceed August 1995. Transplant took place Dec. 14, 1995. The absence of evidence of baboon cell engraftment was reported February 1996.  4. Fetal calf adrenal cells (encapsulated) implanted in the spinal cord space for pain relief in end-stage cancer, Cytotherapeutics, Rhode Island.  5. Pig pancreatic islets (encapsulated) implanted for the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, VivoRx, Minnesota and California.

MindFiles encourage discussion about the Terasem faith through published hyperlinks to one's web presence.

Blog:	transgender2transhuman.blogspot.com/
MySpace:	95918827
Facebook:	mrothblatt
Web site:	endracism.org
Twitter:	martine4
Picassa:	picasaweb.google.com/home?hl=en&tab=wq
PhanFare:	martine.phanfare.com
YouTube:	martinebliss
Vimeo:	www.vimeo.com/user3376518/videos
iLike:	Martine R
Other websites:	www.lifenaut.com www.cyberev.org www.pphcure.org www.2stars4peace.com www.twostarsforpeace.net http://telexlr8.blip.tv/file/4137555/ Video of Woodstock Panel with Ray Kurzweil and Martine:  http://www.ulrikereinhard.com/stories/52259/