AI Concern: ‘Prometheus Doctrine’ Revisited – Nick Bostrom (Part 1 of 2)
I’m referring to the men and women who, as this video exemplifies, subscribe to a sort of ‘Prometheus Doctrine’; which for me is like a fetish of needing to destroy in order to create. They talk about their fear and project their fear onto and into our science and technology instead of quelling the sources of that fear from the very beginning. The source of their fear IS preventable!
If we were advancing technology for the right reasons and using the right means, we wouldn’t have anything to fear! The ‘snake’, through guilt and even ‘karma’, calls forth its own destruction and even begins to eat itself!
Also, the video literally reeks of the disdain and disregard (contempt) for humanity and the impetuousness of a science running amok (without morals and ethics) that has become the fashion in our mainstream trendy pabulum which premature globalist social engineering has created for our consumption. All branches of the human endeavour have been infected or affected by this social engineering in some way.
At university our youth is being incrementaly infected (radicalised) by this ‘bug’ of disdain and we should all be aware of it before it becomes our undoing! You see it when you ask them to consider the ramifications of the science and technology being created now, and they respond with “You’d better get used to it, because that’s the way it is.” It resembles the ‘bitch’ meme that is pervasive in the ‘prison culture’ social engineering I’ve been referring to above.
Their callous and impetuous response is paired with a complete wilful ignorance of the consequences of what science and technology (and their steady weaponisation) are doing or potentially can do to our home here on planet Earth as well as to ourselves. The social engineers will have us worrying about how our free speech may adversely affect others and therewith attempt to quell debate by means of political correctness (PC).
The youth of humanity has been abused by this kind of thing since at least the late 18th Century, because it is widely known (and not spoken of) that they, with rare exception, are not yet able to compete intellectually with adults. Adolescents sense this, which exacerbates their normal impetuousness, so they attempt to compensate for this perceived deficit by ‘attaching’ themselves to some any deeper perspectives they are introduced to. The mainstream ‘trendy’ has been ‘weaponised’ so these are usually various destructive lines of thinking (Communism, Satanism,…). They are provided with a narrow, but sometimes deep understanding by simply taking on these lines of thought with their peers. By doing this, they may well even surpass the understanding of the adults around them, but the knowledge imprint only stands out like a wart. This can be recognised, because the corresponding hallmark lines of development in wisdom and insight, that always accompany and provide a context for that knowledge, are absent.
The parasites perched upon humanity know this. That’s why they want our children so soon and so long. Students literally get ‘caught in the headlights’ of the teachers and professors, who are themselves victims of this incrementalism. The controllers can then direct this lack of experience and wisdom (naivety) against the rest of the population by indoctrinating our youth into zealots.
BTW: This post is not here to ridicule nor ostracise anyone! It is intended to wake everyone up! In the end we are ALL being manipulated (including Nick Bostrom) by the corporations who are controlling and transforming our science, education, media, governance,… I’ve had to delete comments below from disrespectful people who now want to criticize Nick Bostrom personally. I will not have that here!
This writing is not a criticism of Nick Bostrom, rather a criticism of the education system and science that subtly ‘fashions’ how we ourselves as well as our youth and those directly involved (including Mr. Bostrom) see themselves through science, philosophy, mathematics, and the arts; in fact, nearly all of the human endeavour has been infected or affected by it.
@00:31 “Okay, let’s look at the modern human condition…”
He shows a ‘doctored’ image of a man wearing glasses with his eye size increased to almost fill the lenses. I find myself asking myself if he is referring to the “I work with a bunch of mathematicians, philosophers, and computer scientists…” he talks about here?:@00:11
It sure isn’t clear of who he’s referring to with his ‘human condition’! Here is our first indication of the disrespect for humanity his action here reveals. He seems not to have considered or known that this very condition of humanity that he’s making light of for his audience Is, in fact, a result of the very science he represents!
When I see an image of someone who looks as in this image I think of Pavlov or B.F. Skinner with their ‘contributions’ to humanity (weaponized social engineering)! I ask myself why he chose this image particularly and not another that would have been as funny, but not so unforgiving of humans who have bought into the social engineering they’ve been subjected to?
@00:43 “We are recently arrived ‘guests’ on this planet.”
We are the living Earth! We are as much a part of this planet as anything else living on/in/above it. We are NOT guests on this planet, it’s our home!
@00:49 “Think about the world was created… the Earth was created one year ago.”
I find it interesting that he uses the word ‘created’ instead saying something like ‘formed itself’ or ‘accrued its main composition’. It’s almost the model that Carl Sagan offered in his Cosmos Series and elsewhere, but doesn’t quite ring as true.
@01:07–He uses a graph depicting GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to make statements about societal changes over thousands of years! This is not only wrong, the metrics don’t even correlate with each other! (Notice how the people laugh? I wonder how many of them really know what they’re laughing at?)
@00:37-[regarding technology] “That’s why we are so productive.”
We have always been productive. Technology is nothing new. [Which he acknowledges!] Even the militarization of technology isn’t new. He refers to some [ap]proximate cost idea he doesn’t explain nor provide a context for. Technology contains both potential and real costs and returns in many terms (social, cultural, personal,…), for the record. This has not changed over time.
@01:43 “We have to move back farther… to the ultimate costs.”
He then introduces two “highly distinguished gentlemen”: Kanzi and Ed Witten. I dispute his choice of examples to go with, as Nassim Haramein http://resonance.is/ or Nikola Tesla would have been better choices from where I stand, but he didn’t ask me, did he? 😉
I wonder what we’ll be saying about Super-string and M-Theory in 100 years? I doubt seriously it will stand the test of time as the theories are almost certainly wrong.
@01:57 “If we look under the ‘hood’, this is what we find. Basically the same thing. [!]… one is a little larger. It maybe also have a few tricks in the way that it’s wired… These invisible differences cannot be too complicated; however, because there have only[!] been more than 250,000 generations since our last common ancestor and we know that complicated mechanisms take a long time to evolve.”
I guess that’s the reason the apes didn’t get very far?!?! Or what am I to make of this proposition? At some crucial juncture in the past the apes simply decided to turn left instead of right? Or did we? In any case he doesn’t reveal to us exactly what those ‘invisible differences’ may be.
@02:21 “So a bunch of relatively minor changes take us from Kanzi to Witten.”
Still no mention of what the changes are and I still don’t see why Kanzi isn’t writing Haiku!
@02:33 “So this then seems pretty obvious that everything we have achieved pretty much and everything we care about depends crucially on some relatively minor changes that made the human mind.”
He provides no basis for that statement and moves on to a corollary without even explaining this massive jump from somewhere around the time of a common ancestor to what the human mind has become!
@02:43 “And the corollary of course, is that any further changes that could significantly change the substrate of thinking could have potentially enormous consequences”
Wait just one minute! There has been no justification for the prior proposition, not to mention a justifiable connection it may have to some ‘substrate of thought’! Having a common phylogenic ancestor who has mastered over 200 lexical tokens is nothing compared to the subtlety and sophistication of the human mind!
@02:55 “Some of my colleges think that we are on the verge of something that could cause a profound change in that substrate… and that is machine super-intelligence. Artificial intelligence used to be…”
So what does this mean? Are we now entering an age of ‘post-artificial intelligence’? A sort of neo-AI? Could you also tell me more about that ‘substrate’?
@03:29 “Today the action is really around machine learning. Rather than hand-crafting knowledge representations and features we create algorithms that learn…”
Here he’s getting into an area he seems uncomfortable with. I suspect, for myself, one reason why. He is revealing that he’s never seen nor been a part of building a knowledge representation that was completely satisfying to those who made it!
It further reveals that he’s working without one or doesn’t trust any philosophy of knowledge or mind as a basis for the scientific methods he’s been involved with! A set of underlying philosophies of mind, language, and knowledge are absolutely required!
These facts are verified a bit later…@04:05 “Now of course AI is still nowhere near having the same powerful cross-domain ability to learn and plan as a human being has.”
He then reveals that he’s also locked into the brain-based-model of mind that is reminiscent of the adherence to phrenology in the early to middle 19th Century.
He then asks how far are we in being able to match those tricks. This leads him to mention a survey of some of the leading AI experts on just when we will likely reach a stage of human ability. Answers ranged from 2040 to 2050 (with estimates of 90% at around 2070/2075!!!).
@05:01 “The truth is, no one really knows.”
And they won’t know either, because they aren’t allowing all that is required for ‘intelligence’ to be included into the endeavour. I firmly believe that our current scientists will regret this phase of their history. Their names are on the line for the conceptual barren land they have created for themselves and are selling to us. They are not even doing themselves a favour; rather, are doing the corporations which pay them one!
The corporations and the banksters which run them who stand above the law are those who profit from this ‘science’, because it provides them with thin veils of plausibility to divert huge sums of money, minds, and other resources towards aims that few of us would ever allow if we knew them.
@05:05 “What we do know is that the ultimate limits to information processing in machine substrate lie far outside the limits in biological tissue.”
It seems we have now moved from ‘thinking substrate’ to ‘machine substrate’ without ever knowing what these terms mean. How can he know this? We haven’t even developed a successful philosophy of mind yet! There are many aspects of knowing, feeling, thinking, learning,… in organic intelligence that we have yet to understand.
@05:15 “This comes down to physics.”
He then compares the latest hardware (transistors) with neurons and means to show that these differences are meaningful in making the determination above and sticks with the size limitations of our brains being a size limitation for mind (again as if the mind were limited to the brain!)…
Note also that he is referring to information processing! If he had a decent set of knowledge representations to review, he would know that those tiny little neurons are not ‘transistors’ for the mind. There’s much going on in the mind for which the physical brain cannot give an answer! He is essentially attempting to compare apples and oranges with each other with an incomplete understanding what the apples are made of.
@05:47 “So the potential for super-intelligence kind of lies dormant in matter like much like the power of the atom lie dormant throughout history… patiently waiting there until 1945.”
Atoms did quite well, actually, before we learned how they work and began to make destructive use of the energy that comprises them. We certainly didn’t liberate them; rather, learned how to break them!
He then shows a picture of an hydrogen bomb blast and says @05:59*“In this century scientists may learn to awaken the power of artificial intelligence… and I think we might then see an intelligence explosion.”
This begs the question of what intelligence is! Also, it is unclear what aspects is he referring to: logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, knowledge, memory, creativity, problem solving,…? Later he tries to clarify this, but in so doing confuses the issue more.
Also there seems to be confusion here about the kind of intelligence (if we now pretend to have defined that term) would be that will have arisen. I’ll return to this later.
@06:10 “Now most people when they think about what is smart and what is dumb I think have in mind a picture roughly like this:”
and shows @06:15 a line (which is actually a distribution, but no one notices) with a “Village idiot” (using his terms) on the low end and Ed Witten on the the high end and a line stretching across between them.
It appears to be about knowledge of physics, because of Ed Witten being on it and how he then refers to what could have been Albert Einstein or any other favourite “Guru” we may want to choose. I wonder how this distribution would have ended up if he were to have measured empathy, situational awareness, or the knowledge of how the work your doing is being used for purposes other than good?
Where would Ed Witten, Albert Einstein, anyone of our choosing, or the village idiot then be found in the distribution. There are many kinds of ‘intelligence’ that are not even being considered here.
Notice how this distribution then magically transforms itself into an evolutionary path (which even appears to contain logarithmic/exponential value, as well). At least he has the village idiot higher on the scale than a chimp! I was almost expecting Kanzi to be somewhere in the middle of the distribution that the line represented before.
And then he says at @07:07 “The train doesn’t stop at ‘Humanville station’…”
This is more of that disdain I referred to above and will return to later in this post.
@07:11 “It’s likely rather to ‘swoosh’ right by.”
He doesn’t tell us why this will happen, but I suppose we will simply be surpassed by ‘somebody’ who’s got a bigger place to put his ‘brains’ in? That seems to be where this is heading…
@07:14 “Now this has profound implications particularly when it comes to questions of power.”
He compares the purely physical strength between a chimpanzee and a human (as if that were the only metric!) and uses that to transition us to accept his further propositions when he compares us to some kind of AI.
@07:27 “… and yet the fate of Kanzi and his pals depends a lot more on what we humans do than what the chimpanzees do themselves.”
So by analogy, this will also be true of ‘super-intelligence’ with respect to humans. We are expected to simply accept this analogy by ignoring (or here in this audience, not caring perhaps) the multitude of domains that influence and even determine the validity of the comparison!
———————————————————————————–
And now we come to the middle of time in the presentation and the most provocative and humanly egocentric propositions made in the whole talk..
@07:43 “Think about it. Machine intelligence is the last invention that humanity will ever need to make.”
He has no standing to make this claim. He nor anyone else can know what new way of looking at our world may come. NONE of us can truthfully say we have/know all of the ‘variables’ and ‘dimensions’ to our universe. We have barely begun to scratch the surface in all of our endeavours and therefore, have no right to make claims like these.
Yet it gets even more insane, because he then yields humanity to the proverbial ‘chopping block’ of evolution:
@07:49 “The machines will be better at inventing than we are and they will be doing so on digital time scales.”
What kind of education would create these kinds of propositions?
Why do we stand for this? He’s obviously a highly intelligent human being. How can he have fallen for this kind of artificial relation of our place in the universe. We are likely not the only planet with intelligent life either!
We don’t even know enough about the creative process to explain away God, not to mention explaining punctuated evolution! And I’ve not even referred to the discovery process yet as an additional criterion for intelligence.
This is where the inherent disdain for humanity contained within our hijacked science and technology best reveals itself. It has poisoned some of the most brilliant minds of our children like we see here. He makes these naive claims and doesn’t even realize the measure of his presumption whilst doing so.
Even the remark about digital time scales is naive. We don’t know enough about the depth and subtlety of the concepts such as time (temporality) nor scaling (proportion) to make any of these claims.
There are other ways of looking at these rich concepts that could transform our view of what we think or presume to know and even how we see ourselves in light of those expanded perspectives and context.
This naivety is shown here, as well:
@07:55 “What this means basically is a telescoping of the future.”
and here:
@08:01 “Think of all the crazy technologies that you could have imagined maybe humans could have developed in the fullness of time.”
I simply don’t know what to say about such a remark, except non sequitur. It simply doesn’t make any sense! Am I the only one who recognizes this fact? I sure hope not.
Our attention is then drawn to the blue hue surrounding the audience and I’m shocked to see how many people are being duped and even enthralled by this show. It’s as if they have taken their ‘phone off the hook’ and sit there like they’re watching a television. Some of them are even taking notes! We must stop being so trusting as to allow ourselves to be put in that position in the first place!
@08:24 “Now a super-intelligence with such ‘technological maturity’ would be extremely powerful. And at least in some scenarios, it would be able to get what it wants.”
There is no such thing as technological maturity and this underscores the disjunct the funders of science have created between who we are and our artefacts (what we make). He is talking about tools, isn’t he? He’s been trained to anthropomorphise technology (despite his reservations later below) as if it were ‘alive’ as we. Even if we were to create technology that is capable of mind, it would not represent an achievement of technology, rather an achievement of humanity. It would belong to our achievements.
@08:35 “We would then have a future that would be shaped by the preferences of this AI.”
How can we be sure? I ask this because, his next question is:
@08:41*“Now a good question is, ‘What are those preferences?’ Here it gets trickier.”
He gives his warning about anthropomorphising and shows a picture of a terminator. Before explaining what these preferences may be, he suggests to conceive of the issue “more abstractly”.
@09:09 “We need to think of intelligence as an optimization process. A process that steers the future into a particular set of configurations.”
How does he know that intelligence is the only factor doing the steering of the future or even if it’s possible to ‘steer’ the future? At best we can ‘steer’ ourselves and thereby influence how that future unfolds!
Also, optimization is not the only process necessary and is not alone sufficient to influence future outcomes. He’s now not only comparing apples with oranges, he’s using thin slices of them!
@09:17 “A super-intelligence is a really strong optimization process. It’s extremely good at using available means to achieve a state in which its goal is realized.”
This is another fundamental deficit with AI (which would be more aptly named: synthetic intelligence): they continually miss other aspects of reality that have nothing to do with state and aren’t states at all!
The universe doesn’t restrict itself to states no matter how needful we are to make it be so Hidden Markov models, Bayesian statistics, for example are all dead-ends which are in the process of playing themselves out.
Goal-oriented ‘intelligence’ is also not all there is to mind and the achievement of goals is not automatically a measure of usefulness nor necessarily a sign of intelligence.
It gets naively ‘Turing-esque’ with this statement:
@09:27 “This means there’s no necessary connection between being highly intelligent in this sense and having an objective that we humans would find worth while or meaningful.”
He’s using the word ‘connection’ here when he can only mean ‘difference’ for it to make any sense going from the way he’s framed the sentence.
I’ve written elsewhere on Turing, so I won’t go into detail, but this statement offers the same kind of fraud that the Turing Test offers us, namely: If a machine can fool you so well that you cannot tell it’s a machine or a real person, then the machine has passed the test.
Here he’s saying that a ‘super-intelligent machine’ being capable of pursuing a meaningful goal is another proof of its real intelligence. That’s incorrect even if it were possible get a machine participate in the richness of mind. We don’t yet even understand the processes in which we organically set and arrive at goals with, but we are going to have a machine do this?
@09:39 “Suppose we give an AI the goal to make humans smile. When the AI is weak, it performs useful or amusing actions that cause its user to smile. When the AI becomes super-intelligent it realizes there is a more effective way to achieve this goal.”
Ah… excuse me, but if we’re speaking of intelligence then we don’t have users, do we? We don’t if their intelligence is anything like our own.
He differentiates between strong and weak AI to underscore that ‘super-intelligence’ implies sentience. We don’t yet know how a dominant monad (‘I’-ness) works inside of us organically, not to mention how to impart this quality to a machine. I suppose, like all good materialists, we’ll just create enough initial conditions which then will become complex enough that sophonce spontaneously generates itself? (sophonce: self-awareness, including self-reflection and the ability to think about one’s thinking)
@09:43 “Take control of the world and like stick electrodes into the facial muscles of humans…”
Isn’t that sweet? That’s not intelligence, it’s stupidity, and a callous lack of regard for human dignity.
We knew that at least some mechanism of fear and control is going to be involved here (just having banksters fund the work presumes that ‘cocktail’ in the mix). But here is another example of the disparity made evident when such a thing could be made possible. We have received inverted and perverted priorities from those who fund our science and finance the development of our technology, and control the education of our young.
Do you see how easy it is for him to imagine such a scenario. See how the audience is not appalled at such an outcome? Neither the speaker nor the audience seems aware of how wrong this picture is.
The need to dominate and subjugate, which funds our science, pays for our technology and directs our education is even weaving itself into them: thereby infecting the young minds being exposed to it.
We must wake up and stop this perversion of our science and technology. If we do science or create technology with no concern for our values and ethics, then we are going to arrive at fundamental choices too early in our evolution and make the wrong choices on how they are put to use.
@10:02 “Take another example. Let’s suppose we give AI the goal to solve a difficult mathematical problem. When the AI becomes super-intelligent, it realizes that the most effective way is to get the solution to this problem by transforming the planet into a giant computer so as to increase its thinking capacity.”
Does that sound intelligent to you? I’m well aware of where this is heading, because of what has come before. We shall see what he proposes to solve his scenario’s ‘conundrum’. He’s simply giving us examples of what could be from his own imagination, but this reveals his own inner thoughts, feelings, priorities, and… training.
@10:17 “And notice that this gives the AI an instrumental reason to do things to us that we might not approve of. Human beings in this model are a threat. We could prevent the mathematical problem from being solved.”
If we could, why would we create an AI that would do such a thing? Mistakes happen? No! If an AI is really intelligent, it would also know of the consequences of its actions at the latest, during its execution of them.
Now we get to the main reason for the talk.
[To be continued in my next post with the same title.]
Men And Their Semantics – Turning Meaning into Legos
Semantically speaking: Does meaning structure unite languages?
This work is a dead end waiting to happen. Of course it will attract much interest, money, and perhaps even yield new insights into the commonality of language, but there’s better ways to get there.
What’s even more sad is that they, who should know better, will see my intentions in making this clear as destructive criticism instead of a siren warning regarding research governed/originating through a false paradigm. These people cannot see or overlook the costs humanity pays for the misunderstandings research like this causes and is based upon.
It’s even worse in the field of genetic engineering with their chimera research. The people wasting public money funding this research need to be gotten under control again.
I don’t want to criticize the researcher’s intentions. It’s their framing and methodology that I see as primitive, naive, and incomplete.
I’m not judging who they are nor their ends; rather, their means of getting there.
“Quantification” is exactly the wrong way to ‘measure/compare semantics; not to mention “partitioning” them!
1) The value in this investigation that they propose is to extrapolate and interpolate ontology. Semantics are more than ontology. They possess a complete metaphysics which includes their epistemology.
2) You cannot quantify qualities, because you reduce the investigation to measurement; which itself imposes meaning upon the meaning you wish to measure. Semantics, in their true form, are relations and are non-physical and non-reducible.
3) Notice also, partitioning is imposed upon the semantics (to make them ‘measurable/comparable’). If you compare semantics in such a way then you only get answers in terms of your investigation/ontology.
4) The better way is to leave the semantics as they are! Don’t classify them! Learn how they are related. Then you will know how they are compared.
There’s more to say, but I think you get the idea… ask me if you want clarification…
Quantum Weirdness To Meaninglessness
Quantum Weirdness To Meaninglessness
Physicists: your days are numbered. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Owen Maroney worries that physicists have spent the better part of a century engaging in fraud.
It’s a mess!
Ever since they invented quantum theory in the early 1900s, explains Maroney, who is himself a physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, they have been talking about how strange it is — how it allows particles and atoms to move in many directions at once, for example, or to spin clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously. But talk is not proof, says Maroney. “If we tell the public that quantum theory is weird, we better go out and test that’s actually true,” he says. “Otherwise we’re not doing science, we’re just explaining some funny squiggles on a blackboard.”
Link to document: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.17585!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/521278a.pdf
Sadly, the writer doesn’t grasp the depth and breath of the whole affair: It’s not only physics!
The time is coming when every single card in their ‘house of cards’ is going to come down.
They’ve been lying to us everywhere:
1) Uncertainty
2) Chaos
3) Randomness
4) Philosophy
5) Complexity
6) Meaning
7) Scarcity
8) Mathematics
…
The list goes on and on. I’m one of those who are going to bring the whole charade down… and I’m not alone.
Science And Technology Run Amok – Nr. 2 – Office Drones!
Science And Technology Run Amok – Nr. 2
Let’s just get it out there and forget the discussion of whether the technology is good for us or not!
When we allow this technology to be sold, we are tacitly accepting the use of drones everywhere. When we buy this technology, we are actively supporting it’s implementation and dissemination! Do we really want these things flying around us? Using them allows our ‘masters’ to hide in plain sight with other drones which are less beneficial to our mutual interests than these shown here!
I define the term “Run Amok” as ‘Without open consideration and debate of the moral, ethical, political, social, sovereignty issues’ in the conception, design, creation, production, distribution, and practice/implementation of technology and science.
Hiding In Plain Sight – ‘Disruption’ As A Game Changer
Hiding In Plain Sight – ‘Disruption’ As A Game Changer
(Disruptive Technology) What better way to introduce strategic gaming of a system than to make disruption trendy? You notice the disparity and desperation in those using this framing to express change as a constructive process. Intuitively sensing their own conundrum, they repeat themselves and try to cast the word in different ways as if they were trying on different shoes.
But why not ‘conducive’?
If your intentions are to disrupt the social cohesion of your enemy, then you don’t stand out as much if everyone’s doing it! Hence my “Hiding in plain sight” reference.
It’s no wonder I’ve had trouble with the concept and now I know why. Take a look into this report and understand the social engineering being made trendy for us all to consume. Novel and unique technology should be associated with conduciveness instead of disruption.
The preface is by Peter Singer (The leading Author of Ecoscience with John P. Holdren), so it’s no wonder it’s destructive in nature.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/john-holdren-reason-fear-obamacare/
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
https://archive.org/details/Ecoscience_17
Here’s a link to the document: http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Gamechangers_BrimleyFitzGeraldSayler_0.pdf
Note how the previous ‘disruption’ provides the necessity for further disruption! (The snake eats its own tail.)
There Is Only Now
New Theory Suggests That We Live In The Past Of A Parallel Universe
There Is Only Now
Here they confuse the issue… Badly!
More psyence mumbo jumbo to get you confused. If you would have said this before publication, you’d have been called a ‘nut job’ or ‘wacko’. But as you see, dogma does change.
They have time and space all whacked out and call people who have better explanations wacko!
The idea of a parallel universe does have uses. For example when we decide something or imagine how something may be different. We construct them in order to compare outcomes (or other aspects) with each other.
The problem with the article, for me, is that today’s science use them to reduce possibility and novelty to outcomes (or other aspects) that must preexist in some form!
They want everything to be non-personal 3rd. person ‘its’ running around interacting from some set of initial conditions! That’s one of the reasons why these parallel universes need to exist for them.
Otherwise they would have to account for some creative or imaginative process which would require a thinking being and not some 3rd. person ‘it’.
The Religion of Science Has a New Pope!
The Religion of Science Has a New Pope!
And ‘deniers’ are the neo-heretics and infidels!
The Pope appears to usher in a new Dark Age for Humanity by creating an encyclical… not about religion… it’s about science and politics!
Will a new age of Inquisition also ensue?
“He has been called the ‘superman pope’, and it would be hard to deny that Pope Francis has had a good December. Cited by President Barack Obama as a key player in the thawing relations between the US and Cuba, the Argentinian pontiff followed that by lecturing his cardinals on the need to clean up Vatican politics. But can Francis achieve a feat that has so far eluded secular powers and inspire decisive action on climate change?”
“It looks as if he will give it a go. In 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions.”
We Be To Not To Be
Shtick and pitch for fraud
This is another example of current trendy mainstream being given overly exaggerated results. We are simply getting better at expressing our own problem solving to computers.
Has anyone asked themselves or better, an expert of their choice, how a computer stores, understands and expresses its own purpose for being? or
Where a computer finds its own intention to know anything?
WE are providing these elements… not the computers themselves!
Please try to recognize that you are being given a shtick or pitch to make you believe that we are creating intelligent machines. What we are doing is learning to make better use of them! Bankster funded corporatism running our universities and economies are pulling the wool over our eyes. Wake up! Now!
Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?
Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way. The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.
I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.
Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.
With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!
The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!
It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.
Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).
Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.
Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?
…
Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)
“Hunting” for Life in the Universe… Who Speaks For Earth?
“Hunting” for Life in the Universe… Who Speaks For Earth?
Let’s be careful exactly WHO speaks for us. People who “want to hunt for other life” do that to their own too. Perhaps we need other ‘stewards’ of our world to make first contact with another planetary/galactic civilization.
Whoever ends up owning the world should know that our neighbors ‘out there’ will be very interested in who we are and our history. Will our ‘representatives’ tell those neighbors the truth or will they lie?
Many of the ‘problems’ we have in the world are as artificial as the solutions being manufactured to solve them. Some of the most well-known ‘problems’ are those like the myth of overpopulation (http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth), world poverty, war, terrorism, financial crisis, peak oil,… and soon: peak water (caused by activities such as fracking and the merchandising of water).
Another artificial problem of recent times is known by many names: global cooling (1970s),… ah…, global warming (late 1980s to 2010),… ah…, climate change (Bilderberg 2010).
The ‘stewards’ of our world have been complaining about our problems (in many cases) for a long time now. The question arises as to why, if they were so important, that they haven’t been solved by now? We would be living in the clouds and traveling to the planets if they had done what we trusted them to do in the first place.
Instead they are busily animating the ‘makers and shakers’ of our world with loads of fake money to prematurely build a global civilization whilst running roughshod over all of our personal and collective sovereignty to get there. Those who execute the plans have no idea that they too will be ‘on the menu’ in a later phase after being of use in the earlier ones!
In order to perform this slight-of-hand, they require global problems (such as those above) to provide the thin lines of plausibility to their ends. All the while they have been telling the rest of us that we spread like a virus (like in the film: Matrix).
They believe the lie that “the ends justify the means” when the truth is, the ends are fashioned by their means. All ends are inextricably tied to the means used to arrive at them. We see the results of their lie when they develop technologies too soon, weaponize them and insert control mechanisms into them.
Everywhere there is artificiality: from AI (artificial intelligence) to artificial poverty (austerity); from artificial understanding (category theory) to artificial philosophy (systems theory, chaos theory,…); from artificial physics (Higg’s Boson, Big Bang,…) to artificial biology (synthetic biology in the video); from artificial finance (bankster bail-outs, inside trading, Libor, derivatives, CAFR,…) to fake money (central banking, money as debt); from artificial catastrophes (overpopulation, terrorism, war, financial collapse) to artificial scarcity (zero-sum resource mindset),… even artificial food (margarine, ‘ice cream’, and other fat-free junk, sweeteners,…), artificial people (robots) and artificial diversity (unchecked and unwanted immigration).
This video dovetails all of the aspects above and directs our attention towards premature globalisation arising out of the artificially created chaos around us. I’d like to know if we really want these kinds of people (who are only a small portion of our population) representing us in a galactic or even universal context?
Will our ‘representatives’ be proud of their ‘stewardship’ of humanity? Will they be able to show how they created constructive solutions to aid even the most needy of their own kind? Or will they need to keep a secret so large, that even our neighbors out there wouldn’t want anything to do with us? Humanity will never be trusted in a galactic or even universal context, if we don’t choose our way carefully now.
A Message From Our Sponsors: Shell – It’s a Small Worm After All
(The Rothschild Family) 1 1/2 Minutes of Psyence Pysense.
Can science change the world? Film-makers from around the globe explore what it takes to have an idea that could change the world.
Marielle Woods aims to prove it can, with a tongue-in-cheek look at how a simple worm farm potentially connects to bio-fuels. One idea can spur another idea, creating a chain of events that could one day help ‘make the future’ (before it gets here!).
[Update: notice his wanton disregard for the consequences of his actions and views…]
Universal Contradiction Helps Sort Out Quantum Mechanics!
Here we go again! Psyence at its ‘best’!
I wonder; if we do have parallel universes, then where is the coordination of quantum events being arbitrated/managed/coordinated? What functions as a substrate?
Isn’t the idea of a set of parallel (NOT multiverses which is something quite different!) begging the question?
Even Set Theory warns us of a contradiction that also arises, should we take this idea seriously.
Reductionism par Excellence
Quick! I need my street address! In which universe do I look?
If I look in the one I think I’m in I could be wrong, because I just made a decision on which one to look at! 😦
The good ol’ bunk-o-meter pegged full on this one!
We reduce possibility to predictability (and justifiability) and don’t even notice the change!
Complexity At the Cost of Being Simple
Complexity At the Cost of Being Simple
There are grievous problems with complexity ‘science’. Some of those problems are apparent here. I will note a few of them.
Reductionism at @13:00 is completely annoying. Epiphenomenological aspects of the problem are completely missing when you reduce into pure binary! It’s like taking you and your emotional life (with its incipient impact on your immune system) and reducing it down to DNA!
“There are way more problems than there are solutions.” @17:00!Sure! When you peel away the contextual embedding of any problem (via reductionism), then you’ve just committed a sort of lobotomy!
The definition of NP at @23:00 while correct, reveals how misguided this theory is. Not all choices are guesses, and correct answers aren’t always ‘lucky’.
Check out the response one receives from the system (algorithm) at @25:11.Did you notice something’s wrong or what?
@26:51 Does anyone notice who is supplying the criterion for the value of ‘correct’? The algorithm is being falsely attributed with properties it can only be endowed with and not arrive at on its own!
@30:00 The rules to Tetris are known by both (algorithm and human) however, the proof of a truth value cannot be computationally arrived at in NP, yet the proof – via a human being AND the skills necessary to ‘prove’ anything can do it in P! It should be obvious that we are going about the whole thing in the wrong way by now!
@31:00 the P<>NP Problem is described. The problem is meaningless and yet you’ll get a Millenium Prize for solving it! (Even sane and not sane find themselves in the balance! Whoa!) If you continue listening to the justification, you might want to be near a bathroom.
@32:27 Check out how NP is being determined to be ‘more’ than P! “Nobody in their right mind…”, “Obviously insane…”,… so naturally NP must be more than P!
Sounds reasonable? I don’t think so…
@32:37 Watch the disappointment: “…very annoying…” and I wonder why? The question is meaningless! Other phrasings of the P<>NP Problem are nothing special and are completely obvious: “You can’t engineer luck.” (Excuse me, but isn’t that the definition of luck in the first place?) and “Solving problems is harder than checking them.”
@34:17 “What could we possibly say… this is all kind of weired…” I don’t know anymore either and I sure hope you don’t tell me! Are we at the end of the lecture already?
@35:53 Now we are getting to the ‘meat of the potato’. If we just “believe in… have faith in…” P<>NP, then Tetris is within NP-P! Wait a minute? That doesn’t sound like any proof to me… perhaps it’s an axiom? We’ll see. It sure looks like begging the question, but I want to be convinced so I’ll just have to wait.
@36:43 He then moves on to a ‘proof’ that looks more like a set of definitions! NP-hard and NP-complete are correctly defined, but they do not prove anything! Tetris and chess act like a definitions, as well!
@40:33 Now he wants to talk about reductions. Wait, weren’t we talking about them already? Let’s take a look…
Yes, we stand upon giants [Authoritarianism]@46:15(Karp’s 3-Partition) and don’t need to think about it anymore and just reconfirm that all NP-complete is reducible to each other! You find some problem that was defined by a “giant” to be a member of your classification and then show that yours is at least as hard @48:47.
If we happen to find a better solution to a member of NP-complete, then either the whole house of cards falls down or we simply reclassify (by reduction) it to P! Now believe it or believe what you want, okay?
There will be a time when we have to revisit mathematics and do a house cleaning of this ‘cuddle muddle’.
I’ve Got a Bridge To Sell You!
I’ve Got a Bridge To Sell You!
Sustainability = Resource-based zero sum mentality. It sounds so convincing. They are transferring the responsibility for the pillage of our world from the bankster-led corporatism running our governments to the whole of humanity.
This ‘smart’ (sustainable) industry is paid for by those who will profit from it most.
They’ve already got the air you breathe, now they’re coming after your water… and soon, your right to exist.
We are the living Earth, but if we are not wise enough to match their cleverness, we shall be renting everything we need to survive and hold dear.
Forget the Planet! There’s Just Not Enough Room In This Solar System, Galaxy and Universe!
Forget the Planet! There’s Just Not Enough Room In This Solar System, Galaxy and Universe!
Let’s get real!
http://www.pop.org/projects/debunk-overpopulation-myth
They’ve even elevated the idea to the status of a ‘science’. The banksters are betting and investing heavily on this false meme, for sure.
Wake up people! If the globalist parasites funding this BS wanted a better world, we would have had one by now (they’ve been barfing this up for over 100 years!). They are making this video to put us at odds with each other. There are not enough resources ONLY when we do not cooperate with each other.
I know its super trendy to believe this crap, but if you do, you’re only allowing yourself to be manipulated.
Good News! It’s Not Just Particles! It’s Properties and Patterns of Particles! – Max Tegmark
“Consciousness is a mathematical pattern.”
Is it possible to explain the phenomenon of purpose away with another phenomenon of emergence?
I wonder how he defines purpose itself?
Isn’t consciousness more than our senses?
Why are we only looking at states of matter and leave out stages, lines, levels, types,…?
Who is doing the “feeling” he’s describing?
Who gives the particles their work to do?
How are the particles different between dead and living beings?
So we are to replace our questions with a certainty of the phenomenon of consciousness and then explain that in terms of an interpretation of same?
I’m not a religious person, but the video is starting to sound like I should be one!
Is this what we get when a physicist tries to do philosophy? Oh my!
I Really Want To Agree… But I Just Can’t! – Max Tegmark – Cahners Theater
I did it again (for a friend) and tolerated another hour of this man’s presentation (see my post following this one where I cover the one I watched on August 31st).
Beyond the Higg’s Boson, which is not a convincing ‘discovery’, is his claim that the universe is mathematical at (31:00). “In the sense that it [universe] is a mathematical structure.”
Mathematics is simply a precise language!
Here’s one avenue, but I can give others, that may help understand why mathematics cannot be the universe, rather a means to represent it.
Patterns and shapes can be described mathematically just as they are now being described with my words. When he widens his definition to include them (shapes and patterns, structure,…) they represent literally everything and become part of his definition!
He also assigns humanity as a whole as the designer for technology that our amok running corporations have made (and have led the rest of us who ‘enjoy’ employment with them to build for them). The Cuban Missile Crisis isn’t a problem created by humanity as a whole, rather was created by corporations who work for banksters to further their ends.
Causality is all wrong throughout his presentation. Believe me, I wanted to be enthralled by his wisdom, but I’m left disappointed for many reasons… many for which I’ve made no mention.
Is It Science Or Is It Psyence?
Is It Science Or Is It Psyence?
The proud and wonderful achievement of humanity is becoming more like a religion… Why?
The main reason… although there are many more…
It’s funded by banksters who park their money in ‘philanthropy’ to shelter it from taxation and dominate the research and paradigms (through their corporations) towards ends that they value – which have little to do with what is valuable for humanity.
Another important reason is that people confuse what science should be with what science has become. Tolerance has been replaced by authoritarianism that is primed with such a vehemence as to spurn and marginalize any deviation from the established ‘doctrine’. Especially if those explanations happen to be based upon knowledge that is non-physical in nature or pose radically different explanations for given experimental evidence. We expect science to be fair and open to new ideas, but the reality is very different.
You see this, for example, in the young minds (zealots) newly indoctrinated into the ‘faith’ and their fierceness in wanting to teach others they encounter (debate) the process of science (even if they are addressing someone who, because of their own academic training and research, takes that knowledge as self-evident). They are full of the dogma their young and pliable minds have been exposed to, but never learned to be tolerant and wise with what they know.
Science’s ‘heydays’ are over unless it starts to recognize and tolerate competing explanations for experimental evidence than those found in the trendy mainstream.
There is a growing number of scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and learned people, who are aware of the sad state of science, and whose numbers are reaching a critical threshold such that it will usher in a form of reformation to right the situation.
This video reveals some of the cracks in our present day ‘science’. Why are these issues not resolved? Because the real answers are bad for business – at least for the corporations.
For the banksters it’s about full-spectrum dominance hierarchy and the loss of all personal and collective sovereignty for the remainder of humanity; for they can print as much money as they need to animate the corporations.
Are We Ready For The Coming Privatization Of Our Water?
Are We Ready For The Coming Privatization Of Our Water?
NASA Isn’t saying, but they’re preparing us just the same.
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120515.html)
The propaganda placement has been well under way for a new revenue stream for banksters. This piece is the kind of ‘science’ they just love to pay for. Artificial scarcity manufactured and coming your way very soon.
Say ‘Hello’ to more fracking and ‘Good bye’ to your aquifers, ’cause there’s a ton of money to be made saving the dying thirsty!
A Disservice to Mathematics and Science For Over 100 Years and Counting…
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ” -Nikola Tesla
… and that isn’t the only area of ‘damage’!
I’ve been tracking Characteristica Unversalis, Philosophia Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Logica Universalis and Scientia Universalis all of my working life (for a time not even knowing what these concepts were!).
These concepts are so vitally important and it is a wonder that they have been all but forgotten in our ‘modern’ and ‘post-modern’ era.
The people who are changing our education, science, mathematics and philosophy are most comfortable in an environment of fear and control. That’s why they teach us to frame ideas in terms like uncertainty, chaos, random, coincidence, normativity … all of these are artificial creations.
This is going to change! It must!
We need to be aware of the subtle changes being made to our science, mathematics, philosophy and logic over time and then bring them back to their intended purposes!
I believe we all have an edge (sometimes many) – even if it takes time or circumstance to find it.
That’s just one of the reasons why normativity is only of very limited use and its importance should be put back in its place, for just one example. Any group of humanity large enough to be considered a distribution (anything else for that matter) will exhibit shared traits and exceptions to them.
It is part of the structure of the universe that it is so! It is a natural constant
We are called upon to judge wisely what these traits are which we choose to measure, lest we miss those which are just as valid as any other, and yet remain unrecognized!
We haven’t even really begun seriously to investigate these wonderful differences in each of us that make each of us special ( #OI Organic Intelligence). Using the most frequently populated area of any particular group is a ‘measuring rod’ won’t get us there either!
Heurist.me (Carey G. Butler) 