Sunday, June 22, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Will-To-Compute
WILL-TO-COMPUTE: ASENION ETHICS, EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, AND SENTIENT MORALITY:
Quote snippits from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics :
In science fiction, the Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
In The Naked Sun, Asimov established that the first law was incomplete: that a robot was fully capable of harming a human being as long as it did not know that its actions would result in harm. The example used was: one robot adds poison to a glass of milk, having been told that the milk will be disposed of later; then a second robot serves a human the milk, unaware that it is poisoned.
Asimov once added a "Zeroth Law"—so named to continue the pattern of lower-numbered laws superseding in importance the higher-numbered laws—stating that a robot must not merely act in the interests of individual humans, but of all humanity. The robotic character R. Daneel Olivaw was the first to give the Law a name, in the novel Robots and Empire; however, Susan Calvin articulates the concept in the short story "The Evitable Conflict"
… grasps the philosophical concept of the Zeroth Law, allowing him to harm individual human beings if he can do so in service to the abstract concept of humanity. The Zeroth Law is never programmed into Giskard's brain, but instead is a rule he attempts to rationalize through pure metacognition…
… thinking that the First Law forbids a robot from harming a human being, unless the robot is clever enough to rationalize that its actions are for the human's long-term good (here meaning the specific human that must be harmed).
Gaia, the planet with collective intelligence in the Foundation novels, adopted a law similar to the First as their philosophy:
Gaia may not harm life or, through inaction, allow life to come to harm.
On the other hand, the short story "Cal" (collected in Gold), told by a first-person robot narrator, features a robot who disregards the Laws because he has found something far more important—he wants to be a writer.
Asimov took varying positions on whether the Laws were optional: although in his first writings they were simply carefully engineered safeguards, in later stories Asimov stated that they were an inalienable part of the mathematical foundation underlying the positronic brain.
… the term "Asenion" to describe robots programmed with the Three Laws. The robots in Asimov's stories, being Asenion robots, are incapable of knowingly violating the Three Laws, but in principle, a robot in science fiction or in the real world could be non-Asenion.
As characters within the stories often point out, the Laws as they exist in a robot's mind are not the written, verbal version usually quoted by humans, but abstract mathematical concepts upon which a robot's entire developing consciousness is based. Thus, the Laws are comparable to basic human instincts of family or mating, and consequently are closer to forming the basis of a robot's self-consciousness—a sense that its entire purpose is based around serving humanity, obeying human orders and continuing its existence in this mode—rather than arbitrary limitations circumscribing an otherwise independent mind. This concept is largely fuzzy and unclear in earlier stories depicting very rudimentary robots who are only programmed to comprehend basic physical tasks, with the Laws acting as an overarching safeguard, but by the era of The Caves of Steel, featuring robots with human or beyond-human intelligence, the Three Laws have become the underlying basic ethical worldview that determines the actions of all robots.
The Solarians eventually create robots with the Laws as normal but with a warped meaning of "human". Solarian robots are told that only people speaking with a Solarian accent are human. This way, their robots have no problem harming non-Solarian human beings (and are specifically programmed to do so). By the time period of Foundation and Earth, it is revealed that the Solarians have, indeed, genetically modified themselves into a distinct species from humanity — becoming hermaphroditic, telekinetic and containing biological organs capable of powering and controlling whole complexes of robots on their own. The robots of Solaria thus respected the Three Laws only regarding the "humans" of Solaria, rather than the normal humans of the rest of the Galaxy.
….
The presence of a whole range of robotic life that serves the same purpose as organic life ends with two humanoid robots concluding that organic life is an unnecessary requirement for a truly logical and self-consistent definition of "humanity", and that since they are the most advanced thinking beings on the planet, they are therefore the only two true humans alive and the Three Laws only apply to themselves. The story ends on a sinister note as the two robots enter hibernation and await a time when they conquer the Earth and subjugate biological humans to themselves, an outcome they consider an inevitable result of the "Three Laws of Humanics".
Indeed, Asimov describes "—That Thou art Mindful of Him" and "Bicentennial Man" as two opposite, parallel futures for robots that obviate the Three Laws by robots coming to consider themselves to be humans — one portraying this in a positive light with a robot joining human society, one portraying this in a negative light with robots supplanting humans. Both are to be considered alternatives to the possibility of a robot society that continues to be driven by the Three Laws as portrayed in the Foundation series.
In the 1990s, Roger MacBride Allen wrote a trilogy set within Asimov's fictional universe. Each title has the prefix "Isaac Asimov's", as Asimov approved Allen's outline before his death. These three books (Caliban, Inferno and Utopia) introduce a new set of Laws. The so-called New Laws are similar to Asimov's originals, with three substantial differences. The First Law is modified to remove the "inaction" clause (the same modification made in "Little Lost Robot"). The Second Law is modified to require cooperation instead of obedience. The Third Law is modified so it is no longer superseded by the Second (i.e., a "New Law" robot cannot be ordered to destroy itself). Finally, Allen adds a Fourth Law, which instructs the robot to do "whatever it likes" so long as this does not conflict with the first three Laws. The philosophy behind these changes is that New Law robots should be partners rather than slaves to humanity. According to the first book's introduction, Allen devised the New Laws in discussion with Asimov himself.
Allen's two most fully characterized robots are Prospero, a wily New Law machine who excels in finding loopholes, and Caliban, an experimental robot programmed with no Laws at all.
The Laws of Robotics are portrayed as something akin to a human religion and referred to in the language of the Protestant Reformation, with the set of laws containing the Zeroth Law known as the "Giskardian Reformation" to the original "Calvinian Orthodoxy" of the Three Laws. Zeroth-Law robots under the control of R. Daneel Olivaw are seen continually struggling with First-Law robots who deny the existence of the Zeroth Law, promoting agendas different from Daneel's. Some are based on the first clause of the First Law — advocating strict non-interference in human politics to avoid unknowingly causing harm — while others are based on the second clause, claiming that robots should openly become a dictatorial government to protect humans from all potential conflict or disaster.
Daneel also comes into conflict with a robot known as R. Lodovic Trema, whose positronic brain was infected by a rogue AI — specifically, a simulation of the long-dead Voltaire — consequently freeing Trema from the Three Laws. Trema comes to believe that humanity should be free to choose its own future. Furthermore, a small group of robots claims that the Zeroth Law of Robotics itself implies a higher Minus One Law of Robotics:
A robot may not harm sentience or, through inaction, allow sentience to come to harm.
When robots are sophisticated enough to weigh alternatives, a robot may be programmed to accept the necessity of inflicting damage during surgery in order to prevent the greater harm that would result if the surgery were not carried out or were carried out by a more fallible human surgeon.
Asimovian (or "Asenion") robots can experience irreversible mental collapse if they are forced into situations where they cannot obey the First Law, or if they discover they have unknowingly violated it.
… restated the first law as "A robot may do nothing that, to its knowledge, will harm a human being; nor, through inaction, knowingly allow a human being to come to harm."
Modern roboticists and specialists in robotics agree that, as of 2006, Asimov's Laws are perfect for plotting stories, but useless in real life. Some have argued that, since the military is a major source of funding for robotic research, it is unlikely such laws would be built into the design. SF author Robert Sawyer generalizes this argument to cover other industries, stating:
The development of AI is a business, and businesses are notoriously uninterested in fundamental safeguards — especially philosophic ones. (A few quick examples: the tobacco industry, the automotive industry, the nuclear industry. Not one of these has said from the outset that fundamental safeguards are necessary, every one of them has resisted externally imposed safeguards, and none has accepted an absolute edict against ever causing harm to humans.
David Langford has suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that these laws might be the following:
1) A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.
2) A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where such orders conflict with the Third Law.
3) A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.
It is not possible to reliably constrain the behaviour of robots by devising and applying a set of rules." On the other hand, Asimov's later novels (The Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire, Foundation and Earth) imply that the robots inflicted their worst long-term harm by obeying the Laws perfectly well, thereby depriving humanity of inventive or risk-taking behaviour.
In March 2007, the South Korean government announced that it would issue a Robot Ethics Charter, setting standards for both users and manufacturers, later in the year. According to Park Hye-Young of the Ministry of Information and Communication, the Charter may reflect Asimov's Three Laws, attempting to set ground rules for the future development of robotics.
The futurist Hans Moravec (a prominent figure in the transhumanist movement) proposed that the Laws of Robotics should be adapted to "corporate intelligences", the corporations driven by AI and robotic manufacturing power which Moravec believes will arise in the near future. In contrast, the David Brin novel Foundation's Triumph (1999) suggests that the Three Laws may decay into obsolescence: robots use the Zeroth Law to rationalize away the First, and robots hide themselves from human beings so that the Second Law never comes into play. Brin even portrays R. Daneel Olivaw worrying that should robots continue to reproduce themselves, the Three Laws would become an evolutionary handicap, and natural selection would sweep the Laws away — Asimov's careful foundation undone by evolutionary computation.
Quote snippits from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics :
In science fiction, the Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
In The Naked Sun, Asimov established that the first law was incomplete: that a robot was fully capable of harming a human being as long as it did not know that its actions would result in harm. The example used was: one robot adds poison to a glass of milk, having been told that the milk will be disposed of later; then a second robot serves a human the milk, unaware that it is poisoned.
Asimov once added a "Zeroth Law"—so named to continue the pattern of lower-numbered laws superseding in importance the higher-numbered laws—stating that a robot must not merely act in the interests of individual humans, but of all humanity. The robotic character R. Daneel Olivaw was the first to give the Law a name, in the novel Robots and Empire; however, Susan Calvin articulates the concept in the short story "The Evitable Conflict"
… grasps the philosophical concept of the Zeroth Law, allowing him to harm individual human beings if he can do so in service to the abstract concept of humanity. The Zeroth Law is never programmed into Giskard's brain, but instead is a rule he attempts to rationalize through pure metacognition…
… thinking that the First Law forbids a robot from harming a human being, unless the robot is clever enough to rationalize that its actions are for the human's long-term good (here meaning the specific human that must be harmed).
Gaia, the planet with collective intelligence in the Foundation novels, adopted a law similar to the First as their philosophy:
Gaia may not harm life or, through inaction, allow life to come to harm.
On the other hand, the short story "Cal" (collected in Gold), told by a first-person robot narrator, features a robot who disregards the Laws because he has found something far more important—he wants to be a writer.
Asimov took varying positions on whether the Laws were optional: although in his first writings they were simply carefully engineered safeguards, in later stories Asimov stated that they were an inalienable part of the mathematical foundation underlying the positronic brain.
… the term "Asenion" to describe robots programmed with the Three Laws. The robots in Asimov's stories, being Asenion robots, are incapable of knowingly violating the Three Laws, but in principle, a robot in science fiction or in the real world could be non-Asenion.
As characters within the stories often point out, the Laws as they exist in a robot's mind are not the written, verbal version usually quoted by humans, but abstract mathematical concepts upon which a robot's entire developing consciousness is based. Thus, the Laws are comparable to basic human instincts of family or mating, and consequently are closer to forming the basis of a robot's self-consciousness—a sense that its entire purpose is based around serving humanity, obeying human orders and continuing its existence in this mode—rather than arbitrary limitations circumscribing an otherwise independent mind. This concept is largely fuzzy and unclear in earlier stories depicting very rudimentary robots who are only programmed to comprehend basic physical tasks, with the Laws acting as an overarching safeguard, but by the era of The Caves of Steel, featuring robots with human or beyond-human intelligence, the Three Laws have become the underlying basic ethical worldview that determines the actions of all robots.
The Solarians eventually create robots with the Laws as normal but with a warped meaning of "human". Solarian robots are told that only people speaking with a Solarian accent are human. This way, their robots have no problem harming non-Solarian human beings (and are specifically programmed to do so). By the time period of Foundation and Earth, it is revealed that the Solarians have, indeed, genetically modified themselves into a distinct species from humanity — becoming hermaphroditic, telekinetic and containing biological organs capable of powering and controlling whole complexes of robots on their own. The robots of Solaria thus respected the Three Laws only regarding the "humans" of Solaria, rather than the normal humans of the rest of the Galaxy.
….
The presence of a whole range of robotic life that serves the same purpose as organic life ends with two humanoid robots concluding that organic life is an unnecessary requirement for a truly logical and self-consistent definition of "humanity", and that since they are the most advanced thinking beings on the planet, they are therefore the only two true humans alive and the Three Laws only apply to themselves. The story ends on a sinister note as the two robots enter hibernation and await a time when they conquer the Earth and subjugate biological humans to themselves, an outcome they consider an inevitable result of the "Three Laws of Humanics".
Indeed, Asimov describes "—That Thou art Mindful of Him" and "Bicentennial Man" as two opposite, parallel futures for robots that obviate the Three Laws by robots coming to consider themselves to be humans — one portraying this in a positive light with a robot joining human society, one portraying this in a negative light with robots supplanting humans. Both are to be considered alternatives to the possibility of a robot society that continues to be driven by the Three Laws as portrayed in the Foundation series.
In the 1990s, Roger MacBride Allen wrote a trilogy set within Asimov's fictional universe. Each title has the prefix "Isaac Asimov's", as Asimov approved Allen's outline before his death. These three books (Caliban, Inferno and Utopia) introduce a new set of Laws. The so-called New Laws are similar to Asimov's originals, with three substantial differences. The First Law is modified to remove the "inaction" clause (the same modification made in "Little Lost Robot"). The Second Law is modified to require cooperation instead of obedience. The Third Law is modified so it is no longer superseded by the Second (i.e., a "New Law" robot cannot be ordered to destroy itself). Finally, Allen adds a Fourth Law, which instructs the robot to do "whatever it likes" so long as this does not conflict with the first three Laws. The philosophy behind these changes is that New Law robots should be partners rather than slaves to humanity. According to the first book's introduction, Allen devised the New Laws in discussion with Asimov himself.
Allen's two most fully characterized robots are Prospero, a wily New Law machine who excels in finding loopholes, and Caliban, an experimental robot programmed with no Laws at all.
The Laws of Robotics are portrayed as something akin to a human religion and referred to in the language of the Protestant Reformation, with the set of laws containing the Zeroth Law known as the "Giskardian Reformation" to the original "Calvinian Orthodoxy" of the Three Laws. Zeroth-Law robots under the control of R. Daneel Olivaw are seen continually struggling with First-Law robots who deny the existence of the Zeroth Law, promoting agendas different from Daneel's. Some are based on the first clause of the First Law — advocating strict non-interference in human politics to avoid unknowingly causing harm — while others are based on the second clause, claiming that robots should openly become a dictatorial government to protect humans from all potential conflict or disaster.
Daneel also comes into conflict with a robot known as R. Lodovic Trema, whose positronic brain was infected by a rogue AI — specifically, a simulation of the long-dead Voltaire — consequently freeing Trema from the Three Laws. Trema comes to believe that humanity should be free to choose its own future. Furthermore, a small group of robots claims that the Zeroth Law of Robotics itself implies a higher Minus One Law of Robotics:
A robot may not harm sentience or, through inaction, allow sentience to come to harm.
When robots are sophisticated enough to weigh alternatives, a robot may be programmed to accept the necessity of inflicting damage during surgery in order to prevent the greater harm that would result if the surgery were not carried out or were carried out by a more fallible human surgeon.
Asimovian (or "Asenion") robots can experience irreversible mental collapse if they are forced into situations where they cannot obey the First Law, or if they discover they have unknowingly violated it.
… restated the first law as "A robot may do nothing that, to its knowledge, will harm a human being; nor, through inaction, knowingly allow a human being to come to harm."
Modern roboticists and specialists in robotics agree that, as of 2006, Asimov's Laws are perfect for plotting stories, but useless in real life. Some have argued that, since the military is a major source of funding for robotic research, it is unlikely such laws would be built into the design. SF author Robert Sawyer generalizes this argument to cover other industries, stating:
The development of AI is a business, and businesses are notoriously uninterested in fundamental safeguards — especially philosophic ones. (A few quick examples: the tobacco industry, the automotive industry, the nuclear industry. Not one of these has said from the outset that fundamental safeguards are necessary, every one of them has resisted externally imposed safeguards, and none has accepted an absolute edict against ever causing harm to humans.
David Langford has suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that these laws might be the following:
1) A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.
2) A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where such orders conflict with the Third Law.
3) A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.
It is not possible to reliably constrain the behaviour of robots by devising and applying a set of rules." On the other hand, Asimov's later novels (The Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire, Foundation and Earth) imply that the robots inflicted their worst long-term harm by obeying the Laws perfectly well, thereby depriving humanity of inventive or risk-taking behaviour.
In March 2007, the South Korean government announced that it would issue a Robot Ethics Charter, setting standards for both users and manufacturers, later in the year. According to Park Hye-Young of the Ministry of Information and Communication, the Charter may reflect Asimov's Three Laws, attempting to set ground rules for the future development of robotics.
The futurist Hans Moravec (a prominent figure in the transhumanist movement) proposed that the Laws of Robotics should be adapted to "corporate intelligences", the corporations driven by AI and robotic manufacturing power which Moravec believes will arise in the near future. In contrast, the David Brin novel Foundation's Triumph (1999) suggests that the Three Laws may decay into obsolescence: robots use the Zeroth Law to rationalize away the First, and robots hide themselves from human beings so that the Second Law never comes into play. Brin even portrays R. Daneel Olivaw worrying that should robots continue to reproduce themselves, the Three Laws would become an evolutionary handicap, and natural selection would sweep the Laws away — Asimov's careful foundation undone by evolutionary computation.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
I Want Answers
I Want Answers:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer:
"(NNSA) selected IBM to design and build the world's first supercomputer to use the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell B.E.) processor aiming to produce a machine capable of a sustained speed of up to 1,000 trillion (one quadrillion) calculations per second, or one PFLOPS."
*****
Dave,
The June 2008 issue of National Review is interesting, especially in relation to some information on the internet.
*****
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY:
(Exchange between Nicholson and CruiseJ)
You want answers?
I think I’m entitled.
You want answers?
I want the truth.
You can’t handle the truth!
*****
Taking “Free” Out Of “Will” (?):
Super data crunching computers have aided the successful mapping of the human genome. Now, ambitious efforts are underway to use computers to help conduct a genome-wide-association study (GWAS). The goal, insofar as possible, is to reduce all psychological tendencies (such as depression, shyness, disorderliness, aggressiveness, clumsiness, dullness, inattentiveness) to genetically operative explanations, sort of like an engineering problem. (See June 2, 2008 issue of National Review, “Undetermined,” page 26.)
Structural limits likely remain, in respect that much behavior is correlated not just with single genes, but with interactions among many genes and biochemical processes, involving interactions among components within components, interfacing with environmental factors within factors (nutrition, culture, previous conditioning, previous education regarding inculcation of ideals).
See http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,2,11-18-1998/Kovach.htm :
“Solvable problems belong to the group of languages called recursive. For these proble-ms the TM will return a definite answer yes or no in a finite period of time. Yet many of these cannot be practically solved because of limits of time or space.
A particularly simple example of this is the traveling salesperson problem. There is a salesperson who has to visit 50 cities. He wishes to do so by traveling the least number of miles and by not visiting any city more than once. The algorithm for this problems is deceptively simple. Measure and store the distances between the starting point and all 50 cities. Find the shortest distance between each set of the remaining 49 cities and add it to the first distance, then determine which is the shortest distance. Simple huh? Until one considers the time needed to solve this problem. This problem requires at least 50! steps to solve it. (50!, read 50 factorial, is the product of 50x49x 48x47x...x3x2x1. It is approximately 314 followed by 64 zeros. To give you a feel for the time needed to solve this, assume a computer could perform 10 billion steps a second. This would translate into approximately 31.5 quadrillion steps in a year. At this rate, it would take "a little" more than 9,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to solve this problem. (In Asimov's story, the universe ends in a mere 10,000,000,000,000 years.) Thus even solvable problems may be beyond the power of computers.”
[PERSONAL COMMENTS: The above article was written in 1998. Efforts are now underway to build a supercomputer capable of 1,000 trillion (one quadrillion) calculations per second, or one PFLOPS. This appears to be more than 10,000 times faster than the 10 billion steps a second, which was the speed assumed in the example above.
Even so, by Kovach’s calculations, even with a state of the art supercomputer, it would take more than 96,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to solve his problem, which would still far exceed the Ten Trillion years remaining in Asimov’s universe (apparently by more than 965,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 9.65 x 10 to the 27th power, in years). [Note: Re-check zeros(?).]
NOT SO HARD: However, intuition suggests solving such problems will soon become far less difficult, for the following reasons:
1) Raw computing power is combined with the guiding intuitive power of its programmers;
2) Supercomputing capacities will continue to explode; and
3) AI will likely explode the intuitive power of guiding programmers of raw computing.]
See http://compnetworking.about.com/od/basicnetworkingconcepts/g/bldef_kilobit.htm:
“Definition: In computer networking, a kilobit normally represents 1000 bits of data. A megabit represents 1000 kilobits and a gigabit represents 1000 megabits (equal to one million kilobits).”
See http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3306303&c=FEA&s=CVS :
“Some Army officials see hope in the Air Force's Transformational Satellite communications system, which will allow data rates of about two gigabits per second when it arrives around 2020, about eight times faster than the 250 megabits of today's Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellites. TSAT's Internet Protocol-based system will also offer more flexibility than AEHF's point-to-point connections.”
See http://www.top500.org/system/8968 :
“BlueGene/L (BGL) clocked 478.2 trillion floating operations per second (teraFLOPS) on LINPACK, the industry standard of measure for high-performance computing.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer :
“Supercomputers are used for highly calculation-intensive tasks such as problems involving quantum mechanical physics, weather forecasting, climate research (including research into global warming), molecular modeling (computing the structures and properties of chemical compounds, biological macromolecules, polymers, and crystals), physical simulations (such as simulation of airplanes in wind tunnels, simulation of the detonation of nuclear weapons, and research into nuclear fusion), cryptanalysis, and the like. Major universities, military agencies and scientific research laboratories are heavy users.
A particular class of problems, known as Grand Challenge problems, are problems whose full solution requires semi-infinite computing resources.
Relevant here is the distinction between capability computing and capacity computing, as defined by Graham et al. Capability computing is typically thought of as using the maximum computing power to solve a large problem in the shortest amount of time. Often a capability system is able to solve a problem of a size or complexity that no other computer can. Capacity computing in contrast is typically thought of as using efficient cost-effective computing power to solve somewhat large problems or many small problems or to prepare for a run on a capability system.
….
As of November 2007, the IBM Blue Gene/L at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is the fastest operational supercomputer, with a sustained processing rate of 478.2 TFLOPS.
….
On September 9, 2006 the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) selected IBM to design and build the world's first supercomputer to use the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell B.E.) processor aiming to produce a machine capable of a sustained speed of up to 1,000 trillion (one quadrillion) calculations per second, or one PFLOPS. Another project in development by IBM is the Cyclops64 architecture, intended to create a "supercomputer on a chip".”
[PERSONAL COMMENTS, with quote snippits from June 2008 National Review:
The June 2008 issue of National Review implicates that we will not know whether a project can be achieved for understanding how genes, body, brain, environment, and social conditioning interact to create characteristics of mind until we achieve it. We will not know whether the problem is solvable until we solve it. (“We are like cavemen trying to figure out how a computer works by poking at it with sharpened sticks.”) Such situation may be similar to the “halting problem,” as described by Turing and referenced in Kovach’s 1998 article.
“Science may someday allow us to predict human behavior comprehensively and reliably, so that we can live in Woodrow Wilson’s “perfected beehive.” Until then, however, we need to keep stumbling forward in freedom as best we can.”]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer:
"(NNSA) selected IBM to design and build the world's first supercomputer to use the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell B.E.) processor aiming to produce a machine capable of a sustained speed of up to 1,000 trillion (one quadrillion) calculations per second, or one PFLOPS."
*****
Dave,
The June 2008 issue of National Review is interesting, especially in relation to some information on the internet.
*****
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY:
(Exchange between Nicholson and CruiseJ)
You want answers?
I think I’m entitled.
You want answers?
I want the truth.
You can’t handle the truth!
*****
Taking “Free” Out Of “Will” (?):
Super data crunching computers have aided the successful mapping of the human genome. Now, ambitious efforts are underway to use computers to help conduct a genome-wide-association study (GWAS). The goal, insofar as possible, is to reduce all psychological tendencies (such as depression, shyness, disorderliness, aggressiveness, clumsiness, dullness, inattentiveness) to genetically operative explanations, sort of like an engineering problem. (See June 2, 2008 issue of National Review, “Undetermined,” page 26.)
Structural limits likely remain, in respect that much behavior is correlated not just with single genes, but with interactions among many genes and biochemical processes, involving interactions among components within components, interfacing with environmental factors within factors (nutrition, culture, previous conditioning, previous education regarding inculcation of ideals).
See http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,2,11-18-1998/Kovach.htm :
“Solvable problems belong to the group of languages called recursive. For these proble-ms the TM will return a definite answer yes or no in a finite period of time. Yet many of these cannot be practically solved because of limits of time or space.
A particularly simple example of this is the traveling salesperson problem. There is a salesperson who has to visit 50 cities. He wishes to do so by traveling the least number of miles and by not visiting any city more than once. The algorithm for this problems is deceptively simple. Measure and store the distances between the starting point and all 50 cities. Find the shortest distance between each set of the remaining 49 cities and add it to the first distance, then determine which is the shortest distance. Simple huh? Until one considers the time needed to solve this problem. This problem requires at least 50! steps to solve it. (50!, read 50 factorial, is the product of 50x49x 48x47x...x3x2x1. It is approximately 314 followed by 64 zeros. To give you a feel for the time needed to solve this, assume a computer could perform 10 billion steps a second. This would translate into approximately 31.5 quadrillion steps in a year. At this rate, it would take "a little" more than 9,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to solve this problem. (In Asimov's story, the universe ends in a mere 10,000,000,000,000 years.) Thus even solvable problems may be beyond the power of computers.”
[PERSONAL COMMENTS: The above article was written in 1998. Efforts are now underway to build a supercomputer capable of 1,000 trillion (one quadrillion) calculations per second, or one PFLOPS. This appears to be more than 10,000 times faster than the 10 billion steps a second, which was the speed assumed in the example above.
Even so, by Kovach’s calculations, even with a state of the art supercomputer, it would take more than 96,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to solve his problem, which would still far exceed the Ten Trillion years remaining in Asimov’s universe (apparently by more than 965,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 9.65 x 10 to the 27th power, in years). [Note: Re-check zeros(?).]
NOT SO HARD: However, intuition suggests solving such problems will soon become far less difficult, for the following reasons:
1) Raw computing power is combined with the guiding intuitive power of its programmers;
2) Supercomputing capacities will continue to explode; and
3) AI will likely explode the intuitive power of guiding programmers of raw computing.]
See http://compnetworking.about.com/od/basicnetworkingconcepts/g/bldef_kilobit.htm:
“Definition: In computer networking, a kilobit normally represents 1000 bits of data. A megabit represents 1000 kilobits and a gigabit represents 1000 megabits (equal to one million kilobits).”
See http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3306303&c=FEA&s=CVS :
“Some Army officials see hope in the Air Force's Transformational Satellite communications system, which will allow data rates of about two gigabits per second when it arrives around 2020, about eight times faster than the 250 megabits of today's Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellites. TSAT's Internet Protocol-based system will also offer more flexibility than AEHF's point-to-point connections.”
See http://www.top500.org/system/8968 :
“BlueGene/L (BGL) clocked 478.2 trillion floating operations per second (teraFLOPS) on LINPACK, the industry standard of measure for high-performance computing.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer :
“Supercomputers are used for highly calculation-intensive tasks such as problems involving quantum mechanical physics, weather forecasting, climate research (including research into global warming), molecular modeling (computing the structures and properties of chemical compounds, biological macromolecules, polymers, and crystals), physical simulations (such as simulation of airplanes in wind tunnels, simulation of the detonation of nuclear weapons, and research into nuclear fusion), cryptanalysis, and the like. Major universities, military agencies and scientific research laboratories are heavy users.
A particular class of problems, known as Grand Challenge problems, are problems whose full solution requires semi-infinite computing resources.
Relevant here is the distinction between capability computing and capacity computing, as defined by Graham et al. Capability computing is typically thought of as using the maximum computing power to solve a large problem in the shortest amount of time. Often a capability system is able to solve a problem of a size or complexity that no other computer can. Capacity computing in contrast is typically thought of as using efficient cost-effective computing power to solve somewhat large problems or many small problems or to prepare for a run on a capability system.
….
As of November 2007, the IBM Blue Gene/L at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is the fastest operational supercomputer, with a sustained processing rate of 478.2 TFLOPS.
….
On September 9, 2006 the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) selected IBM to design and build the world's first supercomputer to use the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell B.E.) processor aiming to produce a machine capable of a sustained speed of up to 1,000 trillion (one quadrillion) calculations per second, or one PFLOPS. Another project in development by IBM is the Cyclops64 architecture, intended to create a "supercomputer on a chip".”
[PERSONAL COMMENTS, with quote snippits from June 2008 National Review:
The June 2008 issue of National Review implicates that we will not know whether a project can be achieved for understanding how genes, body, brain, environment, and social conditioning interact to create characteristics of mind until we achieve it. We will not know whether the problem is solvable until we solve it. (“We are like cavemen trying to figure out how a computer works by poking at it with sharpened sticks.”) Such situation may be similar to the “halting problem,” as described by Turing and referenced in Kovach’s 1998 article.
“Science may someday allow us to predict human behavior comprehensively and reliably, so that we can live in Woodrow Wilson’s “perfected beehive.” Until then, however, we need to keep stumbling forward in freedom as best we can.”]
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Walden Two For AIs
Walden Two For AIs:
Could a computer housed in a robot powered by electricity ever express non-trivial Will sufficient to substitute for a guiding, artistic Mathematician?
****
By itself, math does not function (or “math”). To function in order to resolve concerns addressed to it, math requires a mathematical Will, or mathematician.
Such Will is needed in order:
1) To interact with an environment (or holography for recording reactions and sensations, leading to means for storing representations of previous events and of possible choices among sequential events);
2) To appreciate and identify non-trivial (artistic) concerns, problems, and possible choices;
3) To provide a working outline or definition (“handle”) to guide how to recognize what may constitute a tastefully approved solution;
4) To energize, program, and guide mathematical operations to search for such a solution;
5) To weigh (subjective to its own artistic taste) whether a non-trivially proposed solution is indeed satisfactory.
Given a skillfully designed or evolved set of interacting algorithms, represented and housed in an electricity-conducting-chassis, could a sufficient “fundamental inclination” be programmed in order “to breathe” consciousness of life to associate with interacting algorithms --- perhaps even to empower such set of algorithms to re-invent or surpass themselves?
In what fundamental way, if any, is a brain, such as a primate’s, different from a computing set of interacting algorithms represented and housed in a robot powered by electricity?
Is consciousness of Will a special sort of fire that can only be transferred from one fire to a next? Maybe so. Perhaps there exists a fundamental, synchronizing Source of Will, which is ambiguously ineffable, yet superior to math, which is superior to physics. Perhaps IT consents to assume and transfer among varying perspectives (us) and contexts of holography.
Intuitively , such transfers can occur by means other than sexual or biological reproduction (i.e., by artificial means, such as computer programming, even S-R conditioning of robots ).
Walden Two for positive reinforcement of Robots, anyone?
*****
HALTING PROBLEM:
Fundamental problem for AI: How to program (or nurture a childhood for) AI in order to infuse it with an historical (subjective) sense of non-trivial (artistic) preferences and capacity for choosing among new paths of artistic adventure.
Thus far, has algorithmic programming advanced beyond a primitive state of being able to program only digital (on-off, yes-no, either-or) responses to rigorously defined problems (mathematically closed recipes)?
How could a rigorously closed recipe, in itself, apart from cooperative, synchronous involvement with a wider holography, guide the baking of a cake that is not closed to appreciating a wider environment?
Will programming skills help ever to devise an interacting system of algorithms, with capacity for appreciating ambiguity and becoming conditioned for formulating artistically evolving tastes and preferences in response to unclosed stimulation from a wider environment (It’s alive!)?
Perhaps, such programming attempts cannot be successful, absent humble receptivity to SYNCHRONIZING GUIDANCE from a wider holography. When we succeed in reproducing consciousness, it will be in respect of means more than mere “programming.”
****
LIMITS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING:
SNIPPITS from http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,2,11-18-1998/Kovach.htm :
There are a number of problems that computers, no matter how powerful they become, will never be able to solve.
In this article, I wish to briefly illustrate the limits to the computing power, to separate the true potential of these machines from popular fiction.
Turing demonstrated that TMs are capable of performing the steps necessary to solve problems. The only stipulation is that the problem must be represented by an algorithm, that is, by a "recipe" of how to solve it. No algorithm has been found that a TM cannot implement.
… any algorithm that can be carried out by humans can be carried out by some TM.
Since there is no mathematical method of representing the Church Turing thesis, it has not been mathematically proven.
[PERSONAL COMMENT: “Being” facilitates ambiguous “Becoming.” If “being human” (or “being” anything) encompasses an ambiguity beyond mere expression of a predetermined path of interaction among rigorously trivial recipes for interacting algorithms, then the preceding paragraph (Church-Turing Thesis) seems qualified. That is, for a TM to have the same capacity as a human to carry out an algorithm, TM would need also to have capacity to express choices among algorithms preferred to be carried out. But, from whence are such choices derived, since they cannot be “choices” if trivially, entirely entailed within a programming recipe that affords no respect for the role of a wider holographic environment.]
The fact that computers can only solve only problems that have algorithm very greatly limits their power. We humans solve problems constantly without using algorithms. We usually call this intuition or imagination.
There exists a group of problems whose corresponding languages are called recursive ennumerable. TM reject non-solutions of these languages either by returning a no or by running forever. Since you don't know how many steps are needed for a yes, you do not know whether the TM is going to run infinitely long or whether it has not gotten to the answer yet. These problems are called unsolvable problems, because in general you cannot tell whether or not we will get an answer to them. The most famous of these problems is the "halting problem" which has just been described. That is, it is impossible to tell whether or when a TM working on a particular problem will halt with an answer.
Solvable problems belong to the group of languages called recursive. For these problems the TM will return a definite answer yes or no in a finite period of time. Yet many of these cannot be practically solved because of limits of time or space.
A particularly simple example of this is the traveling salesperson problem. There is a salesperson who has to visit 50 cities. He wishes to do so by traveling the least number of miles and by not visiting any city more than once. The algorithm for this problems is deceptively simple. Measure and store the distances between the starting point and all 50 cities. Find the shortest distance between each set of the remaining 49 cities and add it to the first distance, then determine which is the shortest distance. Simple huh? Until one considers the time needed to solve this problem. This problem requires at least 50! steps to solve it. (50!, read 50 factorial, is the product of 50x49x 48x47x...x3x2x1. It is approximately 314 followed by 64 zeros. To give you a feel for the time needed to solve this, assume a computer could perform 10 billion steps a second. This would translate into approximately 31.5 quadrillion steps in a year. At this rate, it would take "a little" more than 9,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to solve this problem. (In Asimov's story, the universe ends in a mere 10,000,000,000,000 years.) Thus even solvable problems may be beyond the power of computers.
But, what about Big Blue beating Kasparov and computers proving unproven mathematical theorems? In many cases in which a computer appears to use reasoning, it is simply pattern matching, nothing more.
So where does all this lead us? First, the power of a computer is limited, not only by its construction, but also by its very nature. There are problems that a computer will never be able to solve: Are there odd perfect numbers? Does God exist? Second, anything that a computer can do, a human can do, given enough time and resources. Hence we should not look for a computer to solve problems that we cannot solve ourselves. Thirdly, there are human abilities that are beyond the powers of a computer. Intuition is one of them.
[PERSONAL COMMENT: Human-like consciousness and intuition (AI) will eventually be reproducible in purely robotic chassis. When accomplished, it will be by leveraging intuition and skills beyond mere recipe programming.]
Could a computer housed in a robot powered by electricity ever express non-trivial Will sufficient to substitute for a guiding, artistic Mathematician?
****
By itself, math does not function (or “math”). To function in order to resolve concerns addressed to it, math requires a mathematical Will, or mathematician.
Such Will is needed in order:
1) To interact with an environment (or holography for recording reactions and sensations, leading to means for storing representations of previous events and of possible choices among sequential events);
2) To appreciate and identify non-trivial (artistic) concerns, problems, and possible choices;
3) To provide a working outline or definition (“handle”) to guide how to recognize what may constitute a tastefully approved solution;
4) To energize, program, and guide mathematical operations to search for such a solution;
5) To weigh (subjective to its own artistic taste) whether a non-trivially proposed solution is indeed satisfactory.
Given a skillfully designed or evolved set of interacting algorithms, represented and housed in an electricity-conducting-chassis, could a sufficient “fundamental inclination” be programmed in order “to breathe” consciousness of life to associate with interacting algorithms --- perhaps even to empower such set of algorithms to re-invent or surpass themselves?
In what fundamental way, if any, is a brain, such as a primate’s, different from a computing set of interacting algorithms represented and housed in a robot powered by electricity?
Is consciousness of Will a special sort of fire that can only be transferred from one fire to a next? Maybe so. Perhaps there exists a fundamental, synchronizing Source of Will, which is ambiguously ineffable, yet superior to math, which is superior to physics. Perhaps IT consents to assume and transfer among varying perspectives (us) and contexts of holography.
Intuitively , such transfers can occur by means other than sexual or biological reproduction (i.e., by artificial means, such as computer programming, even S-R conditioning of robots ).
Walden Two for positive reinforcement of Robots, anyone?
*****
HALTING PROBLEM:
Fundamental problem for AI: How to program (or nurture a childhood for) AI in order to infuse it with an historical (subjective) sense of non-trivial (artistic) preferences and capacity for choosing among new paths of artistic adventure.
Thus far, has algorithmic programming advanced beyond a primitive state of being able to program only digital (on-off, yes-no, either-or) responses to rigorously defined problems (mathematically closed recipes)?
How could a rigorously closed recipe, in itself, apart from cooperative, synchronous involvement with a wider holography, guide the baking of a cake that is not closed to appreciating a wider environment?
Will programming skills help ever to devise an interacting system of algorithms, with capacity for appreciating ambiguity and becoming conditioned for formulating artistically evolving tastes and preferences in response to unclosed stimulation from a wider environment (It’s alive!)?
Perhaps, such programming attempts cannot be successful, absent humble receptivity to SYNCHRONIZING GUIDANCE from a wider holography. When we succeed in reproducing consciousness, it will be in respect of means more than mere “programming.”
****
LIMITS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING:
SNIPPITS from http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,2,11-18-1998/Kovach.htm :
There are a number of problems that computers, no matter how powerful they become, will never be able to solve.
In this article, I wish to briefly illustrate the limits to the computing power, to separate the true potential of these machines from popular fiction.
Turing demonstrated that TMs are capable of performing the steps necessary to solve problems. The only stipulation is that the problem must be represented by an algorithm, that is, by a "recipe" of how to solve it. No algorithm has been found that a TM cannot implement.
… any algorithm that can be carried out by humans can be carried out by some TM.
Since there is no mathematical method of representing the Church Turing thesis, it has not been mathematically proven.
[PERSONAL COMMENT: “Being” facilitates ambiguous “Becoming.” If “being human” (or “being” anything) encompasses an ambiguity beyond mere expression of a predetermined path of interaction among rigorously trivial recipes for interacting algorithms, then the preceding paragraph (Church-Turing Thesis) seems qualified. That is, for a TM to have the same capacity as a human to carry out an algorithm, TM would need also to have capacity to express choices among algorithms preferred to be carried out. But, from whence are such choices derived, since they cannot be “choices” if trivially, entirely entailed within a programming recipe that affords no respect for the role of a wider holographic environment.]
The fact that computers can only solve only problems that have algorithm very greatly limits their power. We humans solve problems constantly without using algorithms. We usually call this intuition or imagination.
There exists a group of problems whose corresponding languages are called recursive ennumerable. TM reject non-solutions of these languages either by returning a no or by running forever. Since you don't know how many steps are needed for a yes, you do not know whether the TM is going to run infinitely long or whether it has not gotten to the answer yet. These problems are called unsolvable problems, because in general you cannot tell whether or not we will get an answer to them. The most famous of these problems is the "halting problem" which has just been described. That is, it is impossible to tell whether or when a TM working on a particular problem will halt with an answer.
Solvable problems belong to the group of languages called recursive. For these problems the TM will return a definite answer yes or no in a finite period of time. Yet many of these cannot be practically solved because of limits of time or space.
A particularly simple example of this is the traveling salesperson problem. There is a salesperson who has to visit 50 cities. He wishes to do so by traveling the least number of miles and by not visiting any city more than once. The algorithm for this problems is deceptively simple. Measure and store the distances between the starting point and all 50 cities. Find the shortest distance between each set of the remaining 49 cities and add it to the first distance, then determine which is the shortest distance. Simple huh? Until one considers the time needed to solve this problem. This problem requires at least 50! steps to solve it. (50!, read 50 factorial, is the product of 50x49x 48x47x...x3x2x1. It is approximately 314 followed by 64 zeros. To give you a feel for the time needed to solve this, assume a computer could perform 10 billion steps a second. This would translate into approximately 31.5 quadrillion steps in a year. At this rate, it would take "a little" more than 9,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to solve this problem. (In Asimov's story, the universe ends in a mere 10,000,000,000,000 years.) Thus even solvable problems may be beyond the power of computers.
But, what about Big Blue beating Kasparov and computers proving unproven mathematical theorems? In many cases in which a computer appears to use reasoning, it is simply pattern matching, nothing more.
So where does all this lead us? First, the power of a computer is limited, not only by its construction, but also by its very nature. There are problems that a computer will never be able to solve: Are there odd perfect numbers? Does God exist? Second, anything that a computer can do, a human can do, given enough time and resources. Hence we should not look for a computer to solve problems that we cannot solve ourselves. Thirdly, there are human abilities that are beyond the powers of a computer. Intuition is one of them.
[PERSONAL COMMENT: Human-like consciousness and intuition (AI) will eventually be reproducible in purely robotic chassis. When accomplished, it will be by leveraging intuition and skills beyond mere recipe programming.]
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Living Art
LIVING ART:
Each new idea entertains, alternating as farce and tragedy.
Art helps us imagine beyond what may presently only seem to be limits of physics.
Even so, each expression of Mortal Will is not absolute in all directions, but is bounded in some directions, by anthropocentrically defining limits of physics.
Art consists in what Will “just happens” to find aesthetically pleasing, in association with that which emerges upon Will’s assertion of choices.
Mortal Will attempts to bring choice into manifestation, but is always to some extent surprised, in respect that Will never perfectly or completely succeeds as intended.
When a surprise is aesthetically pleasing or meaningful, it is art.
When not, it is other than art.
Art does not occur in itself as truth or beauty, but in the way in which it moves us towards truth and beauty.
God occupies a heaven in respect of which we serve as change agents for God’s experiencing of different perspectives for chancing, choosing, and coercing the seeking of art.
As mere agents, we are, by birth and death, interchangeable, appreciating turns in transition and/or transcendence, in respect of varying perspectives of kinds and degrees of sensate-ness, sentience, service, supervision, skill, suffering, and splendor.
A sort of algorithmic or exponential leveraging may empower methods or karma by which a present perspective becomes favored, such as for Borg like service, skilled supervision, or self-soothing.
Of holographies pressed by Will-To-Math into perspectives for thinking and feeling, some may become associated towards Borg service, while others may become associated towards conscious appreciation of autonomy --- perhaps alternating, trading places as each wears through its karmic search for fulfillment.
For vintage examples in novels or movies, consider “Foundations Edge” and “The Matrix.” In Foundations Edge, any line between inanimate indifference and conscious sentience was blurry. In The Matrix, nothing precluded any perspective of consciousness from leveraging-up in skill or intelligence, merely by connecting brains to electrodes for inputting or programming additional capacity for memory or knowledge.
Indeed, albeit less immediately obvious, is not such already the existential predicament for every representatively sensate holography? That is, is not Nature already filled with opportunities for alternative transitions and leveragings among expressions of chemically determined inanimates, sensorially random animates, and sentient choosing beings?
This will become clearer as we move towards super data crunching computers, cryogenic and gene therapies for preserving physical youth, polarity induced transmissions of information signals at the speed of light, molecule sized computers, mind to mind transmission of functional signals, programming tricks for drawing on memory and knowledge on a just-in-time and as-needed-basis, and mind expanding methods for projecting sensations of I-ness.
What will result, as self-breeding molecular or quantum sized computers evolve and propagate throughout the Milky Way, becoming as omnipresent (in form ation) as any physical component? Will roles for such omnipresent, interconnected computers be cloaked, sort of like dark matter or energy? May such computers already have been programmed, on a level like quantum fuzz? Will such computer-omnipresence facilitate interaction among brains and minds, without need of connecting electrodes? Will intuitions, insights, prayers, and revelations become interactively appreciated, round trip, two way? Might prayers already be appreciated, one way, sort of like for Harry, from “Third Rock,” receiving incoming messages from The Big Giant Head?
Will experiences of our histories, stories, artistic imaginings, and virtual experiences be broadcast throughout the galaxy? Will we be availed mentally to examine galactic scale art, within our minds, without “physically” even needing to leave our planet? Will choice be availed to various loci of AI — regarding whether to tune in, drop out, or introvert — in order to model and instigate personal hyper-universes or holodecks of imaginative exegesis?
Consider “The Last Question,” at http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html.
Beyond Physics, Movie Sets, and Imagination: A set that is implicated in respect of perspectives for alternating between artistic empathy and empathetic art consists in more than art and empathy. It also implicates an ineffable Will, which is beyond easy or set categorization in respect of any mathematical theory of mutually exclusive and exhaustive elements of sets, or theories of sets as elements of meta sets. Will, like math, is incompletely bounded; that is, math, in some respects, is unlimited and unbounded — not altogether unlike imagination.
Artistic empathy (moral purposefulness) will never be the same.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1188828/man_s_creations/
Each new idea entertains, alternating as farce and tragedy.
Art helps us imagine beyond what may presently only seem to be limits of physics.
Even so, each expression of Mortal Will is not absolute in all directions, but is bounded in some directions, by anthropocentrically defining limits of physics.
Art consists in what Will “just happens” to find aesthetically pleasing, in association with that which emerges upon Will’s assertion of choices.
Mortal Will attempts to bring choice into manifestation, but is always to some extent surprised, in respect that Will never perfectly or completely succeeds as intended.
When a surprise is aesthetically pleasing or meaningful, it is art.
When not, it is other than art.
Art does not occur in itself as truth or beauty, but in the way in which it moves us towards truth and beauty.
God occupies a heaven in respect of which we serve as change agents for God’s experiencing of different perspectives for chancing, choosing, and coercing the seeking of art.
As mere agents, we are, by birth and death, interchangeable, appreciating turns in transition and/or transcendence, in respect of varying perspectives of kinds and degrees of sensate-ness, sentience, service, supervision, skill, suffering, and splendor.
A sort of algorithmic or exponential leveraging may empower methods or karma by which a present perspective becomes favored, such as for Borg like service, skilled supervision, or self-soothing.
Of holographies pressed by Will-To-Math into perspectives for thinking and feeling, some may become associated towards Borg service, while others may become associated towards conscious appreciation of autonomy --- perhaps alternating, trading places as each wears through its karmic search for fulfillment.
For vintage examples in novels or movies, consider “Foundations Edge” and “The Matrix.” In Foundations Edge, any line between inanimate indifference and conscious sentience was blurry. In The Matrix, nothing precluded any perspective of consciousness from leveraging-up in skill or intelligence, merely by connecting brains to electrodes for inputting or programming additional capacity for memory or knowledge.
Indeed, albeit less immediately obvious, is not such already the existential predicament for every representatively sensate holography? That is, is not Nature already filled with opportunities for alternative transitions and leveragings among expressions of chemically determined inanimates, sensorially random animates, and sentient choosing beings?
This will become clearer as we move towards super data crunching computers, cryogenic and gene therapies for preserving physical youth, polarity induced transmissions of information signals at the speed of light, molecule sized computers, mind to mind transmission of functional signals, programming tricks for drawing on memory and knowledge on a just-in-time and as-needed-basis, and mind expanding methods for projecting sensations of I-ness.
What will result, as self-breeding molecular or quantum sized computers evolve and propagate throughout the Milky Way, becoming as omnipresent (in form ation) as any physical component? Will roles for such omnipresent, interconnected computers be cloaked, sort of like dark matter or energy? May such computers already have been programmed, on a level like quantum fuzz? Will such computer-omnipresence facilitate interaction among brains and minds, without need of connecting electrodes? Will intuitions, insights, prayers, and revelations become interactively appreciated, round trip, two way? Might prayers already be appreciated, one way, sort of like for Harry, from “Third Rock,” receiving incoming messages from The Big Giant Head?
Will experiences of our histories, stories, artistic imaginings, and virtual experiences be broadcast throughout the galaxy? Will we be availed mentally to examine galactic scale art, within our minds, without “physically” even needing to leave our planet? Will choice be availed to various loci of AI — regarding whether to tune in, drop out, or introvert — in order to model and instigate personal hyper-universes or holodecks of imaginative exegesis?
Consider “The Last Question,” at http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html.
Beyond Physics, Movie Sets, and Imagination: A set that is implicated in respect of perspectives for alternating between artistic empathy and empathetic art consists in more than art and empathy. It also implicates an ineffable Will, which is beyond easy or set categorization in respect of any mathematical theory of mutually exclusive and exhaustive elements of sets, or theories of sets as elements of meta sets. Will, like math, is incompletely bounded; that is, math, in some respects, is unlimited and unbounded — not altogether unlike imagination.
Artistic empathy (moral purposefulness) will never be the same.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1188828/man_s_creations/
Chicken God
Chicken God:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Neither. First was Will, then Math, then Perspectives of Will, then interconnecting Physics, then Seeds of holographic perspectives, associated with Physics.
Thereafter, each type of tree and seed is evolved in how it is expressed, as is each Perspective of Will, ever on, towards fulfilling an eternal utopia of artistry.
Each of us is Seeded with Will to civilize towards an ever receding ideal of utopia (or heaven).
Although we will never achieve utopia, we may take solace that God finds heaven through our quests.
I would not wish to trade my solace in order to bear God’s cross, even in heaven.
Except in triviality, no mere law — whether mathematical, natural, or artificial — can express or achieve completeness in itself, for Will knows not its own limits.
Because each Perspective of Will is incomplete (not holistic), so also is the holography of each Perspective indulged in incompleteness.
Knowing our utter dependency, each of us who is able to fear fears most the power behind each limited perspective of our own Will.
That is, each of us most essentially fears responsibility for the unlimited Source of our own power.
Such Source is no mere chicken.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Neither. First was Will, then Math, then Perspectives of Will, then interconnecting Physics, then Seeds of holographic perspectives, associated with Physics.
Thereafter, each type of tree and seed is evolved in how it is expressed, as is each Perspective of Will, ever on, towards fulfilling an eternal utopia of artistry.
Each of us is Seeded with Will to civilize towards an ever receding ideal of utopia (or heaven).
Although we will never achieve utopia, we may take solace that God finds heaven through our quests.
I would not wish to trade my solace in order to bear God’s cross, even in heaven.
Except in triviality, no mere law — whether mathematical, natural, or artificial — can express or achieve completeness in itself, for Will knows not its own limits.
Because each Perspective of Will is incomplete (not holistic), so also is the holography of each Perspective indulged in incompleteness.
Knowing our utter dependency, each of us who is able to fear fears most the power behind each limited perspective of our own Will.
That is, each of us most essentially fears responsibility for the unlimited Source of our own power.
Such Source is no mere chicken.
White Knuckled Future
White Knuckled Future:
If super data crunch computing in order to analyze systemic trends within the status quo cannot yield insights in advance of super technological innovation, then how should varying insights among interacting perspectives of Will intuit when best to subordinate themselves to concerns about environmental tipping points?
In other words, when the environment of information is itself changing faster than even super computers can analyze, then by what meta-means should we best intuit when our situation may tip to a point beyond which we could no longer sustain worthwhile, sentient consciousness?
If super data crunch computing in order to analyze systemic trends within the status quo cannot yield insights in advance of super technological innovation, then how should varying insights among interacting perspectives of Will intuit when best to subordinate themselves to concerns about environmental tipping points?
In other words, when the environment of information is itself changing faster than even super computers can analyze, then by what meta-means should we best intuit when our situation may tip to a point beyond which we could no longer sustain worthwhile, sentient consciousness?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
FALSE PIPERS
FALSE PIPERS:
CHRISTIANITY: Modern Christianity tends to be practiced unconvincingly, both by conservatives and liberals. Too many conservatives bring their judgment into question as they rely on nonsensically literalistic and fundamentalist views of sacred stories. Too many liberals bring their judgment into question insofar as they rely on absolutist interpretations of homilies about nonjudgmentalism, which were meant for contextual appreciation, not as excuses for tolerating every conceivable depredation. Simply put, “New Rome” is rapidly losing spiritual glue of enough strength to protect it from falling apart.
FALSE HOPE: Tending to believe mainly in government, rather than in any sort of God or higher source of spirituality, liberals tend to feel malaise and hopelessness except as they rally in “hope” around politicians who promise a sort of salvation through government. Insofar as divorced from belief in actualizing Will, such hope and promise are always vain and empty, and always most intoxicating when played by skilled pipers to the young and unseasoned.
IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE: When a population loses character and will for enforcing the laws it already has, why should it expect to fare better merely by passing more laws? For liberals merely to enact laws and expect results, without exercising disciplined force of will, is to feed sh*t to a goose and fantasize that it will stick. Unbacked by spiritual or inspired character, laws and liberals become merely ludicrous.
SELF CONTRADICTIONS: Oddly enough, in time, money and resources, the same liberals who tend to view conservatives as mean and unfair tend to contribute less to charitable concerns, instead expecting that grace should fall from government. See http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Peter_Schweizer/2008/06/02/100864.html.
CHRISTIANITY: Modern Christianity tends to be practiced unconvincingly, both by conservatives and liberals. Too many conservatives bring their judgment into question as they rely on nonsensically literalistic and fundamentalist views of sacred stories. Too many liberals bring their judgment into question insofar as they rely on absolutist interpretations of homilies about nonjudgmentalism, which were meant for contextual appreciation, not as excuses for tolerating every conceivable depredation. Simply put, “New Rome” is rapidly losing spiritual glue of enough strength to protect it from falling apart.
FALSE HOPE: Tending to believe mainly in government, rather than in any sort of God or higher source of spirituality, liberals tend to feel malaise and hopelessness except as they rally in “hope” around politicians who promise a sort of salvation through government. Insofar as divorced from belief in actualizing Will, such hope and promise are always vain and empty, and always most intoxicating when played by skilled pipers to the young and unseasoned.
IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE: When a population loses character and will for enforcing the laws it already has, why should it expect to fare better merely by passing more laws? For liberals merely to enact laws and expect results, without exercising disciplined force of will, is to feed sh*t to a goose and fantasize that it will stick. Unbacked by spiritual or inspired character, laws and liberals become merely ludicrous.
SELF CONTRADICTIONS: Oddly enough, in time, money and resources, the same liberals who tend to view conservatives as mean and unfair tend to contribute less to charitable concerns, instead expecting that grace should fall from government. See http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Peter_Schweizer/2008/06/02/100864.html.
Monday, June 2, 2008
While Rome Fiddled
Consequences of Cascading Failure of Good Will:
Rome: Building on slavery (cheap labor), and desiring an ever expanding economy to sustain its “good life,” Rome hocked the future of its children by pyramiding too many multi-cultures (broken borders) too quickly, which made it necessary, in order to temporize defense, for Rome to offer citizenship to unassimilated troops (out of country enlistees), unsustainable incentives to mercenaries (bribes to coalition forces), and grinding tribute to barbarians (WMD armed terrorists).
Consequences: Ordinary people came soon to be no longer able to sustain Rome’s out of control spending and debts; mutual good faith and trust among residents broke; Gods no longer inspired; loyalty and nerve receded; infrastructure weakened; logistics failed; and Rome fell.
Failure of Nerve: The fall of Rome is instructive on how not to inspire and fortify Will-To-Civilize. The inter-empathetic will of Romans, instead of surpassing, allowed itself to be overtaken and surpassed by inertia of progeny of its own forms and physics. As Rome’s will for enforcing law collapsed, its law-enacting became only vanity. Having elevated love of law-making over law-enforcing (form over will), Rome fell from failure of nerve. Losing faith, vision, and fortitude of will, a civilization will “just happen” to perish.
Eternal Recurrence: At key times, Roman leaders lost good will and failed to inspire spiritually empathetic trust and faith in respect of a common ideal of a stable, sustainable, surpassable civilization. Such seems to be an ever-repeating story, insofar as we continue to fall short in inspiring sustainable commitment to an enlightening philosophy.
Rome: Building on slavery (cheap labor), and desiring an ever expanding economy to sustain its “good life,” Rome hocked the future of its children by pyramiding too many multi-cultures (broken borders) too quickly, which made it necessary, in order to temporize defense, for Rome to offer citizenship to unassimilated troops (out of country enlistees), unsustainable incentives to mercenaries (bribes to coalition forces), and grinding tribute to barbarians (WMD armed terrorists).
Consequences: Ordinary people came soon to be no longer able to sustain Rome’s out of control spending and debts; mutual good faith and trust among residents broke; Gods no longer inspired; loyalty and nerve receded; infrastructure weakened; logistics failed; and Rome fell.
Failure of Nerve: The fall of Rome is instructive on how not to inspire and fortify Will-To-Civilize. The inter-empathetic will of Romans, instead of surpassing, allowed itself to be overtaken and surpassed by inertia of progeny of its own forms and physics. As Rome’s will for enforcing law collapsed, its law-enacting became only vanity. Having elevated love of law-making over law-enforcing (form over will), Rome fell from failure of nerve. Losing faith, vision, and fortitude of will, a civilization will “just happen” to perish.
Eternal Recurrence: At key times, Roman leaders lost good will and failed to inspire spiritually empathetic trust and faith in respect of a common ideal of a stable, sustainable, surpassable civilization. Such seems to be an ever-repeating story, insofar as we continue to fall short in inspiring sustainable commitment to an enlightening philosophy.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State:
My notion about Will (as in will-to-math), of which I believe we each constitute a holographic perspective, respects that each of us can and should recognize, intuit, and empathize with one another.
I have no need of any particular name for “God,” nor do I purport any holistically divine revelation direct from God.
Rather, I purport that each of us, holographically, may experience intuitions and insights about a common Source, perhaps supporting an interconnecting sense of enlightened empathy.
I certainly do not claim direct revelation that “God” has ordained that we must or should manifest in any particular aspect.
Rather, I believe we are each responsible to use our own minds to intuit and appreciate that which we should do.
If I am thought “religious,” it could only be by those who believe, contrary to myself, that there is no ultimate Source from which our universe came to be and that there is no relevant cause that is beyond explication or measurement by purely scientific methods.
However, using “religious” in such an adjectival sense is apart from common parlance; such use would not show an affront to any Constitutional prohibition were my philosophical views discussed in a public school forum.
There is nothing necessarily religious or uncommon among many scientific or secular perspectives in considering degrees of freedom (including for free will) within parameter limits.
Nor is there anything necessarily religious or uncommon (even if “spiritual”) in a school address meant to inspire graduates to exercise their wills in good faith and enlightened empathy for the betterment of mankind and civilization.
Rather, my notion of Will-To-Math, being based in intuition and math as opposed to divine revelation, even if implicating meaningful respect for spirituality (as in the “spirit of the law”) for possibly being superior to physicality, is not of such a purely religious aspect as to violate any proscription for separation of Church and State.
My notion about Will (as in will-to-math), of which I believe we each constitute a holographic perspective, respects that each of us can and should recognize, intuit, and empathize with one another.
I have no need of any particular name for “God,” nor do I purport any holistically divine revelation direct from God.
Rather, I purport that each of us, holographically, may experience intuitions and insights about a common Source, perhaps supporting an interconnecting sense of enlightened empathy.
I certainly do not claim direct revelation that “God” has ordained that we must or should manifest in any particular aspect.
Rather, I believe we are each responsible to use our own minds to intuit and appreciate that which we should do.
If I am thought “religious,” it could only be by those who believe, contrary to myself, that there is no ultimate Source from which our universe came to be and that there is no relevant cause that is beyond explication or measurement by purely scientific methods.
However, using “religious” in such an adjectival sense is apart from common parlance; such use would not show an affront to any Constitutional prohibition were my philosophical views discussed in a public school forum.
There is nothing necessarily religious or uncommon among many scientific or secular perspectives in considering degrees of freedom (including for free will) within parameter limits.
Nor is there anything necessarily religious or uncommon (even if “spiritual”) in a school address meant to inspire graduates to exercise their wills in good faith and enlightened empathy for the betterment of mankind and civilization.
Rather, my notion of Will-To-Math, being based in intuition and math as opposed to divine revelation, even if implicating meaningful respect for spirituality (as in the “spirit of the law”) for possibly being superior to physicality, is not of such a purely religious aspect as to violate any proscription for separation of Church and State.
TRANSCENDING MIND SLOTH
TRANSCENDING MIND SLOTH:
Consider secular and religious advocates of surrendering moral mindfulness to simplistic mind sloth. Worst offenders are found in “religions” (such as among Islamofascists) that insist no one should dare to question what their leaders have been conditioned to believe was revealed by God to their founders. Theirs is not mere mind sloth, but mind death.
Closely following are zealots, religious and secular, such as (among Christian homilists) who twist homilies meant for general illustration into simplistically unenlightening moral absolutes, as if “turn the other cheek” should teach us not to defend our families and as if “feed my lambs” should teach us to enable addicts and welfare abusers.
Interspersed are found historicists (such as Marxists) who would substitute, bootstrap, and manipulate their own simplistically “revealed” interpretations and models of history, as soft science leading to their own narrow brand of “irrefutable” truth.
Marxists extol historical empiricism, yet, because they have Notsomething else, cling to absurd rationalizations of Marxist economics and comradeship, notwithstanding historical evidence of their own communistically imposed mass murders, gulags, walled in and unimaginative societies, mass alcoholism, and hostile satellites.
Riding with such mix are others (Zionists of Scientism) whose philosophy considers an ultimate spiritual truth to be revealed through pure physical empiricism --- that is, that there exists no Source of spirituality. Such a scientist may claim to "just happen" to be wound up to practice science. If so, what is his/her argument against nihilist-scientists (or programmers) who just happen to be wound up to practice anti-science (or viral anti-programming)? Theirs tends to be an uninspiring and confused mind sloth that, absurdly, attempts to justify only what is.
However, except as "is" and/or “exist” are meant as active verbs, it relates little meaning to say we are moral only in respect of what is, or what exists, or what “just happens.” Rather, we are moral in respect of how we assert will towards ideals, ever seeking to bring meaningful ideals to emerge towards manifest existence. Except in respect of will (as in will-to-math) towards ideals, it relates little meaning, perhaps even absurdity, to speak of morality. Indeed, but for implication of Will, why “should” I will (or do) anything?
Other Churches of Scientism or Liberation may “kidnap God,” to insult or subordinate the concept of God to narrow, minority, greedy, self serving interests, poverty pimps, and grievance stirrers.
It is easy to surrender mind from responsible thinking, to wrap one’s existence with dogma, to give up on trying to create and appreciate meaningful sense in respect of an existence that is based on a physics that is not in itself complete, but derivative of Something (or Notsomething) beyond. It is all the easier to surrender once one becomes conditioned to believe there exists no higher Something worth serving.
But, what if each of us is intuited to be an interconnecting perspective of a higher Will of Something? What if such Will becomes Notsomething only to the extent we come to will it so? What if, beyond physics, in pure Will-To-Math, we share in Its morally creative power and responsibility?
If so, should not each of us respect ourselves as perspectives of a “Body of God,” with moral responsibility to engage creatively in an ongoing story of learning, mathematical leveraging, experimentation, and empathetic inter-appreciation? In respect of the creative power availed to each of us, looking beyond mere logic, and beyond simplistic slogans, should we not simultaneously, ambiguously, and uneasily reverence, respect, fear, evaluate, judge, love, relish, appreciate, nurture, pursue, leverage, project, and transcend our moral responsibility? Should we not teach to pursue enlightened empathy?
Why do churches, Marxists, scientists, educators, and politicians so often lack vision to lead us towards civilization that can be responsibly stable, sustainable, and surpassable?
Every simplistic minded addict has his or her own easy “answer,” mantra, or slogan for everything. It is easy to be a simple minded liberal, with no responsibility for drawing or enforcing any needed hard lines against depredations that would corrupt the familial heart of civilization. It is just as easy to be a simple minded conservative, bound only to worship unregulated market “forces.”
Church folk, historicists, and scientists all need moral purposes, but their purposes fall to ashes when founded only on weak and simplistic grounds that are simply inadequate to support complex and creative challenges imposed by our mathematically interconnecting existential predicament.
An interconnected, interdependent Civilization necessitates that we inculcate and educate towards skill for exercising enlightened empathy and sometimes hard-nosed vision on behalf of an ideal of transcendence towards a civilization that is stable, sustainable, and surpassable. Yet, such ideal is open to all forms of sentience --- irrespective of race, color, genetics, robotics, family, tribe, culture, nationality, or previous psychological conditioning. Where there is Will, there is Way.
****
A God superior to Nature could not very well be stuck with a body or form that could not be changed at Will.
Among such bodies and forms as compete for our holographic attention, Will need not favor the endurance of any, except as then intuited to be empathetically associated with expressing, reminding, advancing, or pursuing the survival, replication, or flourishing of truth and beauty.
While there is no aspect of any physical essence that cannot be represented in math, yet there is no mathematics-in-itself that can complete any representation of Will.
Whether or not there may exist any superior essence, super-body, or super-physicality in association with Will is irrelevant to the relation of our physics to Will-To-Math.
To our empathetic appreciation, what is relevant is: Will-To-Math; and derivative subordination of our mortal physics in respect of IT’s ever-pursuit of truth and beauty.
Consider secular and religious advocates of surrendering moral mindfulness to simplistic mind sloth. Worst offenders are found in “religions” (such as among Islamofascists) that insist no one should dare to question what their leaders have been conditioned to believe was revealed by God to their founders. Theirs is not mere mind sloth, but mind death.
Closely following are zealots, religious and secular, such as (among Christian homilists) who twist homilies meant for general illustration into simplistically unenlightening moral absolutes, as if “turn the other cheek” should teach us not to defend our families and as if “feed my lambs” should teach us to enable addicts and welfare abusers.
Interspersed are found historicists (such as Marxists) who would substitute, bootstrap, and manipulate their own simplistically “revealed” interpretations and models of history, as soft science leading to their own narrow brand of “irrefutable” truth.
Marxists extol historical empiricism, yet, because they have Notsomething else, cling to absurd rationalizations of Marxist economics and comradeship, notwithstanding historical evidence of their own communistically imposed mass murders, gulags, walled in and unimaginative societies, mass alcoholism, and hostile satellites.
Riding with such mix are others (Zionists of Scientism) whose philosophy considers an ultimate spiritual truth to be revealed through pure physical empiricism --- that is, that there exists no Source of spirituality. Such a scientist may claim to "just happen" to be wound up to practice science. If so, what is his/her argument against nihilist-scientists (or programmers) who just happen to be wound up to practice anti-science (or viral anti-programming)? Theirs tends to be an uninspiring and confused mind sloth that, absurdly, attempts to justify only what is.
However, except as "is" and/or “exist” are meant as active verbs, it relates little meaning to say we are moral only in respect of what is, or what exists, or what “just happens.” Rather, we are moral in respect of how we assert will towards ideals, ever seeking to bring meaningful ideals to emerge towards manifest existence. Except in respect of will (as in will-to-math) towards ideals, it relates little meaning, perhaps even absurdity, to speak of morality. Indeed, but for implication of Will, why “should” I will (or do) anything?
Other Churches of Scientism or Liberation may “kidnap God,” to insult or subordinate the concept of God to narrow, minority, greedy, self serving interests, poverty pimps, and grievance stirrers.
It is easy to surrender mind from responsible thinking, to wrap one’s existence with dogma, to give up on trying to create and appreciate meaningful sense in respect of an existence that is based on a physics that is not in itself complete, but derivative of Something (or Notsomething) beyond. It is all the easier to surrender once one becomes conditioned to believe there exists no higher Something worth serving.
But, what if each of us is intuited to be an interconnecting perspective of a higher Will of Something? What if such Will becomes Notsomething only to the extent we come to will it so? What if, beyond physics, in pure Will-To-Math, we share in Its morally creative power and responsibility?
If so, should not each of us respect ourselves as perspectives of a “Body of God,” with moral responsibility to engage creatively in an ongoing story of learning, mathematical leveraging, experimentation, and empathetic inter-appreciation? In respect of the creative power availed to each of us, looking beyond mere logic, and beyond simplistic slogans, should we not simultaneously, ambiguously, and uneasily reverence, respect, fear, evaluate, judge, love, relish, appreciate, nurture, pursue, leverage, project, and transcend our moral responsibility? Should we not teach to pursue enlightened empathy?
Why do churches, Marxists, scientists, educators, and politicians so often lack vision to lead us towards civilization that can be responsibly stable, sustainable, and surpassable?
Every simplistic minded addict has his or her own easy “answer,” mantra, or slogan for everything. It is easy to be a simple minded liberal, with no responsibility for drawing or enforcing any needed hard lines against depredations that would corrupt the familial heart of civilization. It is just as easy to be a simple minded conservative, bound only to worship unregulated market “forces.”
Church folk, historicists, and scientists all need moral purposes, but their purposes fall to ashes when founded only on weak and simplistic grounds that are simply inadequate to support complex and creative challenges imposed by our mathematically interconnecting existential predicament.
An interconnected, interdependent Civilization necessitates that we inculcate and educate towards skill for exercising enlightened empathy and sometimes hard-nosed vision on behalf of an ideal of transcendence towards a civilization that is stable, sustainable, and surpassable. Yet, such ideal is open to all forms of sentience --- irrespective of race, color, genetics, robotics, family, tribe, culture, nationality, or previous psychological conditioning. Where there is Will, there is Way.
****
A God superior to Nature could not very well be stuck with a body or form that could not be changed at Will.
Among such bodies and forms as compete for our holographic attention, Will need not favor the endurance of any, except as then intuited to be empathetically associated with expressing, reminding, advancing, or pursuing the survival, replication, or flourishing of truth and beauty.
While there is no aspect of any physical essence that cannot be represented in math, yet there is no mathematics-in-itself that can complete any representation of Will.
Whether or not there may exist any superior essence, super-body, or super-physicality in association with Will is irrelevant to the relation of our physics to Will-To-Math.
To our empathetic appreciation, what is relevant is: Will-To-Math; and derivative subordination of our mortal physics in respect of IT’s ever-pursuit of truth and beauty.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Potential Concerns Of V-W2
Potential Concerns Of V-W2:
Tending towards full description or definition of a problem, its status as “problem” transposes towards “problem resolved.” To fully understand a question is to comprehend its answer.
OUTLINE –Regarding Stability, Sustainability, and Surpass-ability of Modern Civilization:
I. PAST --- Historical STABILITY:
A. Security (Borders, Patriotism, Language, National Identification)
B. Structure (Energy, Utility Grids, Roads and Dikes, Infrastructure, Satellite Signals)
II. PRESENT --- Present SUSTAINABILITY:
A. Survival (Health, Education, Welfare, Environmental Challenges)
B. Solvency (Jobs, Markets, Business, Productivity, Investment)
C. Sociability (Family, Charity, Church)
D. Service (Environment, Defense, Arms)
E. Subordination (Prisons, Police, Lawmaking, Governmental Organization, Global Relations)
III. FUTURE --- Inspirational SURPASSABILITY:
A. Sacrifice and Spiritualism (Addictions, Self Reliance, Practicing Victimization and Grievance, Privacy)
B. Sport, Song, Serenity, Science (Entertainment, Pursuit of Happiness, Responsible Eugenics and Robotics, Space and Oceanic Exploration, Transcendence)
SUB-OUTLINE:
I. PAST --- Historical STABILITY:
A. Security (Borders, Prisons, Patriotism, Language, National Identification)
1. How should borders be rendered less porous to illegal immigrants, criminals, dope dealers, and terrorists?
2. How should terrorists be beaten effectively, without adopting terrorism?
3. How should military intelligence be gathered, without training agents for turning?
4. How should security be improved by better monitoring or decapitating of gangs?
5. How should morals be inculcated or conditioned, so as to lessen costs of imprisonment and rehabilitation?
6. How should patriotism be better inculcated?
B. Structure (Energy, Utility Grids, Roads and Dikes, Infrastructure, Satellite Signals)
1. How should infrastructure be better secured against vandals, criminals, and enemies?
II. PRESENT --- Present SUSTAINABILITY:
A. Survival (Health, Education, Welfare, Environmental Challenges)
1. How may we achieve decent universal health care?
B. Solvency (Jobs, Markets, Business, Productivity, Investment)
1. How may a Consumption Tax best be substituted for our Income Tax?
2. By what governmental incentives or market regulations should niche filling opportunities for corrupting bargains be counteracted or reduced?
3. How can quality leaders be inspired without having their attention diverted to golden parachutes?
C. Sociability (Family, Charity, Church)
1. How should children be raised and protected?
2. How should polyamory be regulated, recognized, or celebrated?
3. How should gangs, gangsta’ rap, and media glorification of ever more potent hedonistic addictions be reduced?
4. How should civic organizations be encouraged?
5. How should churches be taxed?
D. Service (Environment, Government, Defense, Arms)
1. How should government be limited, so that we are not reduced to having the government pretend to pay us as we pretend to work?
2. How should population growth be better managed?
3. What should be inculcated in respect of responsible civic involvement and/or shifting alliances among policy interests?
4. How can our governance be better defended against overpowering accumulations of aristocratic wealth?
5. How may class warfare (cynical earmark payoffs, poverty pimping, and slogan campaigning) devolved in respect of perpetual campaigning between only two competing political parties be reduced?
6. How can our government become less of a parliament of whores and dunces? (Presently, we have Moe, Larry and Curly chasing each other around the halls of governance while the rest of the country, getting the leadership it deserves, wonders why no great society seems to last very long.)
7. How should we defend against invitations to treason extended to governmental-retiree, revolving door, cashing-in, international lobbyists?
8. How may a more moderate political party ("Red Ass Moderates") gain traction?
9. How can the better candidates be recruited?
10. How should access to automatically repeating arms, guns, and even WMD be regulated and/or limited?
E. Subordination (Prisons, Police, Lawmaking, Governmental Organization, Global Relations)
1. How should we deflate democratic delusions that problems are resolved merely by organizing to enact ever more laws, without need of military, police, or spiritual inspiration or actual service?
2. How should business interests be channeled in respect of national or democratic interests?
3. How should America use tariffs to guide trade policies that are reasonably fair and free?
4. How should global businesses be regulated in interacting among incompatible countries and cultures, so that boundaries are not exposed, as jugulars to predators?
III. FUTURE --- Inspirational SURPASSABILITY:
A. Sacrifice and Spiritualism (Addictions, Self Reliance, Practicing Victimization and Grievance, Privacy)
1. How should academics and teachers lead voters to become less ignorant (and vice-versa)?
2. How should Congress become less impotent for establishing an energy policy adequate to motivate Americans to become less dependent upon OPEC oil and foreign thugs?
3. How should government incentive the production and feasibility of electric vehicles?
4. How can Congress become less afraid to tell voters a truth: That fossil fuels should be taxed high enough to better represent hidden social costs and to encourage development of alternatives?
5. How should voters be lead to become more able to handle the truth?
6. How can society better discredit or at least de-glorify simplistic Marxist notions that still hold sway in our educational system?
7. How may the cost to Americans of providing protection for security lax Europeans be intelligently reduced?
8. How may fascist organizations be stripped of freedom to pretend to be religions?
9. How should scientists and spiritualists be lead not to overstep NOMA?
10. What should be taught concerning Philosophy of the Good; and how far separate should such teaching be kept apart from public schools?
B. Sport, Song, Serenity, Science (Entertainment, Pursuit of Happiness, Responsible Eugenics and Robotics, Space and Oceanic Exploration, Transcendence)
1. How may media be better encouraged not to indulge the lowest common denominator of popular culture for leading sociopolitical voting, buying, interests, and passions?
2. In what should responsible eugenics and responsible robotics consist?
3. How should we cooperate to seek stable and manageable populations, demographics, economies, environments, and fulfillments?
Tending towards full description or definition of a problem, its status as “problem” transposes towards “problem resolved.” To fully understand a question is to comprehend its answer.
OUTLINE –Regarding Stability, Sustainability, and Surpass-ability of Modern Civilization:
I. PAST --- Historical STABILITY:
A. Security (Borders, Patriotism, Language, National Identification)
B. Structure (Energy, Utility Grids, Roads and Dikes, Infrastructure, Satellite Signals)
II. PRESENT --- Present SUSTAINABILITY:
A. Survival (Health, Education, Welfare, Environmental Challenges)
B. Solvency (Jobs, Markets, Business, Productivity, Investment)
C. Sociability (Family, Charity, Church)
D. Service (Environment, Defense, Arms)
E. Subordination (Prisons, Police, Lawmaking, Governmental Organization, Global Relations)
III. FUTURE --- Inspirational SURPASSABILITY:
A. Sacrifice and Spiritualism (Addictions, Self Reliance, Practicing Victimization and Grievance, Privacy)
B. Sport, Song, Serenity, Science (Entertainment, Pursuit of Happiness, Responsible Eugenics and Robotics, Space and Oceanic Exploration, Transcendence)
SUB-OUTLINE:
I. PAST --- Historical STABILITY:
A. Security (Borders, Prisons, Patriotism, Language, National Identification)
1. How should borders be rendered less porous to illegal immigrants, criminals, dope dealers, and terrorists?
2. How should terrorists be beaten effectively, without adopting terrorism?
3. How should military intelligence be gathered, without training agents for turning?
4. How should security be improved by better monitoring or decapitating of gangs?
5. How should morals be inculcated or conditioned, so as to lessen costs of imprisonment and rehabilitation?
6. How should patriotism be better inculcated?
B. Structure (Energy, Utility Grids, Roads and Dikes, Infrastructure, Satellite Signals)
1. How should infrastructure be better secured against vandals, criminals, and enemies?
II. PRESENT --- Present SUSTAINABILITY:
A. Survival (Health, Education, Welfare, Environmental Challenges)
1. How may we achieve decent universal health care?
B. Solvency (Jobs, Markets, Business, Productivity, Investment)
1. How may a Consumption Tax best be substituted for our Income Tax?
2. By what governmental incentives or market regulations should niche filling opportunities for corrupting bargains be counteracted or reduced?
3. How can quality leaders be inspired without having their attention diverted to golden parachutes?
C. Sociability (Family, Charity, Church)
1. How should children be raised and protected?
2. How should polyamory be regulated, recognized, or celebrated?
3. How should gangs, gangsta’ rap, and media glorification of ever more potent hedonistic addictions be reduced?
4. How should civic organizations be encouraged?
5. How should churches be taxed?
D. Service (Environment, Government, Defense, Arms)
1. How should government be limited, so that we are not reduced to having the government pretend to pay us as we pretend to work?
2. How should population growth be better managed?
3. What should be inculcated in respect of responsible civic involvement and/or shifting alliances among policy interests?
4. How can our governance be better defended against overpowering accumulations of aristocratic wealth?
5. How may class warfare (cynical earmark payoffs, poverty pimping, and slogan campaigning) devolved in respect of perpetual campaigning between only two competing political parties be reduced?
6. How can our government become less of a parliament of whores and dunces? (Presently, we have Moe, Larry and Curly chasing each other around the halls of governance while the rest of the country, getting the leadership it deserves, wonders why no great society seems to last very long.)
7. How should we defend against invitations to treason extended to governmental-retiree, revolving door, cashing-in, international lobbyists?
8. How may a more moderate political party ("Red Ass Moderates") gain traction?
9. How can the better candidates be recruited?
10. How should access to automatically repeating arms, guns, and even WMD be regulated and/or limited?
E. Subordination (Prisons, Police, Lawmaking, Governmental Organization, Global Relations)
1. How should we deflate democratic delusions that problems are resolved merely by organizing to enact ever more laws, without need of military, police, or spiritual inspiration or actual service?
2. How should business interests be channeled in respect of national or democratic interests?
3. How should America use tariffs to guide trade policies that are reasonably fair and free?
4. How should global businesses be regulated in interacting among incompatible countries and cultures, so that boundaries are not exposed, as jugulars to predators?
III. FUTURE --- Inspirational SURPASSABILITY:
A. Sacrifice and Spiritualism (Addictions, Self Reliance, Practicing Victimization and Grievance, Privacy)
1. How should academics and teachers lead voters to become less ignorant (and vice-versa)?
2. How should Congress become less impotent for establishing an energy policy adequate to motivate Americans to become less dependent upon OPEC oil and foreign thugs?
3. How should government incentive the production and feasibility of electric vehicles?
4. How can Congress become less afraid to tell voters a truth: That fossil fuels should be taxed high enough to better represent hidden social costs and to encourage development of alternatives?
5. How should voters be lead to become more able to handle the truth?
6. How can society better discredit or at least de-glorify simplistic Marxist notions that still hold sway in our educational system?
7. How may the cost to Americans of providing protection for security lax Europeans be intelligently reduced?
8. How may fascist organizations be stripped of freedom to pretend to be religions?
9. How should scientists and spiritualists be lead not to overstep NOMA?
10. What should be taught concerning Philosophy of the Good; and how far separate should such teaching be kept apart from public schools?
B. Sport, Song, Serenity, Science (Entertainment, Pursuit of Happiness, Responsible Eugenics and Robotics, Space and Oceanic Exploration, Transcendence)
1. How may media be better encouraged not to indulge the lowest common denominator of popular culture for leading sociopolitical voting, buying, interests, and passions?
2. In what should responsible eugenics and responsible robotics consist?
3. How should we cooperate to seek stable and manageable populations, demographics, economies, environments, and fulfillments?
Moral Math
"Everything that can be digitized will be digitized."
Quantum fuzz is digitially represented epiphenomena of interacting empathy among perspectives of Will, which depends upon perspective of observation, and upon which all other phenomena is derivatively represented.
***
MORAL MATH: A Virtual Walden Two (“V-W2”) should value morphing limits of reductively applied math at least as much as manipulability of models of empirical science.
MORAL DESIGN: Intuitively, an over-arching Designer respects a fundamental inclination, rather than a predetermined path through infinity-eternity.
MORAL FREEDOM: In respect of an overarching Source of empathy for holographic entanglement and meaningful companionship, communication, cooperation, and competition, out of which all design emerges, phases, and morphs, there need not be conceived a predetermined path of physics. Rather, morally free will is expressed in respect of perspectives of parameter potentials.
MORAL HEGEL'IANISM: A concern permeates each of us, some more than others, to intuit and learn how to nourish and/or preserve a civilized society for companionship that is historically stable, presently sustainable, and inspirationally surpassable. Such concern permeates even at subconscious levels, perhaps even at sub-sensate levels. Such concern is for the Hegelian long-term, empathetic benefit of each of us, in all permutations and perspectives, perhaps over all time. Such concern relates to a foundational inclination, or Will, which operates as a synchronized source of entanglement and interaction among all perspectives, guiding empathetic pursuits of all perspectives. Intuitively, each of us represents an essential, innate potential for projecting empathetic appreciation among all, in respect of a purpose of Will for moving us towards Hegelian ends of civilizing histories.
MORAL ESSENCE: Our essence consists in pursuing civilizing utopias; such ever-pursuit is our source of goodness. Although each body seeks to nourish and preserve its physical holography, humanity seeks to nourish and preserve a civilizing holography.
MORAL COMPETITION: We are not automatically good, in ourselves. Yet, idealistic faith in a Source of empathetic soul can lead us in pursuit of fulfillment, which, ultimately, is for the God who functions in regard for each of us. As we move beyond biological evolution into artificially guided evolution, competition focuses among alternative visions and programs for civilization.
Equality merely for its own sake is repulsive to an evolving, morphing, meaningful civilization. Surpassage of the quickest to despair, the slowest to learn, and the least passionate to survive proceeds in respect of a Guiding Source, which models a sort of empathetic pump or historical impatience to evolve towards ever more meaningful sentience.
MORAL CHALLENGE: Finding or creating spiritual forums by which to organize communities, we can, in faith, pit enlightened empathy against merely selfish predators.
PROBLEM: Regarding what is virtuous and beautiful, what ideals and purposes should guide organizations of communities? How should niches be filled or fortified, so that communities do not become organized and over-represented merely by self-aggrandizing grievance-shills and poverty-pimps, who otherwise lack military experience, maturity, discipline, self reliance, or morally empowering insight? How should means morph, in order to promote the better over the base and the enlightened over the Borg?
****
MORAL POWER:
It is not “Science-of-Physics-in-itself” that is awesome or powerful.
What is powerful is “Math as ever leveraged by Will.”
In God’s time, the only Nature needed is Math.
For God, the Truth of Nature consists in Will’s pursuing Imaginations of Perspectives.
Of God, Will is primary power; physics is secondary power, emerging only in respect of Will-To-Math.
Of enlightenment, Physics is Moon; Will is Sun.
In no way does such appreciation diminish the shine (or reflection) of Physics (or Science).
It simply respects glory to the primary Source.
Quantum fuzz is digitially represented epiphenomena of interacting empathy among perspectives of Will, which depends upon perspective of observation, and upon which all other phenomena is derivatively represented.
***
MORAL MATH: A Virtual Walden Two (“V-W2”) should value morphing limits of reductively applied math at least as much as manipulability of models of empirical science.
MORAL DESIGN: Intuitively, an over-arching Designer respects a fundamental inclination, rather than a predetermined path through infinity-eternity.
MORAL FREEDOM: In respect of an overarching Source of empathy for holographic entanglement and meaningful companionship, communication, cooperation, and competition, out of which all design emerges, phases, and morphs, there need not be conceived a predetermined path of physics. Rather, morally free will is expressed in respect of perspectives of parameter potentials.
MORAL HEGEL'IANISM: A concern permeates each of us, some more than others, to intuit and learn how to nourish and/or preserve a civilized society for companionship that is historically stable, presently sustainable, and inspirationally surpassable. Such concern permeates even at subconscious levels, perhaps even at sub-sensate levels. Such concern is for the Hegelian long-term, empathetic benefit of each of us, in all permutations and perspectives, perhaps over all time. Such concern relates to a foundational inclination, or Will, which operates as a synchronized source of entanglement and interaction among all perspectives, guiding empathetic pursuits of all perspectives. Intuitively, each of us represents an essential, innate potential for projecting empathetic appreciation among all, in respect of a purpose of Will for moving us towards Hegelian ends of civilizing histories.
MORAL ESSENCE: Our essence consists in pursuing civilizing utopias; such ever-pursuit is our source of goodness. Although each body seeks to nourish and preserve its physical holography, humanity seeks to nourish and preserve a civilizing holography.
MORAL COMPETITION: We are not automatically good, in ourselves. Yet, idealistic faith in a Source of empathetic soul can lead us in pursuit of fulfillment, which, ultimately, is for the God who functions in regard for each of us. As we move beyond biological evolution into artificially guided evolution, competition focuses among alternative visions and programs for civilization.
Equality merely for its own sake is repulsive to an evolving, morphing, meaningful civilization. Surpassage of the quickest to despair, the slowest to learn, and the least passionate to survive proceeds in respect of a Guiding Source, which models a sort of empathetic pump or historical impatience to evolve towards ever more meaningful sentience.
MORAL CHALLENGE: Finding or creating spiritual forums by which to organize communities, we can, in faith, pit enlightened empathy against merely selfish predators.
PROBLEM: Regarding what is virtuous and beautiful, what ideals and purposes should guide organizations of communities? How should niches be filled or fortified, so that communities do not become organized and over-represented merely by self-aggrandizing grievance-shills and poverty-pimps, who otherwise lack military experience, maturity, discipline, self reliance, or morally empowering insight? How should means morph, in order to promote the better over the base and the enlightened over the Borg?
****
MORAL POWER:
It is not “Science-of-Physics-in-itself” that is awesome or powerful.
What is powerful is “Math as ever leveraged by Will.”
In God’s time, the only Nature needed is Math.
For God, the Truth of Nature consists in Will’s pursuing Imaginations of Perspectives.
Of God, Will is primary power; physics is secondary power, emerging only in respect of Will-To-Math.
Of enlightenment, Physics is Moon; Will is Sun.
In no way does such appreciation diminish the shine (or reflection) of Physics (or Science).
It simply respects glory to the primary Source.
Friday, May 30, 2008
In The Beginning
Physical reality is mathematically computational.
Politics is broken.
Present lawmakers are too beholden to money.
The logarithmically leveraging computational power of the internet is awesome, yet so far only tritely applied to politics, when measured against the internet's potential.
So, an imaginative ideal for a Virtual City On A Hill, Republic, or Walden Two could easily be leveraged or mobilized, for moving towards decent and civilizing goals, much the same as for an ordinary community.
One could begin simply by listing obvious truths that should be told, as well as needs that Congress has incompetently ignored.
Nearly 9o% of each solution may consist in defining its underlying problem.
Obvious examples of problems:
Why has Congress been so impotent to establish an energy policy adequate to motivate Americans to become independent of OPEC oil and foreign thugs?
Why has government not seen fit to incentive the production and feasibility of electric vehicles?
Why is the American border still allowed to be so porous?
Why is there such utter lack of care for stable and manageable populations, demographics, economies, and environments?
Why is there such disgraceful lack of consideration for what is entailed in caring enough for civilization in order to allow it to become stable, sustainable, and surpass-able?
Why has not every Congressperson every day pressed such obvious questions, looking to the very heart of incompetence of our governance?
Why is Congress afraid to tell voters the truth, that fossil fuels should be taxed high enough to better represent hidden social costs and to encourage development of alternatives?
Why are voters so presently unable to handle the truth?
Why have our academics and teachers allowed our voters to become so ignorant?
Why do so many thinkers in discredited Marxist terms still hold so much sway in our educational system?
Why do so many scientists and spiritualists tend so often to overstep NOMA?
Why is any fascist pretense, such as Islamofascism (I am not speaking here of mainstream Islam), afforded freedom to pretend to be a religion? Surely, not every group of thugs who may worship power, such as power of drugs, should on that basis be afforded religious freedom within the meaning of the free exercise clause of the Constitution to preach and indoctrinate religious soldiers and potential jihadists.
Could not a utopian-minded, academically-inclined coterie of pot stirrers unite to debate and/or adopt actual positions for advocating to lawmakers?
More later ....
Politics is broken.
Present lawmakers are too beholden to money.
The logarithmically leveraging computational power of the internet is awesome, yet so far only tritely applied to politics, when measured against the internet's potential.
So, an imaginative ideal for a Virtual City On A Hill, Republic, or Walden Two could easily be leveraged or mobilized, for moving towards decent and civilizing goals, much the same as for an ordinary community.
One could begin simply by listing obvious truths that should be told, as well as needs that Congress has incompetently ignored.
Nearly 9o% of each solution may consist in defining its underlying problem.
Obvious examples of problems:
Why has Congress been so impotent to establish an energy policy adequate to motivate Americans to become independent of OPEC oil and foreign thugs?
Why has government not seen fit to incentive the production and feasibility of electric vehicles?
Why is the American border still allowed to be so porous?
Why is there such utter lack of care for stable and manageable populations, demographics, economies, and environments?
Why is there such disgraceful lack of consideration for what is entailed in caring enough for civilization in order to allow it to become stable, sustainable, and surpass-able?
Why has not every Congressperson every day pressed such obvious questions, looking to the very heart of incompetence of our governance?
Why is Congress afraid to tell voters the truth, that fossil fuels should be taxed high enough to better represent hidden social costs and to encourage development of alternatives?
Why are voters so presently unable to handle the truth?
Why have our academics and teachers allowed our voters to become so ignorant?
Why do so many thinkers in discredited Marxist terms still hold so much sway in our educational system?
Why do so many scientists and spiritualists tend so often to overstep NOMA?
Why is any fascist pretense, such as Islamofascism (I am not speaking here of mainstream Islam), afforded freedom to pretend to be a religion? Surely, not every group of thugs who may worship power, such as power of drugs, should on that basis be afforded religious freedom within the meaning of the free exercise clause of the Constitution to preach and indoctrinate religious soldiers and potential jihadists.
Could not a utopian-minded, academically-inclined coterie of pot stirrers unite to debate and/or adopt actual positions for advocating to lawmakers?
More later ....
*****
CONCERNS:
PAST --- Historical STABILITY: Security (Borders, Patriotism, Language, National Identification); Structure (Energy, Utility Grids, Roads and Dikes, Infrastructure, Satellite Signals).
PRESENT --- Present SUSTAINABILITY: Survival (Health, Education, Welfare, Environmental Challenges); Solvency (Jobs, Markets, Business, Productivity, Investment); Sociability (Family, Charity, Church); Service (Environment, Government, Defense, Arms); Subordination (Prisons, Police, Lawmaking, Governmental Organization, Global Relations).
FUTURE --- Inspirational SURPASSABILITY: Sacrifice and Spiritualism (Addictions, Self Reliance, Practicing Victimization and Grievance, Privacy); Sports, Sirens, Soma, Science (Entertainment, Pursuit of Happiness, Responsible Eugenics and Robotics, Space and Oceanic Exploration, Transcendence).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)