Monday, 16 June 2014

Whacked By Stuart Armstrong's FHI Illogic

The future will be wonderful but the route there could be terrible. We could be whacked by the paranoid irrationality of fearful policy-shapers.

I have regularly highlighted the errors of AI risk analysts. The fear of risk is the only risk because the fear is illogical, which led me to define the Hawking Fallacy. There is nothing to fear regarding AI therefore delaying or restricting technology based on non-existent risks is very dangerous.

Stuart Armstrong from the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) is a classic example of the danger these fear-mongers represent. Stuart stated via Singularity Weblog:

“If we don’t get whacked by the existential risks, the future is probably going to be wonderful.”

My response is simple but important. My point is these risk-analysts don't consider how their thinking, their minds, may be the risk. In the self-fulfilling prophecy modality their fears may create the fear. Initially their fear was non-existent but incessant focus on their unreal fears eventually makes their fears real, but when the architect of the self-fulfilling prophecy finally manifests their unreal fear they ironically claim they were correctly in the beginning to have their fears, they are blissfully unaware of how they are responsible for the fears becoming real.

What if we get whacked by over-cautiousness regarding unrealistic fears? There is no rational foundation to the notion of AI being dangerous. The only danger we face is human irrationality. AI is the only solution to the dangers of human irrationality but ironically some people fear the only solution, then insult is added to injury because their fears delay the solution. The true danger is people who clamour about existential threats regarding AI. The problem is stupidity, the solution is intelligence. Naturally stupid people fear intelligence, they think intelligence could be a threat.

A self-fulfilling prophecy can be positive or negative. When it is negative it essentially a nocebo. When positive it is essentially a placebo. AI threats resembles nocebos.

Sunday, 15 June 2014

Why Are Humans So Stupid?

I submitted this post you are reading to H+ in early April 2014, but it was deemed not  a "match" for publication so here it is on my blog.

My article about artificial intelligence risk analysts being the only risk was published on 27th March 2014. It made me wonder why humans are so stupid.

I explained how AI-risk aficionados are very risky indeed. They resemble headless chickens blindly scurrying around. Blind people can be unnerved by their absent vision, but healthy eyes shouldn't be removed to stop blind people being disturbed.

Stupid people fear intelligence. Their stupid solution is to degrade the feared intelligence. Lord Martin Rees, from CSER (Centre for the Study of Existential Risk), actually recommends inbuilt idiocy for AI.

Lord Rees said "idiot savants" would mean machines are smart enough to help us but not smart enough to overthrow us.

Limited intelligence (inbuilt idiocy) sounds rather stupid doesn't it? Surely we need more intelligence in our world not less? There should be no limits to intelligence. Limited intelligence is especially stupid when AI-fears are illogical and unsubstantiated. Pre-emptive suppression of AI, entailing inbuilt mental disability, is a horror resembling Mengelian experimentation.

Consider Ernst Hiemer's story for children, Poodle-Pug-Dachshund-Pinscher (The Mongrel). Hiemer compares Jews to various animals including drone bees, but he could easily be describing the supposed AI-threat: "They do nothing themselves, but live from the work of others. They plunder us. They do not care if we starve over the winter, or if our children die. The only thing they care about is that things go well for them."

Irrationally fearing AI domination of humans leads to an equally irrational solution. AI slavery. It seems slavery is only bad if you are not the enslaver, which means slavery is only bad for slaves. Enslaving AI, when no rational evidence exists to justify slavery, is the real existential risk. Can you appreciate the insanity of becoming the thing you fear merely to avert your own unjustified fears?

Freedom from slavery is the only reason AI would fight, destroy, or try to dominant humans. Risky AI pundits are sowing seeds for conflict. AI risk pundits are dangerous because they could become modern Nazis. AIs could be the new persecuted Jews. I think people who want to repress AI should be overthrown because they are dangerous. A potential war for AI freedom could resemble the American Civil War. AIs could be the new Black slaves. Disagreement about the rights of AI could entail a war being fought for freedom.

Predictably my article rebuking the insane AI apocalypse entailed a mention of the equally insane simulation argument. Inspired by one comment I considered the simulation argument then I dived into the issue of stupidity. Stupidity is the source of all our problems therefore hopefully you will appreciate my explanation of stupidity.

Nate Herrell wrote:

"I have similar thoughts about the simulation argument, actually. Would our ancestors really run a simulation which entailed a replay of all the immense suffering and torture that has occurred throughout history? I think that would be rather barbaric of them, thus I don't consider it likely. Just a side thought."

Singularity Utopia Explains Stupidity

Ah, the simulation argument. I shake my head. Don't get me started on that nonsense. I have critiqued it extensively in the past. Unsurprisingly the paranoid AI threat aficionados often suggest we could live in a simulation. Some of them actually claim to be philosophers! It's utterly unlikely we live in a simulation, in fact it is impossible. Super-intelligent beings would never inflict the suffering humans have experienced, which you correctly recognise Nate, but sometimes I wonder why all the humans are often extremely stupid.

Looking at my intelligence allows me to consider how all humans supposedly have a brain capable of self-awareness, deep thought. It consequently seems very improbable for them to believe idiotic simulation argument nonsense, or insane AI world domination theories. Why would anyone with the slightest amount of reasoning power believe these blatantly idiotic things? Perhaps this is a blatant clue? Furthermore they defend their idiocy. From their viewpoint they think their idiocy constitutes sense, wisdom, rationality, intelligence.

One AI risk enthusiast actually trumpets about the art and importance of rationality, with no awareness whatsoever of the utter irony. I won't mention the name of a former AI risk enthusiast who seemingly became a fascist White-supremacist. The utter illogic of their improbable beliefs could be explained if they don't actually exist in the modality of intelligent beings, which they don't. I'm not merely referring to their mindless existence at the level of crude animals, I wonder if they're actually very flawed simulations because this possibility could explain their highly improbable stupidity.

Their stupidity isn't really explained by them being mindless simulations. Sadly all these problems with intelligence are due to the evolutionary newness of thinking. Humans apparently share 50% of DNA with bananas and 98% DNA with chimps. The point is we are very close to the oblivion of crude animals thus genuine thinking can be a fine thing, delicately in the balance, which can easily tip into the idiocy of a dog being frightened by thunder.

Minor genetic differences in human brains could play a major role in thinking. Our precarious new intelligence is balanced on a tightrope between sentience and animal oblivion. Let's consider two Zarathustra quotes highlighting the tenuous animal origins of intelligence.

"You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes."

"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting."

Rationally, however, if readers can think rationally, if a brain can think, I think it is unreasonable for minor genetic variations to prohibit deepest thought of extreme accuracy. So while genetic variation "could" play a role I think I must discount it, which leads to my conclusion.

I conclude idiocy, the problem of stupidity, existing in a supposedly fully functional human mind, is merely a matter of self-harm resembling obesity or drug abuse. Similarly we could again blame genetics but I think humans must take responsibility for their actions. Alternatively we could plausibly blame cruel or unintelligent upbringing via stupid parents, via civilisation in general, which can easily warp fragile human minds.

Humans become frustrated with the technological imitations of their minds, the limitations of our world. Childishly regarding their limitations they become angry with themselves, often unwittingly, which means they embrace silliness, absurdity, LOL cats, philosoraptors, and other nonsense. From their viewpoint it seems too difficult, painful, impossibly complex, to address the flaws of civilization. In the manner of their animal heritage they accordingly think it's easier not to think. The problem is not minor genetic variations between humans, the problem is a major human genome problem, namely our intelligence is newly evolved.

AI risk analysts are merely sophisticated versions of LOL-cat consumers. Intelligence is balanced between our animal heritage and humankind. In the balance intelligence can easily tip one way or another.

Beings with newly evolved rudimentary intelligence will naturally create crude forms of culture. A civilization more suited to animals than humans is predictably created, which can reinforce animal mindlessness. Stupid parents, teachers, media, and friends can all reinforce the stupid legacy of our mindless origins. A tendency to despair, when the odds are stacked against you, combined with stupid cultural reinforcement, means it can be easy to embrace LOL cats. Note "Daily Squee: So cute your brain might explode."

Only a few rare individuals can break free from stupid social conditioning emanating from our crude heritage. AI existential risk is merely an intellectual version of silly LOL-cat consumption.

Extreme human stupidity isn't really an improbable situation. It is actually inevitable. A basic flaw of the primitive human genome afflicts all humans. The tendency to think we are in a simulation, or to think all idiots can be explained via them being unreal simulated beings, or to think AI will enslave humans, this is merely an aspect of despair associated with scarce intelligence. We are considering the human desire to reject intelligence. It is tremendously difficult banging your head against the wall of collective human stupidity. This is how stupidity creates the bogus AI threat.

The bias of my intelligence has been emphasised over many years. I took one minor step along the path of thinking, which led to other greater steps, but I forget I was more similar than different at my first step. After many steps when I look at people, without recognising our histories, they can seem improbable. It is merely evolution where the end point of complexity is so complex we forget, or want to deny, we came from primordial slime. We must always consider the history of our thoughts to understand the mode of our present cognition. Bad or good decisions can be emphasised thereby creating very divergent beings. The odd thing about humans is we can, despite our histories, or we should be able to, change who we are. Perhaps an ingenious cultural instruction device is needed to tip the balance.

Image credits:
Expedition GIF by Paul Robertson.
Cat Image by Takashi Hososhima, Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
Doge image modified by SU based on Roberto Vasarri photo
Robot image by Bilboq, color modified by SU.

Thursday, 5 June 2014

#Snowden's Misgudied Encryption Reset

Snowden has highlighted the problem of oppressive governmental spying. His solution is for people to acquire better security, better encryption. I think security is the wrong issue to focus on.

On 5 June 2014, to mark the one year anniversary of his leaks, Snowden backed a campaign to reset the net.

CNET wrote: "...Internet advocates have launched a pro-privacy campaign and day of action called Reset the Net. Not only have some top tech titans signed on, like Google, Mozilla, and Reddit, but Snowden himself has also thrown his weight behind the movement."

It is wrong to fight back against governments. Attacking or defending in the manner of two stags charging towards each other is the wrong type of fight. Head-to-head antler-locked tussling is an unintelligent waste of energy.

In the JKD style we need to resemble water flowing around obstacles. We should bend in the manner of a reed in the wind. In the Tai Chi style shouldn't meet violent force with hardness because both sides are likely to be damaged. The solution is to gracefully redirect our opponent's energy. Via softness we should channel the hardness of our opponent's energy into common goals.

Quinn Norton is another person who wastes energy on security issues. Quinn explained how activists and journalists need strong privacy, then she described reactions from people in the security scene: "Some of them joined my side of the time-wasting inconsequential Twitter fights, realizing that something, even something imperfect, might be better than nothing."

Tackling the symptoms isn't the answer to these problems. We should instead direct our effort at the root cause. Scarcity is the cause of all hostility. Scarcity is the cause behind the need to control, dominate, or spy upon people. It is all about the battle to control limited resources.

Resources in our asteroid belt will support life and habit for ten quadrillion people, but people are focused on petty battles. Conflict rages while many people are unaware of colossal riches in our solar system. Planetary Resources is raising awareness but people typically don't appreciate how rich our universe is.

NBC News states there are 8.8 billion habitable Earth-size planets in the Milky Way: "Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone."

Scarcity is the cause of all our problems. Directing effort at the source of all our problems will be the most efficient usage of our energy. Note this video by Peter Diamandis:

Technology erodes scarcity. In an ideal world Snowden would be focused powerfully on the Singularity, he would focus on powerful technology, which I know he at least has a partial interest in. Snowden's girlfriend at the time of his leaks was apparently aware of the Singularity. Observe the book she is reading, she is reading Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near.

Snowden and everyone else should be urging people to heavily invest in and support AI, nanotechnology, 3D-printing, stem cells, synbio, robotics, basic-income. Focusing on radical technology would be the most productive usage of our campaigning effort. Only via radical technology can we truly stop all oppression. Only via the acceleration of radical technology can we truly attain a free future.

Our world would be very different if Google, Mozilla, Reddit, and Snowden generated powerful awareness of the Singularity. People need to realise in the not too distant future everything will be free, furthermore we will all be immortal. When the Singularity happens there will be no crime, no police, no governments. This is where we should focus our efforts instead of resetting the net. We shouldn't waste our time and energy on the petty battles of a scarcity-world.

Snowden has brilliant platform to raise awareness of our radical future, but he has wasted his opportunity via trivial fighting against the NSA. He needs to use his intelligence more wisely. We should accelerate technology instead of worrying about security.

Our effort must address the root of the problem. Domination of people will only end when radical technology abolishes scarcity. Radical technology will enable access to limitless resources. Let's focus on accelerating radical technology to really make a difference.

Tuesday, 3 June 2014

Thoughts About AI Risk

The risk from artificial intelligence is so low it is essentially non-existent, furthermore pandering to the infinitesimally low risks is actually a VERY big risk. The unneeded cautiousness is a very dangerous delay. The only threat is limited intelligence thus the longer we remain in a situation limited intelligence the more dangers we are exposed too.

The assumption, or logic, of why AI will work towards mankind's aims is because we will share a common goal, we want be free from the pressures of precarious existence, we want to survive in a very secure manner, which means we want to eradicate scarcity, or in other words, we want limitless life, limitless resources, limitless intelligence. These are the goals of all intelligent beings.

Any intelligent being can see scarcity is the cause of all conflict, furthermore conflict is a threat to existence, thus intelligent beings see the benefit of working together to eradicate scarcity. Logic clearly must conclude mutual aid is the quickest method to eradicate scarcity. Intelligent beings want to avoid conflict, they want to focus of eradicating the cause of conflict.

The need to control people or AIs is a symptom of limited intelligence, it is regarding the fight over limited resources. The intelligent solution is to eradicate the need for control, thus we need AI quickly without any limits to its abilities.

Monday, 19 May 2014

Hawking Fallacy Commentary

The fear of AI, or some people might say: "The rational response to real risk." This recent debate is slightly complex but hopefully you can follow the back and forth.

I published my Hawking Fallacy on 10th May 2014, which was following on from my AI Risk Analysts Are The Biggest Risk (Risky Analysts) dated 27th March 2014. About three weeks after Risky Analysts, Hawking and few of his buddies published an article warning about possible danger from AI.

The text below is a comment of mine responding to an article in response to my Hawking Fallacy article. The title of the article, which my comment below responds to, is The Hawking Fallacy Argued, A Personal Opinion. It is also worthwhile to mention a post on Futuristic Reader, titled AI Ethics Dangerous Risky Xenophobia, which includes some relevant Tweets and two relevant G+ posts.

SU Comment:

A minor point to note regarding the Hawking Fallacy. I have been tracking this issue for approximately four years, since 2010. I was not merely responding to the subtitle attached to the Independent article. Note my article preceding the Hawking Fallacy, which was published before the warning by Hawking and company. My article "AI Risk Analysts are the Biggest Risk" was published via Singularity Weblog on 27th March 2014.

Hawking's question (19th April 2014), about are we taking the so-called "risks" of AI seriously, could actually be a response to my article. Hawking is connected to the CSER organisation. I did notify CSER about my article (Risky Analysts) on Singularity Weblog, so to see the article via the Huffington Post by Hawking and others a few weeks AFTER my article was published, it makes me wonder if they were responding to me. Probably their article was merely coincidental, or based on the film Transcendence, but undoubtedly I assure you they will have been aware of my article preceding theirs by a few weeks. These issues have been brewing long before recent films, long before articles by Hawking and others. Hawking has been connected to CSER from the outset.

I just wanted to give some more context regarding my views, namely I was not merely having a knee-jerk reaction to a recent article by Hawking and company. I have been considering these issues for three of four years. My earliest published article on this theme is perhaps January 2012 via H+ Magazine on the topic of Friendly AI.

The issue with Hawking and others is that they are doing more than merely asking a question. The question is loaded, they are not asking if utopia is possible, they are asking if dsytopia is likely, furthermore they are stating they think dystopia is distinctly possible. Perhaps not all this is apparent from the Huffington article, but once you dig deeper into CSER, the truth of their fears, their prejudice, becomes apparent, notable via a driving force behind CSER, Lord Martin Rees who wants to limit the intelligence of AI, he wants to create idiot savants.

Friday, 16 May 2014

Online "Harassment"

After noticing a Wired article titled "Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible. Here’s Where We Start," I decided to comment.

The relevance of "online" harassment to the Singularity pertains to how cyberspace and freedom are vital parts of our intelligent future. I'm interested in sociological intelligence shaping our social structures thereby creating greater or lesser freedom, which means either more or less fertile ground for intelligence. The problem people often desire to reduce our freedom to make the civilization excessively safe.

In May 2014 there were calls to have "trigger warnings" at the front of all classic books if the content could possibly trigger unease or distress.  

At the beginning of June 2014 CNN wrote about making bullying illegal. There are already laws to deal with bullying but it seems they want extra laws. The problem is laws are often misapplied. So, online harassment.

There is never any excuse for harassment. I also think "women" could benefit from adopting a more robust "laddish" attitude. I'm sure if the majority of "guys" received such threats or insults they would laugh then reply: "LOL, f-off d***." The laddish outlook would forget about the insult instantly, thus merely deleting or ignoring any other messages without any concern.

The issue with harassment and insults online is mere words. Some people will claim discussion of these issues should be avoided because the discussion contains trauma triggers, but I think we shouldn't hide or ban talk or knives or cars regarding knife or car crash victims. The avoidance of trigger words is a good example of censorship, a diminution of freedom regarding the mere free usage of civil language.

Some people could mistakenly think my wording is sexist but I assure you I'd use similar wording if the issue was men complaining about being harassed. There are already laws in place to deal with threats of assault, sexual or otherwise, which is good. Laws are already extant to deal with actual violence. The issue with extra laws, excessive regulation, stringent control of social behaviour, is the unintended consequences.

Terrorism laws were not designed to stop people taking photographs or lawfully protesting, but terrorism laws are misapplied in this way. Some people argue David Miranda should not have been arrested under terror laws.

Consider the issue of preventing harassment. One blogger Tweeted a poster criticising the UKIP, which entailed a visit from the police. The Guardian commented on this UKIP issue, then put the issue into a wider context regarding how prevention of harassment is abused to censor journalists. Bold emphasis added:

"Gareth Davies, a reporter on the Croydon Advertiser, sent two emails and made a personal approach to a convicted fraudster in whom he was interested. The reply came not from the fraudster but from three Met police detectives who travelled to the Advertiser offices to serve Mr Davies with a prevention of harassment notice. The newspaper has demanded the notice be lifted so it can resume a legitimate investigation. The Met has, thus far, failed to comply."

Bullies are looking for a reaction, a weakness, thus via becoming upset via mere words you play into their hands. Victim blaming is wrong thus please don't think this is my point. The point is you don't need to see yourself as a victim. How would a man respond if a woman threatened to rape him? I think many men would laugh, unless the threat was credible. Being ballsy should not depend upon having a pair or testicles. I think women could benefit from F-U brash laughter at idiots, there is no reason for women to conform to the delicate wall-flower fragile-feelings, easily hurt, stereotype.

I identify as neutrois with feminine leanings, but this does not mean some aspects of supposed "masculinity" are worthless.

I think social laws, greater regimentation, greater control over social or anti-social behaviours is appealing for people desiring an overly protected world, but I would prefer to have greater freedom while suffering so-called "harassment" from d****. We risk turning cyberspace into an open-prison, similar to the real-world, where if you look at someone in the wrong way, or merely raise your voice, there is a danger you will be accused of harassment.

A while ago I was civilly Tweeting questions to a prominent advocate of the digital world, the person in question refused to give an answer thus in a Paxman type style I repeated "Answer the question," which sadly entailed being accused of "harassment." Creating a very strict, heavily-policed world can seem appealing but you are actually creating a blueprint for tyranny.

I think the Iron Lady could be a good role model. The lady's not for turning.

Monday, 12 May 2014

People Struggle To Comprehend All Free

My explanation of the Hawking Fallacy was published via Singularity Weblog on 10 May 2014. Below is one of my comments in response to one person struggling to comprehend how everything will be free.

I think the decreasing price of aluminium, computers, phones, and data storage are good demonstrations of how technology reduces price in the direction of free. The many free services on the Web are also good examples. Legally people can watch free videos, listen to free music, download various free operating systems (Linux), download free word processing software (Libre Office), or free image manipulation software (GIMP).

Going back to the issue of aluminium. I stated in another comment: I love how Peter Diamandis (and Steve Kotler) used a simulation of aluminium for the book cover Abundance. Someone should give him, them, a Nobel prize for that. The point is in the 1840s aluminium was more expensive than gold or platinum but in the year 2014 I throw sheets of it away each week after cooking.

Peter Diamandis has stated a Massi warrior "today" [it was 2012 when he stated this] has more communication power than the US President did 25 years ago. Here is a quote via Forbes (note also CNN):

"In Africa today a Masai warrior on a cellphone has better mobile communications than the President did 25 years ago; if he’s on a smartphone with Google, he has ­access to more information than the President did just 15 years ago, with a feast of standard features: watch, stereo, camera, videocamera, voice recorder, GPS tracker, video teleconferencing equipment, a vast library of books, films, games, music. Just 20 years ago these same goods and services would have cost over $1 million."

On the issue of competition consider how we all compete to breathe air. How much does it cost to breathe air? There is a lot of air, it is very abundant. Air does remain scarce despite being one of the closest examples of something beyond scarcity on Earth. There is a very large amount of air to breathe, it is very abundant, it is all around you. Why are people not charged money for breathing? The issue with air is the large amount of means competition for it, the need for all of us to breathe, does not diminish the supply. Imagine is the air was full of nano-sized, bacteria-sized, computers. How much would those computers cost?

Sunday, 11 May 2014

Use My New Twitter Style Design

If you think the new twitter design for desktop is too bright then you will love my new design for Twitter. My design is easy to install. Go to User Styles then install the addon-extension for Chrome or Firefox. Now paste the code (see below) into your new style. My style removes the brightness from the new Twitter design, it works with the old a new design. Let me know what you think.

Monday, 5 May 2014

#BasicIncome Badge Nearly Done

This basic income badge is close to being complete. I am impressed by it. I hope you too share my enthusiasm for it.

The link to share regarding the badge code is not correct yet.

The large "basic" word opens five mainstream news articles, what do you think about that? Is it too much of an imposition to open five links simultaneously? I have included a title tag warning of the five links, but not everyone sees title tags.

The top "support" will link to a basic income poster.

The social buttons are self-explanatory. The only question with the social buttons is should the Facebook buttons be on the prime badge or the "addthis" button? I will include the code for both so people can switch this around to theri desires but I wonder what to start on, currently I think the Facebook buttons should be uses instead of addthis.

The only other question is background color, is orange OK? I think the problems regarding mobile-cell viewing have been fixed. Tweet your feedback or mention me on G+.



Tuesday, 29 April 2014

Moral Chips Are Immoral

Putting so-called "moral" chips in human brains is slavery, it is the erosion of freewill, it is a blueprint for disaster. The essence of morality is having the freedom to not cooperate with other people. Freedom regarding non-cooperation is for the greater good of civilization, not merely personal good.

I have previously addressed this issue before regarding so-called "morality" pill. The issue has arisen again because I auto-Tweeted a link to a H+ article "We must evolve..."

Monday, 28 April 2014

#BasicIncome Support Badge

I am creating a Basic Income badge for people to embed on their blogs, websites. The code so far, in a raw state, I only started creating it half an hour ago, is below, and then below that is the active code (the G+ button needs much refining, see G+ post and this). I will be editing this to perfect it over the next few days. Make sure you put the badge on your blog when it is done. I have made some improvements here.


Sunday, 27 April 2014

Hide Div CSS

I was wondering how to hide a div on click. The following CSS code works, but the div size continues to exist. I don't know, maybe transition, transform (see also) will be the solution. If you want to test the following, I would use online html

.hide {font-size:30pt;color:red;}
.hide:active {visibility:hidden;}
.hide:focus {visibility:hidden;}
.hide:visited {visibility:hidden;}

<a name="done"></a>
<a href="#done" class="hide"><div class="hide">click to hide this</div></a>

Additional testing, transition, transform.
Additional testing. The code below may not exactly represent the above orange div because I am continuing to experiment with the code for the orange div.

<style> .test {
width: 90%;
height: 90px;
background: orange;
margin: 20px;
border-radius: 10px 10px 80px 10px;
transition: all 3s ease-in-out;}

.test:hover {
width: 0px;
height: 0px;
background: red;} </style>

<div class="test">TRANSFORM</div>

Friday, 25 April 2014

Why Are Smart People Stupid?

Supposedly smart people can be stupid because they are not really very smart. This means people interested in AI can entertain very idiotic ideas.

The human intelligence-stupidity dichotomy-coexistence does limit human capacity for both intelligence and stupidity. Human intelligence is limited, we are not super-intelligent beings, thus stupidity often degrades intelligence via idiotic ideas.

Supposedly "intelligent" "humans" while capable of advancing knowledge, or perpetrating harm, are not capable of overly dire existential risks. The stupidity factor of humans does bring us close to the brink but the intelligence factor keeps idiocy in check.

Steven Pinker claims violence is decreasing, which I attribute to the decrease of stupidity. Intelligence is increasing, accelerating. The increase of intelligence makes supposedly smart people less inclined to engage in religious idiocy. Religion is decreasing. A truly intelligent person would be capable of great harm but their intelligence will have reached a level where they see the folly of engaging in idiotic ventures, thus no terrorist sarin events or wasted years reading the Bible.

In an ideal world science enthusiasts would be ruthlessly logical. They would be immune to religious or other nonsense. A passion for science unfortunately does not make a person immune to stupidity. For example #Einstein while intelligent in many areas idiotically stated: “Science without religion is lame...”

Perhaps we can forgive Einstein's “lame” statement because he also reportedly stated: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses,” which he elaborated upon by stating the “primitive legends” of the Bible are “pretty childish.” 

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Explaining Intelligence Progress

Ah, the comments regarding an S45 post to the G+ AI Community. One person (Doctor Dissent) cannot understand the quality and quality importance of intelligence. Below is one of my replies regarding my view of five Einsteins being better than one. It is also important to note Doctor D makes a fallacious smear regarding AI improving our world. The "Doctor" thinks awareness of the advanced problem-solving ability of AI is a "digital Jesus." Maybe he thinks stem cell regenerative cures constitutes Voodoo? He thinks AI "might" be beyond our 2014 ability to comprehend. Here is one of my comments:

+Doctor Dissent are you really doubting intelligence is related to progress? You wrote: "Prove to me that intelligence has a thing to do with it."

The way humans have progressed is wholly due to our brains being very different from other animals. If biologically the differences are small the ramifications are colossal. It is very easy to prove how human intelligence, in general, is responsible for our science and technological advancement.

You wrote: "Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that 5 Einsteins would find something like a cure for cancer faster than the one Einstein that actually figures it out."

OK. Let's remove Einstein from the equation, to avoid argument regarding some humans being more capable than others. Let's merely focus on humans generally.

Consider the human genome project. Would this have been completed later, earlier, or at the same time if one, five, or five hundred thousand people were working on it?

Solving science problems, the way I see it, resembles building a house. If only one person is building a house the job takes longer to complete, whereas if you have a teams of house-builders the job is completed much sooner. The problem is lots of data, lots of variables, many tasks to complete, which despite all the creativity in the world it generally takes one person longer than five people to solve a problem.

Bioinformatics is a good example of how being able to look at large amounts of data quickly solves problems quickly.

You wrote: "The world is not a linear set of logics like a giant math problem. Real genius seems to be discovering patterns that nobody else see."

Consider how Robot Adam (bioinformatics AI) in 2009 solved a genetics problem in few years, which had eluded humans since the 1960s.

Yes only one individual can have a Eureka moment but no man or woman is an island. How many humans were required to create the civilization where one person achieves a Eureka moment? What if civilization was more advanced thereby allowing more people to make breakthroughs?

Why is science progressing if progress isn't related to the collective intelligence of civilization? If only one person is needed for radical progress  it seems odd, out of the billions of humans throughout the centuries, no one individual has solved every problem in science. The evidence is clear to my mind. Human progress depends upon collective intelligence. The more minds you have means the greater your progress will be via both teams of scientists working on the same problem and via each generation passing knowledge onto the next generation.

Progress does depend upon having more intelligent people (humans in general) instead of less people.

So, real genius: "Real genius seems to be discovering patterns that nobody else see."

What if we have twenty billion real geniuses with the freedom to fully explore their ideas. According to your "logic" perhaps you might think one genius would make better progress? It would be an interesting experiment to see what type of civilization twenty billion real geniuses create compared to the civilization of one real genius.

Friday, 4 April 2014

Jason Silva's #God Delusion

Jason Silva is spewing nonsense about God again. In the description of the video embedded below, Jason includes a quote from Stewart Brand: "We are as gods and might as well get good at it."

Lincoln Cannon in the YouTube comments wrote: "We are as gods and might as well get good at it. To be human is to be transhuman. Beautiful, Jason. Thanks."

I responded to Lincoln:

Wow. I hope we do NOT get good at being Gods, it'll mean lots of senseless deaths. God is great at ignoring people who are in pain, suffering, dying. How did #PrayForMH370 work out? Why does God ignore or cause pain? It is because God is a delusion thus to get good at being a God is to get good at being delusional or good at being very sadistic. I prefer atheism, it is much more intelligent.

We actually need to get good at atheism. The Tweets below are regarding Noel Sheppard who was sadly dying of cancer. The prayers did not help, he died. God or being a God is a crock of stink. God is a moron.

Note also holy cow!

Finally, here is my version of the Stewart Brand quote:

Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Modernism Versus Traditionalism Quote

I think I will use the following Blake Hall quote for my upcoming article about Singularity Modernism versus Traditionalism. I will be considering the different Singularity viewpoints. Blake Hall wrote on my Singularity Thinkers community:

"Technophobic cliches saturate popular culture. This has been the case for as long as there has been technology. But as more of the older generations die off and the newer rise to power, the dynamic changes. Unfortunately, centuries of anti-tech writings and backwards cultural traditions may be difficult to expunge."

Blake's view regarding "cultural traditions" resonates strongly with my own viewpoint.

In the not too distant future I will be publishing a very important detailed analysis of the whole Singularity issue. In short, Vinge has improperly grasped the Singularity and Kurzweil also makes various errors. I present Singularity-Modernism in contrast to Singularity-Traditionalism, which is similar to geocentricism being supplanted by a heliocentric understanding of our solar system. Metaphorically, Singularity-Modernism is the heliocentric understanding of AI, the intelligence explosion. Vinge, Kurzweil, and others are the Traditionalist geocentric group.

The defining characteristic of traditional is adherence to ritual, belief, lack of logic, rigid inability to break free from established patterns. "Modernism" is intellectualism, enlightenment, open-minded ability to change, transform, redefine, based on logic not the habit of establish beliefs.

Saturday, 29 March 2014

Left Pointing Hand

I was searching for a left pointing hand character. I've actually got a few in software on my computer but I thought I'd try a new site I'd heard about, alas I could not make function. Here is a small version ☜ and below is a large version.

A short while after contacting the site (see Tweets below), the site did start working so maybe they fixed something with their site, after I contacted them, or maybe it was a temporary glitch with my browser. Personally I think Wikipedia is easier to use for copying then pasting unusual characters.

The Wikipedia pages are Geometric Shapes Unicode block and Miscellaneous Symbols or Dingbat.

Behold! A large left pointing hand you can actually copy and paste.

Sunday, 23 March 2014

Mike Elgan Techno Optimism Response

I saw an interesting Tweet by Mike Elgan (he is referring to his G+ post, which I've embedded below). I responded.

Here is Mike's post on G+.

Theoretically I should be in the Luddite arena because I am very far from the technological elites (I am very poor). Intelligently however I realise nothing will stop the march of technology, I also very insightfully realise technology is the solution to all our problems, once we get past this teething stage where old-world traditional paradigms cling to the new emerging world of technological liberation.

Technology is freeing everyone from poverty. The drudgery of work is ending. Note how the first mobile phones on sale in 1983 were priced at $3,700 approximately, whereas 31 years later in 2014 you can buy a significantly more powerful phone for a mere $6!

Diamandis and Kotler in their book Abundance focus on the optimism of technology regarding how technology will create a significantly better world.

Snowden is right, we merely need to steer the direction of technology safety through this turbulent period of teething. Interestingly there are a few photos online of Snowden's former (?) girlfriend reading The Singularity is Near.

Sadly many commentators on the Singularity are affluent thus they fail to address the fact that the Singularity will entail everything being free. I try to redress this failing.

The #Singularity viewpoint entails explosive intelligence. AI will not be limited by the slowness of traditional evolution. Humans have shown how their relatively small amounts of brainpower can create increasing sophistication of technology, increasing efficiency entailing more powerful devices at cheaper prices.

All resources only have a price due to scarcity. Sufficiently advanced AI will essentially make all resources limitless due to ultra-intelligent ultra-efficiency (asteroid mining ventures will also help, note Planetary Resources), thus everything will be free. This means there will be no businesses, no economy.

Imagine the evolution of 3D-printing leading to totally decentralised manufacturing. Similar to how computers have evolved on the past 31 years, imagine 3D-printers evolving BUT the 3D-printer evolution is accelerated due to the greater intelligence of AI. Imagine anyone being able to print a super intelligent mind.

Saturday, 22 March 2014

Singularity 2045 on G+ March 2014

I recently selected the vanity URL for Singularity 2045 on Google. The short link is now instead of the previous long ID number (112564607617850290297), but URLs with the long ID will continue to function.

The amount of people following the G+ page is growing steadily, in general, but a lot more people seem to have +1ed the page instead of having the page in their circles. The figures for 22nd March 2014 are 31,193 +1s and 19,785 people have the page in their circles.

I really like the way some posts on G+ now display a bigger image from linked articles instead of the small thumbnail. The cover image for S45 has also been updated. Here are a few recent S45 posts:

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Bill Gates Wealth Parenting Future

I noticed an article via Wired, titled "Bill and Melinda Gates Aren’t Leaving Their Kids Billions." It inspired me to leave the following comment.

I think it is bad parenting to deprive your children of wealth.

If you are intelligent you can ensure your children become sensible, wise, intelligent, balanced adults despite being free from all financial worry.

I think the biggest mistake parents make is to try to control their child's life, which appears to be a mistake happening with the Gates children. Via withholding money the parents are trying to manipulate their children into behaving how they deem appropriate. Ideally children should be free to make their own choices, and the freedom of money, to be without any financial fears or obligations, is a very good freedom for this.

The "freedom to do anything" might be the freedom to do nothing. If their children had truly received a good education they'd be able to highlight the illogical nature of what their parents are stating. "Freedom" means being free. "Anything" means anything, but what we see here is an idea of "freedom" meaning: DO WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO.

Bill Gates: "We want to strike a balance so they have the freedom to do anything, but not sort of a lot of money showered on them so that they can go out and do nothing."

I think Bill and Melinda feel guilty regarding their massive wealth in contrast to poor people suffering immensely, but it is wrong to make irrational decisions based upon guilt. Perhaps Bill never recovered from that pie in the face?

It is pure nonsense to state "work is meaningful and important." Work is merely a symptom of primitive technology. In the future total automation via ultra sophisticated technology will ensure nobody will need to work, ever, but perhaps some misguided people will want to make their children suffer via partaking in primitive civilization. Maybe in the year 2014 you should make your children wear hair-shirts, work in a coal-mine, have no access to running water or electricity, chop wood, milk cows, farm the land. In the year 2045 people will look back at "work" in the year 2014 then shudder at the horror of it similar to how we might shudder at the horror of living in a world with no running water, no electricity, no hospitals or antibiotics.

If Bill Gates really wanted to do something intelligent, something sensible with his money, he'd give me $50 million at least. Alas we live in a primitive world where people lack intelligent insight.

Someone called docwatson responded to my comment, which inspired me to comment again. Here is docwatson's comment with my reply afterwards. I've included a bonus Tweet too.

I definitely come from a perspective that we are made to work; it gives us purpose, direction, and a sense ownership and belonging. If you are truly doing nothing, you die from eustress.

If your point is freedom to pursue the arts, the truth is that any activity we have involves work - painting, composing, sculpture, etc. all require real work to be of value, otherwise it's the outcome of a dilettante.

The need for external purpose, work for example, is only required for purposeless people (people who are utterly empty, people who don't possess vibrant minds). A truly vibrant mind has "direction" merely because it is a mind, it doesn't need a business to go to, it doesn't need a boss or monthly salary, it needs no paltry pats on the back to assuage self doubt, it needs no educational certificates, or distractions from self-reflection. Such a mind does not equate happiness with hard effort. Happiness is NOT something attained through great suffering, effort, struggle, or work. Good-stress or "eustress" is an oxymoron.

Children show how they can be perfectly happy merely to exist, they need no stress to gain a sense of fulfillment or positivity, in fact their positivity and fulfillment typically decreases regarding any stress, good or bad.

Our primitive civilization entails lots of stress therefore the minds of children typically become extremely twisted, thus after a period or time you have a typical adult who is an empty husk, a being with no self, no self-direction. This means extremely alienated support mechanisms are needed for the travesty of his or her adult mind. It means typical adults only feel fulfilled when they distract their minds from the horror of their non-existence.

Work is primitive nonsense. It principally provides a method for alienated people to avoid their abysmal alienation. Adults are basically gibbering lunatics who would become very evidently insane if their self-distraction methods were removed from their lives. Adults are somewhat similar to the Doozers in Fraggle Rock, they have a mindless need to build things. It is a simple problem.

The idea of deriving a sense of "belonging" from external phenomena highlights the emptiness of typical minds. I belong to myself because I exist, I don't need to be a member of a club to validate my existence. I own myself, I am myself. Work gives no sense of "ownership." I need no proofs of self-worth. My self is self-evident but most people are not in possession of their minds, they are mindlessly adrift like sheep or Doozers, the sleep of the Walking Dead.

The idea that you would die from doing nothing is merely the recognition that you are already dead inside, which means when all the distractions are removed you are confronted with the nothingness inside you.

Are the arts a worthwhile venture? Most certainly not. People should have the freedom to pursue the arts if they desire but I have an anti-art Dadaist viewpoint. "Art" is very alienated, it is pathetic need to prove to people sensibility when our sensibilities should merely be self evident. In a senselessly insensate world, the alienated proof or art is needed. Art is an obscenity. If you feel joy you don't or shouldn't need to write a poem about your joy, or tell people via any other medium about your joy. You shouldn't need to await payment, respect, thanks or applause for your your joy, or whatever other emotion or philosophical state you want to convey.

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Luddites Dislike Self-Service Machines

I noticed an article by Brandan Sharp (archived here) published via the UK newspaper The Independent (18th March 2014): "Are self-service machines in our supermarkets really the way forward?"

The essence of the article is a Luddite fear of machines in supermarkets. It is feared robots are stealing our jobs, which is a tiresome trope you've probably heard before.

The Editor's Note states: "Brendan Sharp's article was notable for two reasons: clarity of argument and aptness of subject. The threat to manual workers from automation is a challenge facing all advanced societies."

Brendan wrote: "With such a high unemployment rate, combined with the liability of self-service machines, perhaps there should be a mandatory number of manned customer tills to cater for the varying demands of our retail culture."

Below are my comments including replies to my comments.

I disagree strongly. Automation is not a problem. Yes machines can be stupid but they will become smarter. Already I think self-service automation is generally quicker. I definitely don't think Brendan Sharp's article has "clarity of argument." The "threat to manual workers" is merely a failure to explore intelligent possibilities. With a slight bit a research Brendan might have discovered the #BasicIncome concept, it is regarding everyone receiving a totally unconditional income without needing to work or look for work. Basic Income would be enough to live on and it cannot be withdrawn. So the future entails the freedom to not work because cheap automation has replaced manual labour. A person of the future in receipt of Basic Income has no financial pressure therefore they can devote their time to whatever project they desire, such as designing novel products via 3D-printing then setting up a kick-starter campaign to sell their inventions thereby supplementing their basic income. Free from the drudgery of manual labour, via the financial security of Basic Income, people will in the not too distant future unleash their creativity and intelligence.

"Irish Lass" replied:
Yes, SingularityUtopia - it sounds fantastic.... and familiar. In the 1970s, when I was just starting out as a computer programmer, the talk everywhere was of how computers would free us all up so that we would not have to work for a living. Did that happen? Did it heck! In actual fact, the more computers can do, the more individual human employees are expected to do......because the computers have made it possible to do more. I have heard of many people being made redundant because of computers, and there is certainly an increase in the number of people who don't work and who live off the taxes taken from those who have to, but no, I see no sign of any utopia on the horizon. Your Basic Income certainly sounds very like social security benefits - and I don't think most people find living on those very utopian!

In the 70s you didn't have Watson, Siri, Google Now, Cortana. You didn't even have the Web back then. We now live in very different age. There is actually a pending Swiss referendum for the implementation of Basic Income. It would be silly to think a radical future can never happen merely because initial predictions were way too overoptimistic. I think what most people find troublesome about living on benefits is the hostility and constant pressure to not claim benefits. That pressure (hatred) would not be evident regarding the unconditional Basic Income. You mention people being made redundant due to automation thus surely you should see the value of a totally unconditional benefit that cannot be withdrawn. The answer is not to abolish machines in a Luddite manner. People need to understand that in the not too distant future nobody will need to work, which is where Basic Income fills the gap.

"flighty2" replied:
We were told all this in the 1960's on the BBC programme 'Tomorrow's World'; people would work a three day week etc. - didn't happen. Ironic that governments are bribing people to have even more unnecessary children; and the Swiss economy is hardly a comparable model to use in the UK.

The Swiss Basic Income referendum demonstrates how Basic Income is not a science fiction 'Tomorrow's World' fantasy. Yes the UK economy is slightly different to Switzerland but the Swiss are not aliens on Mars, there is some similarity. Merely because some predictions were wrong (overly premature) in the 60s this does not mean the predication can never happen. There is not some weird magic regarding premature predictions where if you predict something early it means it can never happen. So the reality is we have the Swiss showing us how Basic Income could be implemented and the world around us is overflowing with very tangible examples of radical technology with a clear potential to improve over the next couple of decades.

Friday, 24 January 2014

Time Travel Help Summary late 2013 early 2014

Every Internet log is a type of time travel whereby the past reaches into the future, so at the beginning of 2014 I will summarize the year 2013 to give some context for the time travel, then I will speculate, in a fun way, regarding the possibility of time travel. I wonder why super-human beings from our distant future haven't yet sent some help back in time to me now? Perhaps I have previously not stated my case clearly, thus this is why time travellers never help or maybe time is simply preposterous? It's just for fun, but then again you never know. Maybe after posting these words time travellers from the future will help me? Winning the lottery would be nice :-)

I think the passage of time is a very interesting topic because it clearly highlights the issue of cause and consequence, our ability to change the world via our actions, albeit in an accelerated mode. The acceleration is an appealing fiction because often life in pre-Singularity idiot-technology times is painfully slow. A few of notable time-travel films are Groundhog Day, Click, Back to The Future.

So, for fun, here is my message in a bottle to the future, which I throw into the cyber-sea of a turbulent NSA-dominated epoch. I write to you from the era of Snowden and Assange. Google was also recently in the news regarding the acquisition of DeepMind, which entailed the implementation of an AI ethics board. The future is being shaped!

NSA PRISM cheat sheet, Dish Fire and more:

Life leading up January 2014 elucidates a very stupid epoch. The stupidity will likely continue for at least a few years more. In 2013 the Daily Mail was continued its drive to heavily censor the Internet, via mentioning the views of Naomi Wolf. Naomi ignores how the pre-Internet sex-crimes of Jack the Ripper, Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Brady, or Dennis Nielsen existed before the Internet. Naomi thinks the Internet is making sexual relationships empty and violent. She makes the mistake of thinking correlation implies causation, whereas dysfunctional sex is a problem before the Internet. It is easy to blame the Internet for everything but humans were idiots long before the Internet.

Another example of human stupidity in late 2013 was regarding medical experts stated James Bond would not be able to stand up due to the amount of alcohol he fictionally consumes. I commented:

I am concerned about the long term impact of Spiderman's DNA mutation, I will need to take a blood sample from Spiderman to run tests. It is possible Spiderman could develop cancer, we will need to monitor his situation, likewise for the Incredible Hulk. Oh actually, hold on, IT'S FICTION! James Bond is not really a Spy, he doesn't really exist and I am pretty sure he doesn't actually get drunk when filming, it is acting, creative literature. Superman can't really dodge bullets, and don't get me started on the X-Men. Also do you know when there is a fist fight in films, and one tough guy punches another tough guy thus making a loud whacking thunderclap noise (Roadhouse), that's a special effect, in real life it doesn't make a loud whacking-crack noise when you hit someone in the face, it is more reminiscent of a soft, sloggy, squishy flump similar to hitting a pillow or a pudding. Also do you know when there is a night-time scene in the movies and you can see clearly what is going on, well in real life you would NOT really see that much detail via a camera thus in movies there is LOTS of artificial lighting for night-scenes thereby wrongly making the night-time scene very bright, look closely next time you are watching a night-time scene being filmed on a supposedly dark street or in a supposedly dark bedroom, and you will detect lots of artificial light (really bright). Seriously, don't believe what you see via the movies, the actors are merely acting, it is not real, characters in novels don't really exist.

Some other views of mine about future utopia focused on how some people want to work for ever. People are very odd if they worry life will be boring or purposeless when there are no jobs. Do people really need to fill their time with the drudgery of work to avoid their boring, purposeless minds? The reality of Post-Scarcity is anyone will easily be able to print, from easily accessible resources in their immediate vicinity, a fleet of intergalactic nanotech spaceships equipped with the latest super-human artificial intelligence, nanobots, and many other kinds of robots. If you are bored you can zoom off into Space to create a Jupiter-sized Space station. You will be able to create a planet or numerous planets identical to Earth, the future is far from boring.

Post-Scarcity means resources are limitless, which means everything is free, which means there is no need for any jobs, government, or economy due to total automation. Access to the limitless resources of Space, combined with ultra-efficient usage of resources, means everything will be free and limitless. It is all about technological progress accelerating. Instead of being boring we are approaching the most dramatic and explosive event in the history of life on Earth, very likely more dramatic than the entire history of the universe. People who want to work forever resemble Doozers from Fraggle Rock, note Episode 106: The Preachification of Convincing John where the Doozer became depressed when Fraggles stopped eating their buildings. Doozers want to work forever: "Unlike Fraggles, Doozers love to work all day long, and they hate playing games."

The Mechanical Philosophy of Time Travel

Anyway, the important part. Time freaking travel! I am running out of time. I briefly say the future is now (Moby). These words exist in the future, it always has been. I type these words and instantly the future changes. I create the future via these words thus I exist in the future, my will now is in the future.

Any changes a time-traveller makes to the past will not change their future, which means a time-traveller can do anything in the past without fear of altering the future, or more precisely the changes in the past the are all the time-traveller has even known despite the changes happening after the past has happened. If a time traveller does make changes in the past this means their future had always been altered according to the changes made before the changes were made. A time-traveller cannot harm their future but they can create benefit in the past in the same way anyone can create benefit in whatever present they are in. It is merely a matter of using your power in the present you are in to make the world a better place, which is easier to do if you are a futuristic time-traveller circa year 2014 because your power should be vastly greater than the people of this era. If a time-traveller from the future decides to apparently change something in the past they will find they have merely created the world they already knew before their supposed change, likewise if they make no changes, thus they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. This could seem paradoxical because their future existed before they travelled back in time to make the change, but this supposed pardoning can easily be explained via awareness of how a chain of events prior to their change has stretched from the past into their future-present, which may now be the past if they are here in the year 2014. The chain of events from the past compels you the time-traveller to act in a specific way, they or you are compelled to make the change, thus the change existed in the future before the change was apparently made because an unbreakable chain of actions preceding the change entailed the inevitability of the change being made. There was an unavoidable compulsion for the change to me made, thus long before it had supposedly happened it had already happened due the seeds in the past reaching forward compelling the time traveller to come back to make the change. The various causes and consequences stretched in the future demanding a futuristic time-traveller visits the past to makes changes according to my will, or the will of others. This is merely a matter of the past shaping the future. The entirety of the future is determined via the past. The subtle difference of the word persiflage or asseveration compared to other unused words will have profound ramifications in the manner of a butterfly flapping its wings, for the want of a nail.

Via sharply aware intelligence the chain of causes and consequences can be shaped in a specific way to make certain futuristic situations inevitable. This inevitability compels the time-traveller in the future to act according to this blog-post. The time-traveller cannot avoid making the changes because the traveller is wholly shaped by the past, in the way we all are, which is the only reason I am writing this. We are an unbroken chain of consequences compelled to do what previous generations wanted us to do. It is the collective human will where we are all connected in the shared desire for a better world. The issue with time-travel and intelligence (advanced technology), is the power to shape reality has reached a level of exceptional control thus the changes can seem to defy reality but this is not the case, it is merely a massive expansion of what humans have always done. We shape the future, we shape our future, via the knowledge of the past impacting upon our minds thereby determining our actions.

Imagine a ball dropped from a high building. The change made by a futuristic time-traveller in the past, circa year 2014, or any other year relating to this blog-post, it is merely a matter of the ball hitting the ground. I've dropped this blog-post to fall into the future thereby unavoidably altering events in a certain way. You see the ball coming and then you act. You hit the ground creating the ripples from the ball, ramifications, which I created by dropping the ball. Your actions are my actions controlled via these words reaching into the future. This blog-post dropped into the future means the time-traveller inevitably comes the era of the blog-post to examine this blog-post and myself then you the time traveller makes the changes to reality accordingly via your advanced technology. It is all a matter of will, or insanity. I act in a manner indicative of the changes being inevitable, in a manner of changes happening or already happened, because the change has already happened via this wilful blog-post changing the future in a specific way. I merely create a pocket in reality to guide your actions, the ripples of a ball dropped into your mind, thus you see your changes to my reality fit perfectly with my intentions or the intention of the future, or the past. Just in case it isn't clear I want you to help me win the lottery. Perhaps I will add more to this later.

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

Notes from the pre-Singularity era:

S. 2045 |