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 editor.net.

.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.

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

S. 2045 | plus@singularity-2045.org