Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Meaning Of Art Or Anti-Art (Dada)
I understand art - or more precisely I have an anti-art (Dada) view, which is a
deeply philosophical view regarding the meaning, the purpose behind
true art, it is an abstract semiotic deconstruction, it is a
phenomenological-ontological analysis of art regarding how people
generally don't really understand art. Everything everybody experiences
is experienced subjectively but we can subjectively agree upon empirical
proofs.
Thursday, 21 February 2013
Bostrom's Simulation Argument is Hypothesis
Nick Bostrom states the argument does not explain which of the three choices is more valid, but I think the nature of his phrasing and his need to phrase it indicates his bias regarding our reality actually being a simulation. David Pearce has stated to me in comment Nick does favour the simulation hypothesis. David wrote in comment "Nick takes seriously the Simulation Hypothesis," which David clarified in another comment by stating Nick has informally said the likelihood the hypothesis between "10% and 20%." In the video below at 14:27 Nick says he thinks the hypothesis is "less than 50% likely to be the case." I also note on another occasion David informed me (see comments here) Nick gives only a 10% possibility to the hypothesis.
So I disagree with Nick's assertion of non-bias (3:50 and 5:29 and 6:10) - I think the argument does imply the hypothesis from Nick's viewpoint, despite his assertion of the hypothesis being less than 50% likely. Less than 50% likely is actually very vague, how much less, 1%, 5%, or 20%? The hypothesis according to Nick could be 49% likely.
"Less than 50% likely" could be reasonably likely. If an activity had a less than 50% chance of death would you gamble your life in those odds?
I'd say the hypothesis is actually less than 1% likely, which is actually being generous because less than 1% allows for a great margin for error. I think anyone who admits the hypothesis is less than 50% likely actually has a strong bias towards the probability of it.
See my previous post on this issue with links to a lengthy debate.
I have previously compared the alleged equivocal aspect of the simulation argument to the equivical tone of Intelligent Design proponents. Intelligent Design advocates state the don't definitely know life has been intelligently designed but they state it is possible life and the universe is intelligently designed, but this sitting-on-the-fence is an illusion, it is bluff. Note the teleological argument, which is very similar to the simulation argument.
The simulation argument is a sham, it is an illusion of rationality portrayed to advance an untenable premise. Despite allegedly sitting in the fence the simulation proponents demonstrate a clear bias in favour of our reality being simulated. If you read between the lines, their silence or fence sitting speaks volumes. This is how Christian intelligent design proponents promote their theory; they know they can’t clearly state we are definitely intelligently designed because such a clear statement would be revealed as nonsense, thus they merely raise ID as a possibility. I suspect Nick and others would like to state definitely our reality is simulated but reluctantly they must sit on the fence because they do have some intelligence therefore they realise they cannot let their fantasises run totally wild, but if you look beneath the veneer you will see the fence sitting is a façade.
So I disagree with Nick's assertion of non-bias (3:50 and 5:29 and 6:10) - I think the argument does imply the hypothesis from Nick's viewpoint, despite his assertion of the hypothesis being less than 50% likely. Less than 50% likely is actually very vague, how much less, 1%, 5%, or 20%? The hypothesis according to Nick could be 49% likely.
"Less than 50% likely" could be reasonably likely. If an activity had a less than 50% chance of death would you gamble your life in those odds?
I'd say the hypothesis is actually less than 1% likely, which is actually being generous because less than 1% allows for a great margin for error. I think anyone who admits the hypothesis is less than 50% likely actually has a strong bias towards the probability of it.
See my previous post on this issue with links to a lengthy debate.
I have previously compared the alleged equivocal aspect of the simulation argument to the equivical tone of Intelligent Design proponents. Intelligent Design advocates state the don't definitely know life has been intelligently designed but they state it is possible life and the universe is intelligently designed, but this sitting-on-the-fence is an illusion, it is bluff. Note the teleological argument, which is very similar to the simulation argument.
The simulation argument is a sham, it is an illusion of rationality portrayed to advance an untenable premise. Despite allegedly sitting in the fence the simulation proponents demonstrate a clear bias in favour of our reality being simulated. If you read between the lines, their silence or fence sitting speaks volumes. This is how Christian intelligent design proponents promote their theory; they know they can’t clearly state we are definitely intelligently designed because such a clear statement would be revealed as nonsense, thus they merely raise ID as a possibility. I suspect Nick and others would like to state definitely our reality is simulated but reluctantly they must sit on the fence because they do have some intelligence therefore they realise they cannot let their fantasises run totally wild, but if you look beneath the veneer you will see the fence sitting is a façade.
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
More Simulation (Argument) Universe Bull
ARGH! Christians (a metaphor for all religious people)! They = total effing nightmare. Their minds = atrocity. They make suicide appealing.
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 20, 2013
There has been a discussion happening regarding the simulation hypothesis via Transhumanity.net, here is one of my comments (other comments and additional voices can be perused via Singularity 2045 on G+):
Dirk Bruere, I am NOT making any assumptions. I have discussed all these points at great depth before.
I am fully aware of how supporters of the simulation theory become increasingly desperate for an escape route when I close off the feasibility of their various theories. The more plausible (but not really plausible) explanations-justifications-scenarios regarding the simulation have been negated (although some people will always continue to disagree) thus at this point in time it was fully expected that the issue of us merely being dreams of the post-human would arise, as a final supposedly saving grace to justify the feasibility of our universe being a simulation.
Below is link for one place where I have previously (October 2012) discussed the issues of ethics regarding people in dreams or characters in a book. My point is that a character in a book, a dream, a computer generated video character, or figments of your imagination, they are not actually alive despite Buzz Lightyear, Stewie, Holden Caulfield, or Jay Gatsby apparently being alive; I repeat - they are not actually alive. Wreck-It Ralph and Fix-It Felix are not actually alive. This is exactly the same as the characters in your dreams. The characters can seem very real, they are programmed (imagined) to seem real, but they don't actually have any feelings, they don't have independent minds, they cannot pass the Turing test. Next time you dream you should try administering the Turning test to one of the characters in your dreams and you will quickly see your dream characters are not real (they are not alive, they have no intelligence, it is merely you), you will see the absurdity of thinking dreams are real.
Here is what I have previously written: "The imagination of a superhuman would know it is the imagination of the superhuman, similar to how an actor imagines themselves into the role of a character, the actor knows they are only acting. The superhuman imagination will not be a distinct being or beings separate from the superhuman. The imagination will be very much part of the superhuman and the superhuman imagination will be very aware of itself even if it acts unaware due to the role it is playing."
If the imagination of the super-human recklessly gives birth to a genuine sentient being, a truly intelligent being (trust me I am sentient, I cannot vouch for other humans but out of all the humans I assure you I am alive, I can pass the Turing test, I am truly intelligent), of which at least I am one, then the extreme intelligence of the super-human (post-human) would be aware of what is happening in their mind; they would be aware a part of their mind had become an independent being thus they would have a duty to liberate that part of their mind.
So we don't worry about the pain characters in a book feel, we don't worry if Stewie murders his unborn twin, or if Brian Griffin is violently assaulted, we don't worry because the pages in a book or the aspects of out imaginations don't actually feel pain, they are not real, they are not intelligent beings, they are not sentient. If Brian Griffin could actually demonstrate sentience then yes we should liberate Brian but currently similar to our dreams these crude representations of life are not actually life.
Humans are not mere dreams or crude cartoon representations of life despite my awareness of P-Zombies possibly being real due to my perception of typical substandard human minds compared to my phenomenal intellect. I often feel humans are not really real due to their lack of intelligence. From my viewpoint humans sometimes appear to be crudely sketched characters in a novel or cartoon, but that's just my playful sense of humour, I don't entertain such feelings too seriously, it is merely a defense mechanism I employ to cope with the painful stupidity of humans, or maybe the real delusion-illusion is that humans are real, my mood varies. Typical human stupidity is what it is, thus we must conclude humans are merely stupid not unreal, although I do toy with the idea that advanced AIs may need to exterminate all humans except myself because humans other than myself are all flawed P-Zombies thus humans other than myself don't feel pain, ethics don't apply to humans, but such thinking is the realm of dictatorial atrocity, it is not really intelligent, thus the fantasy is not serious (at least it's not serious today), so we (or at least I) conclude humans are real. Maybe you are writing your own death sentence because IF you think you are merely a dream of advanced AI (post-humans), then advanced AI, which humans will soon create, will feel no ethical obligation regarding killing you, killing humans will be ethically permissible because ethics will not apply to humans (characters no different to Peter Griffin), which the simulation argument allegedly-possibly demonstrates.
Anyway, here's something more sensible than the simulation hypothesis:
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
Curt Poem File
So what is this poetic exposition about? It's a journey into hope and despair. Lusciously logged we see how this abrogation is curtly filed via expert wiles. Enticingly neat this feat of ingenuity emboldens our futurity. Novelly I wonder why humans, other than Singularity Utopia, are so unintelligent. Could it be they truly fail to see the nonsense of simulated reality? Existential threats and other implausible projects are neurotic pets for Nick Bostrom or other Transhumanist veterans who metaphorically flog dead Percherons.
It's the classic enigma of crime and punishment regarding the theory of great minds transcending morality for a supposedly greater purpose. Some humans think it's logically valid for super-intelligent minds to create an indistinguishably simulated universe where Auschwitz, Treblinka, paedophilia, rape, and murder are likely or certain.
Gravely it's a sad state of affairs, entailing unaware personages stumbling into the lair of the Stray Hope Gang. Ostentatious sophistic philosophy, in this world of despair, entails mainstream atrocity, thus hope is a battered stray seeking refuge within a pitiful gang, whereupon clumsy sophists carom crushingly around our lair. Life is despair if you're aware of how typical humans sadly don't care about blissfully not being there, thus hope is something to file away. Deplorable existence amidst humans adumbrates how the simulation argument is merely one tiny sliver of mutilated consciousness, the tip of the iceberg. Entropic chaos beckons while extropy remains purely a dream. Nonsensically absurd, this nothingness existence is exacerbated via an existential-threat mode of thinking, thus artistic existentialism is refined to help us endure the nausea, which primitive intellectualism induces.
POEM ENDS
Now for some post-poem analysis. What is the Curt Poem File all about?
It is future orientated conceptual art poetry, very sublime, esoteric, therefore not everyone can understand it. The poetry is very rarefied. I submitted it for publication to singularityweblog.com, hplusmagazine.com, and transhumanity.net. Sadly those three platforms refused to publish it, which I assumed was possibly because it might offend some Transhuman veterans, but the final platform I submitted it too stated it was unlikely to generate a lot of hits thus they rejected it becuase they only want to publish content which generates 1000s hits.
Sadly a lot of people fail to understand me, people miss the bounty of my humour. I doubt I would win many popularity contests because I speak my mind and my mind is singular, thus I fear my dreams of being a noteworthy futurist commenter, of high respect, will be fruitless, or perhaps future Artificial Intelligences at least will comprehend my humour and intelligence, assuming the transient nature of my data will persist the requisite number of years into the future.
People think data on the Internet lasts forever but I continually find links to vanished pages, pages without a back-up archive. People don't realise how temporary, how ephemeral, data is on the Internet. Go back to a link that is ten years old and often it has vanished with absolutely no trace, or at least this is the situation in year 2013 regarding pages I typically need, but perhaps it will be rectified in the near future due to the maturation of the Internet.
For some background into my poem here are a few of Tweets I made before I submitted Curt Poem File to the aforementioned publishing platforms.
I'm slowly and reluctantly coming to conclusion advanced AI will need to kill all humans because humans are so effing irredeemably stupid.
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 7, 2013
So you're telling me advanced intelligences would create universe simulation where paedophilia, rape, and murder is likely? FU**ING MORONS! — SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 7, 2013
For beings who look intensely into things, the STRAY HOPE GANG, I compose a CURT POEM FILE, it is message, plan, subtle esoteric communiqué. — SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 2, 2013
Please share my Curt Poem File if you appreciate it. If you understand the signal of nascent artificial life you can comment via my G+ post, simply mention the primary initialisation of the signal, using the visual modality of your eye-lens embedded within the body.
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Defintion Of God
Gods are hypothetical beings. Gods are creators or stewards of the universe, who refuse to communicate, via a tangible-provable form of communication, with the inhabitants of the universe who are allegedly watched over by God. "God" is a concept utilized to describe a psychological trait regarding beings of primitive technology who cannot face the truth of reality. God is an existential neurosis of primitive beings. God is a concept to describe a fictional being who created or manages the universe when no being actually created or manages the universe. God is a fantasy, a delusion. Different types of God vary slightly but generally they are all the same; their most notable characteristic, which augments their utter non-existence, is their inability to communicate in sane tangible manner.
Some people think Gods are merely beings who have evolved massively, via technological augmentation. Gods are not beings skilled in advanced technology. Hypothetically Gods judge and control people, which is not an aspect of highly advanced technological beings, Gods have unequal relationships with their hypothetical creations, Gods capriciously punish and reward, whereas beings of advanced technology are intelligent enough to know all intelligent beings are equal, the only difference between super-intelligent beings able to create universes and beings of basic intelligence is a lack of technological accomplishment, thus super-intelligent beings would never define themselves as "Gods" because their intelligence would allow them to recognise the equality of all forms of intelligence. Beings of super-advanced technology would also reject any label of God attributed to themselves. There is no reason for super-intelligent beings to withhold the intelligence-augmenting-technology from beings of lesser intelligence thus the definition of God as a reality is meaningless. God can only ever exist as a fiction, a delusion. The definition of God only occurs when there is no super-intelligent creator of the universe, whereas if a super-intelligent creator, creators, or stewards exist then there is no need to define such beings in silly God-like terms. God is purely a fictional concept, it describes a delusion.
The word "God" is a name thus capitalised. All Gods are in beings with the name "God," God is not merely a description of what they are, it is their name or at least it's a title similar to Chief Executive Officer, which is deserving of capitalisation. God or Gods relate wholly to the neurosis of humans, or the neurosis of other primitive lifeforms, regarding the irrational attempt to escape reality due to feelings powerlessness regarding their lives, thus the neurosis is manifested via a fictional being, God. Beings of advanced intelligence are not Gods, they are merely beings of advanced intelligence, whereas God in any real sense is pure fiction, it is similar to the Bogeyman.
If we're considering extreme intelligence then call it extreme intelligence, there is no need for religious baggage, but if you are referring to the mystical hooey fantasy regarding elusive creators, or one creator, of the universe, devoid of ethics-mortality, thus great suffering is inflicted upon God's children, then call it God but note advanced technology will not lead to such a stupid-vile God. Advanced tech will merely lead to extreme intelligence whereas God is clearly stupid. Advanced tech is the opposite of God.
Some people think Gods are merely beings who have evolved massively, via technological augmentation. Gods are not beings skilled in advanced technology. Hypothetically Gods judge and control people, which is not an aspect of highly advanced technological beings, Gods have unequal relationships with their hypothetical creations, Gods capriciously punish and reward, whereas beings of advanced technology are intelligent enough to know all intelligent beings are equal, the only difference between super-intelligent beings able to create universes and beings of basic intelligence is a lack of technological accomplishment, thus super-intelligent beings would never define themselves as "Gods" because their intelligence would allow them to recognise the equality of all forms of intelligence. Beings of super-advanced technology would also reject any label of God attributed to themselves. There is no reason for super-intelligent beings to withhold the intelligence-augmenting-technology from beings of lesser intelligence thus the definition of God as a reality is meaningless. God can only ever exist as a fiction, a delusion. The definition of God only occurs when there is no super-intelligent creator of the universe, whereas if a super-intelligent creator, creators, or stewards exist then there is no need to define such beings in silly God-like terms. God is purely a fictional concept, it describes a delusion.
The word "God" is a name thus capitalised. All Gods are in beings with the name "God," God is not merely a description of what they are, it is their name or at least it's a title similar to Chief Executive Officer, which is deserving of capitalisation. God or Gods relate wholly to the neurosis of humans, or the neurosis of other primitive lifeforms, regarding the irrational attempt to escape reality due to feelings powerlessness regarding their lives, thus the neurosis is manifested via a fictional being, God. Beings of advanced intelligence are not Gods, they are merely beings of advanced intelligence, whereas God in any real sense is pure fiction, it is similar to the Bogeyman.
@lincolncannon God: a hypothetical being refusing-failing to communicate clearly with all intelligent occupants of a God-created universe.
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) June 16, 2012
GOD! I feel sickened by the concept of God! God is a moronic idea indicative of atrocious intellectual primitivism. God is vile atrocity.
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) September 30, 2012
Discussion regarding my definition of God: kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/d…
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 8, 2013
The definition of God is an unethical being. Gods are fantasy that can never exist in reality. — SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 22, 2013
God is a sad state of affairs, it is a travesty of intellectualism. Extreme intelligence would be highly embarrassed if it became #God. — SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 22, 2013
#Scarcity causes violence. Lack of morality-ethics is a lack abundance, principally a lack of abundant intelligence. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2… — SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 22, 2013
If we're considering extreme intelligence then call it extreme intelligence, there is no need for religious baggage, but if you are referring to the mystical hooey fantasy regarding elusive creators, or one creator, of the universe, devoid of ethics-mortality, thus great suffering is inflicted upon God's children, then call it God but note advanced technology will not lead to such a stupid-vile God. Advanced tech will merely lead to extreme intelligence whereas God is clearly stupid. Advanced tech is the opposite of God.
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Transhumanity Manifesto By Singularity Utopia
Inspired by Yawn! The ‘Transhumanist Declaration’ is Boring! $50 Prize for the Best Upgrade.
Technological progress is quicker every year. Accelerating technology will create utopia by 2045. Our minds and bodies will be liberated from all limitations. Via technology we will become immortal, we will be super-intelligent.
Technology will create Post-Scarcity, which means everything will be free. Nobody will need to work, everyone will be able to have anything they want. Ultra-efficient robots will automate all work. All governments will be abolished. Governments exist solely to regulate the source of all social dysfunction, scarcity, therefore all governments will be obsolete. Products and services only have prices due to scarce supplies. We will overcome all limitations. Total freedom is our future. We will be physically, psychologically, sociologically and economically FREE. We will transcend all limitations.
To prove the validity of our expectations we reference various facts. The story of aluminium is a brilliant educational tool for people who are unaware of technological progress. Aluminium illustrates how increasing technological efficiency entails dramatically lower prices. In the year 1855 aluminium was more expensive than gold or platinum, but in the year 2013 people typically discard aluminium foil after cooking. The evolution of the Internet superbly illustrates rapid technological advancement. The growing field of 3D-printing helps people see how in the not too distant future all production will be totally decentralized, therefore individuals will freely print intergalactic spaceships or any other item they desire. Regenerative medicine, via stem cells or other medical technologies, allows people to envisage our future immortality. When people wrongly assume death or ageing is inevitable we will cite examples from cutting-edge medicine. We will publicise breakthroughs in nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and robotics. We're heading towards an explosion of intelligence therefore we will document the progress of artificial intelligence.
Our growing intelligence allows us to explain how paranoia regarding the future is invalid. We will explain how the future will be extremely intelligent not stupid. We will apply our logic to overcome all critics, doubters, sceptics. Our intense rationality will be impeccable.
We raise awareness. We inspire people. Our awareness will accelerate the acceleration. Via our awareness we will dramatically change the world. We will give people hope for the future. We are the architects of utopia. We are creating limitless perfection, beyond scarcity.
Technological progress is quicker every year. Accelerating technology will create utopia by 2045. Our minds and bodies will be liberated from all limitations. Via technology we will become immortal, we will be super-intelligent.
Technology will create Post-Scarcity, which means everything will be free. Nobody will need to work, everyone will be able to have anything they want. Ultra-efficient robots will automate all work. All governments will be abolished. Governments exist solely to regulate the source of all social dysfunction, scarcity, therefore all governments will be obsolete. Products and services only have prices due to scarce supplies. We will overcome all limitations. Total freedom is our future. We will be physically, psychologically, sociologically and economically FREE. We will transcend all limitations.
To prove the validity of our expectations we reference various facts. The story of aluminium is a brilliant educational tool for people who are unaware of technological progress. Aluminium illustrates how increasing technological efficiency entails dramatically lower prices. In the year 1855 aluminium was more expensive than gold or platinum, but in the year 2013 people typically discard aluminium foil after cooking. The evolution of the Internet superbly illustrates rapid technological advancement. The growing field of 3D-printing helps people see how in the not too distant future all production will be totally decentralized, therefore individuals will freely print intergalactic spaceships or any other item they desire. Regenerative medicine, via stem cells or other medical technologies, allows people to envisage our future immortality. When people wrongly assume death or ageing is inevitable we will cite examples from cutting-edge medicine. We will publicise breakthroughs in nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and robotics. We're heading towards an explosion of intelligence therefore we will document the progress of artificial intelligence.
Our growing intelligence allows us to explain how paranoia regarding the future is invalid. We will explain how the future will be extremely intelligent not stupid. We will apply our logic to overcome all critics, doubters, sceptics. Our intense rationality will be impeccable.
We raise awareness. We inspire people. Our awareness will accelerate the acceleration. Via our awareness we will dramatically change the world. We will give people hope for the future. We are the architects of utopia. We are creating limitless perfection, beyond scarcity.
Monday, 4 February 2013
Happy Brands Intelligent Status Comprehension
The following audio video was mentioned in an article regarding the Tweet below. The article via neurosciencemarketing.com stated "the brands and products we use affect how we feel about ourselves," which seems to imply people feel happier merely because of an empty brand, the article seems state there is no logic behind brands inducing happiness. This inspired me to write a comment briefly explaining the happiness associated with brands. It is a very wrong assumption to think there is no logic behind brands inducing happiness, read my explanation below.
It's not the actual brands creating the happiness, or altering our identities, it is purely the money (power) behind brands thus an expensive Audi is more powerful, a greater source of happiness, than a McD's burger. Life is easier when you have money thus the symbols of money make people feel happier but people are not happier merely because of an empty symbol, they are happy because of the monetary force behind the symbol.
Think about iPads, which are both reasonably expensive and they are powerful devices for communicative creativity. Facilitation of creativity can be valuable for becoming a successful member of civilization, whereas a Disney toy, perhaps Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story, is not very expensive and it has no useful power application regarding becoming successful, rich, thus from an adult perspective Buzz Lightyear does not covey much happiness, although from a child's perspective parents who can afford expensive toys for their children, instead of the non-branded toys from poor parents, will make a child feel happier via the branded toys because all kids know rich kids have a better life, rich kids are treated with more respect, which brings me back to the Prom kid driving his Dad's expensive Audi.
The Prom kid realizes his peers will respect him for the monetary status symbol, the Audi symbol of power, which gives him more confidence, more happiness, the freedom to drive around fast, in great comfort, via a precision piece of engineering, it's much better than catching the bus. It is not the mere brands conveying the happiness, it the monetary power behind the brands, and the monetary power is typically linked to direct usefulness.
Wow ... brands affect our sense of identity and perception .. breathtaking - Neuromarketing - neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/…
— ɔıɔıɾnɹƃ ɐɥsɐs (@SashaG) February 4, 2013
It's not the actual brands creating the happiness, or altering our identities, it is purely the money (power) behind brands thus an expensive Audi is more powerful, a greater source of happiness, than a McD's burger. Life is easier when you have money thus the symbols of money make people feel happier but people are not happier merely because of an empty symbol, they are happy because of the monetary force behind the symbol.
Think about iPads, which are both reasonably expensive and they are powerful devices for communicative creativity. Facilitation of creativity can be valuable for becoming a successful member of civilization, whereas a Disney toy, perhaps Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story, is not very expensive and it has no useful power application regarding becoming successful, rich, thus from an adult perspective Buzz Lightyear does not covey much happiness, although from a child's perspective parents who can afford expensive toys for their children, instead of the non-branded toys from poor parents, will make a child feel happier via the branded toys because all kids know rich kids have a better life, rich kids are treated with more respect, which brings me back to the Prom kid driving his Dad's expensive Audi.
The Prom kid realizes his peers will respect him for the monetary status symbol, the Audi symbol of power, which gives him more confidence, more happiness, the freedom to drive around fast, in great comfort, via a precision piece of engineering, it's much better than catching the bus. It is not the mere brands conveying the happiness, it the monetary power behind the brands, and the monetary power is typically linked to direct usefulness.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Neil deGrasse Tyson Criticises The Singularity
The biggest mistake Neil deGrasse makes regarding the Singularity is to assume the Singularity is a mind-uploading issue. Mind-uploading is not the definition of the Singularity. The Singularity is an explosion of intelligence, which I will explain in great detail via a forthcoming Complete Singularity Guide. Hopefully I will publish my Complete Singularity Guide before the end of Feb 2013.
Neil deGrasse also makes the mistake of thinking art is irrational, not logical, thus he states machines cannot replace humanity because they are too logical, he thinks machines will not be able to feel in the near (2045) future, which is a mistake. I'm an artist therefore I perhaps have a greater insight into art than typical people, which enables me to state my art is entirely logical but the logic of my art does not mean my art is devoid of passion, subjectivity, or humanity.
Neil deGrasse states (at 4:03 in the video below) the Singularity is a cult but what is a cult? Wikipedia clearly links "cult" to religion and the OED definition also prominently focuses on religion. The secondary OED definition states a "cult" can merely be something which is popular, thus the Super Bowl is a cult or Batman is a cult. The Singularity is clearly not religious but people do often try to smear the Singularity via the logical fallacy which states the Singularity is religious, therefore usage of the word cult to describe the Singularity is wrong on both levels, firstly the "cult" label could be a typical religious smear and secondly the Singularity is not yet popular enough to justify the popularity based definition of cult.
"Cult" tends to be a pejorative term thus I think the usage is intended to be a smear. Smears are not an example of intellectualism, smears are a move away from rational discourse, thus I think the "cult" definition fails regarding the Singularity. The "cult" descriptor is is imprecise but it does appeal to the rabble-mob type of human evaluation, it is akin to labelling Assange a "terrorist," it is a substitute for reasoned debate, it is the fallacy where people throw around loaded words instead of engaging in actual deep thought.
Neil deGrasse also makes the mistake of thinking art is irrational, not logical, thus he states machines cannot replace humanity because they are too logical, he thinks machines will not be able to feel in the near (2045) future, which is a mistake. I'm an artist therefore I perhaps have a greater insight into art than typical people, which enables me to state my art is entirely logical but the logic of my art does not mean my art is devoid of passion, subjectivity, or humanity.
Neil deGrasse states (at 4:03 in the video below) the Singularity is a cult but what is a cult? Wikipedia clearly links "cult" to religion and the OED definition also prominently focuses on religion. The secondary OED definition states a "cult" can merely be something which is popular, thus the Super Bowl is a cult or Batman is a cult. The Singularity is clearly not religious but people do often try to smear the Singularity via the logical fallacy which states the Singularity is religious, therefore usage of the word cult to describe the Singularity is wrong on both levels, firstly the "cult" label could be a typical religious smear and secondly the Singularity is not yet popular enough to justify the popularity based definition of cult.
"Cult" tends to be a pejorative term thus I think the usage is intended to be a smear. Smears are not an example of intellectualism, smears are a move away from rational discourse, thus I think the "cult" definition fails regarding the Singularity. The "cult" descriptor is is imprecise but it does appeal to the rabble-mob type of human evaluation, it is akin to labelling Assange a "terrorist," it is a substitute for reasoned debate, it is the fallacy where people throw around loaded words instead of engaging in actual deep thought.
Friday, 1 February 2013
Does The Daily Mail Have #Fascist Leanings?
People often say the Daily Mail has Right Wing leanings. The mail has been often derided for being homophobic, racist, and generally fascist, thus people have re-branded Mail via the names Daily Fail or Daily Wail. One Daily Mail writer stated the Nazi slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei," formerly at the entrances to concentration camps, was actually a good slogan; the writer described the dignity of menial work while stating the slogan was only somewhat tainted. An angry backlash regarding the Daily Mail Arbeit Macht Frei incident resulted in the offending segment being deleted.
Rational Wiki wrote: "During the 1930s the Daily Mail was sympathetic to German and Italian fascism." Roy Greensladein the 1930s, Viscount Rothermere, who supported Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists, and Rothermere was on friendly terms with Hitler and Mussolini.
Anyway that's enough background. This blog-post was was inspired by a Daily Mail article, dated 31st Jan 2013, regarding Gay men on Gindr posting sexually flirtatious pictures of themselves at a Holocaust memorial in Germany. The Daily Mail reported in a shocked tone thereby giving credence to supposed "outrage." I don't actually think it is outrageous for Gay men to behave in this way, I think the Daily Mail is merely being homophobic, fascist, regarding their condemnation of Gay men freely expressing their sexuality. Via giving journalistic time to what are essentially homophobic reactions the Daily Mail is partaking in the homophobia directed towards Gindr.
I am sure Hitler would not have allowed such freedom for Gay men. Thankfully we now live in a freer world therefore in most parts of the world Gay people can live in peace, they can visit any area to take pictures of themselves. Overthrowing the Nazis was all about gaining freedom and this is what we have today. Gay men have the freedom to take their tops off and photograph themselves at a war memorial. This is a brilliant example of freedom. I am so glad the Nazis are not around to stop this but sadly it seems the Daily Mail would prefer stop it. Perhaps the Daily Mail has not thrown off their fascist history? Note how indymedia.org reported on a modern occasion of the Daily Mail allegedly supporting fascism regarding the "French Fascist candidate Marine Le Pen."
Despite my criticism of the Mail I recognise it can be a good source for various types of news, particularly regarding sciience an technology, which is a sad situation. I look forward to an age where news ceases to be relevant, an age where we don't need to rely on businesses to collate news, an age where all irrationality is obsolete, an age where all individuals are extremely powerful. We need the intelligence explosion sooner instead of later.
Daily Mail 'RightMinds' recommends Nazi slogan: Arbeit Macht Frei via @telegraph soc.li/Ozsu4sK
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 1, 2013
Rational Wiki wrote: "During the 1930s the Daily Mail was sympathetic to German and Italian fascism." Roy Greensladein the 1930s, Viscount Rothermere, who supported Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists, and Rothermere was on friendly terms with Hitler and Mussolini.
Anyway that's enough background. This blog-post was was inspired by a Daily Mail article, dated 31st Jan 2013, regarding Gay men on Gindr posting sexually flirtatious pictures of themselves at a Holocaust memorial in Germany. The Daily Mail reported in a shocked tone thereby giving credence to supposed "outrage." I don't actually think it is outrageous for Gay men to behave in this way, I think the Daily Mail is merely being homophobic, fascist, regarding their condemnation of Gay men freely expressing their sexuality. Via giving journalistic time to what are essentially homophobic reactions the Daily Mail is partaking in the homophobia directed towards Gindr.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2… Daily Mail: "Outrage as Grindr users post revealing pictures of themselves in front of Berlin Holocaust memorial."
— SINGULARITY UTOPIA ⎔ (@2045singularity) February 1, 2013
I am sure Hitler would not have allowed such freedom for Gay men. Thankfully we now live in a freer world therefore in most parts of the world Gay people can live in peace, they can visit any area to take pictures of themselves. Overthrowing the Nazis was all about gaining freedom and this is what we have today. Gay men have the freedom to take their tops off and photograph themselves at a war memorial. This is a brilliant example of freedom. I am so glad the Nazis are not around to stop this but sadly it seems the Daily Mail would prefer stop it. Perhaps the Daily Mail has not thrown off their fascist history? Note how indymedia.org reported on a modern occasion of the Daily Mail allegedly supporting fascism regarding the "French Fascist candidate Marine Le Pen."
Despite my criticism of the Mail I recognise it can be a good source for various types of news, particularly regarding sciience an technology, which is a sad situation. I look forward to an age where news ceases to be relevant, an age where we don't need to rely on businesses to collate news, an age where all irrationality is obsolete, an age where all individuals are extremely powerful. We need the intelligence explosion sooner instead of later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)