Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#1  Postby Fr1sket » July 10th, 2017, 3:46 pm

At some point during the existence of mankind, we will need to sit down, everyone, as a literal society and look at where we are going as a whole.

Today's society is slowly crumbling with continuous moral wars separating whole countries and making the people hate one another. Half the world is at war with itself because of ridiculous religious reasons. People who are not distracted by what fails most of humanity in its race for the collection of money, fame and power. Take the rise of transgenderism, the morphing of genders, political correctness that rises far above necessity, politics becoming a game to those with the power, the developments in AI which will eventually result in cyber humans. We are slowly taking apart the morals and foundations that make us human. The lower ranks in society are slowly but steadily, brainwashed by people with more money and power. People who run the media are those with strongest power to change humanity at this point, for the worse if that may be their choosing.

The majority of people seem to ignore this, but we are on a rapid decline to complete annihilation, since pretty soon even the most obnoxious of people will be violently brought to their senses by creations that go against their entire existence, including AI.

The great worry here is no one is prepared for this. We're all going about the turmoil in our lives oblivious to the reality around us.

That's why i believe the Illuminati existing would be a good thing, or the creation of something similar. That governs over it all. That should be anonymous in order for their decisions not to be affected by society's opinion of them. To act purely with the intention of creating and preserving a society that will last for thousands of years hence.

I’m fully aware most people completely disagree with this, understandably. There can be many steps taken to avoid people with narcistic or sociopathetic tendencies, or people that would cause evil. The issue is, ruled by our chaotic selves, our needs are seflish - the greatest number of people who hold a certain selfish opinion determine the rules set by the higher powers that be.
User avatar
Fr1sket
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 5 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2017, 3:22 pm

Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#2  Postby Greta » July 10th, 2017, 7:30 pm

Actually, there is an enormous amount of talk about how to implement intelligent technology without superseding ourselves, both in the mainstream and amongst AI experts.

I don't fear the technology, only some of the wealthy entities who control it. Let's face it, in the next century the world's population is going to reduce dramatically. Possibly much sooner than that. Due pressures caused by population and resource use something major will surely happen, be it warfare, famine, disease, natural disasters or rogue inventions, possibly all of the above. Poor countries will be first and then their refugees will have ramifications in all surrounding areas.

Who will be left standing as the dust settles? Probably two groups - those who are most melded with technology and bands of survivalists.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5407 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#3  Postby -1- » July 10th, 2017, 9:50 pm

Fr1sket wrote:We are slowly taking apart the morals and foundations that make us human.

I think that that's actually a good thing.

Maybe AI and humans together can create a new humanoid, which will be much better than the god-created one. The god-created one (us) has so many problems that it's really ready for the trashcan by now.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#4  Postby Jklint » July 10th, 2017, 10:36 pm

Fr1sket wrote:The great worry here is no one is prepared for this. We're all going about the turmoil in our lives oblivious to the reality around us.


One can attempt all kinds of insightful, meaningful or profound things to say about it but the bottom line is most of the problems we have didn't have to happen. We are the super screw-ups who couldn't help themselves in being its cause based on our own character deformations. If we truly "evolved" into the garbage species we seem to be then fate is fully justified in eradicating this toxin from the surface of the planet. We are the deformities fated to lose since we can't manage, even for the sake of our collective well-being, a compromise with reality.

The "illuminati" you mention will also never happen even with best intentions since, as humans, they too are defiled with the same character flaws they are meant to reform. The human race has been infected far too long for any such countermeasures to gain the upper hand. What's the definition of a loser who had every opportunity to win and who or what would be left to regret its disappearance?
Jklint
 
Posts: 1171 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#5  Postby Burning ghost » July 11th, 2017, 3:55 am

At some point during the existence of mankind, we will need to sit down, everyone, as a literal society and look at where we are going as a whole.


A great change will need to come before we're capable of doing this!

-- Updated July 11th, 2017, 4:16 am to add the following --

Today's society is slowly crumbling with continuous moral wars separating whole countries and making the people hate one another. Half the world is at war with itself because of ridiculous religious reasons. People who are not distracted by what fails most of humanity in its race for the collection of money, fame and power. Take the rise of transgenderism, the morphing of genders, political correctness that rises far above necessity, politics becoming a game to those with the power, the developments in AI which will eventually result in cyber humans. We are slowly taking apart the morals and foundations that make us human. The lower ranks in society are slowly but steadily, brainwashed by people with more money and power. People who run the media are those with strongest power to change humanity at this point, for the worse if that may be their choosing.


Is todays society doing this? I think we're in a stable period compared to the rest of human history. So point one is false, skewed bias.

Is half the world at war because of ridiculous religious reasons? I don't think this is completely true. In some instances religion is the root of war, but generally it is more about economic wants and needs driving the use of religious divides to create and push agendas. So point two is again not entirely true and presents a skewed bias.

The rise of transgenderism? This is about recognition of a minority group not "morphing of genders". Most people are not transgender. This is not the same as saying it is a new phenomenon (which it isn't).

Politics becoming a game to those in power? Always has been and always will be. Politics is a very human game and a struggle for "power" of some sort or another.

We are slowly taking apart morals and foundations that make us human? How so? What do you mean? I could interpret this is so many different ways I cannot either agree or disagree with what your point is? We are human.

Lower ranks? Who ranks "lower"?

People who run the media are those with strongest power to change humanity at this point, for the worse if that may be their choosing. Now here is something! The issue is the opposite is becoming more and more true from day-to-day. The media is falling more and more into the hands of the public. We are being inundated with information from many different positions. There is no "ruling body" in the media and the "main stream media" is becoming a part of the greater network of information our there. This is the part of human technology that is forcing us toward my initial response to you ... we are moving toward having to talk as a community of humans due to the internet and acceleration in communications technologies. The rupture ewe feel in society is more a circumstance of being faced directly with many things we would not really like to know or think about due to their difficult nature.

If we were to turn back the clocks maybe a mere 20-50 years I am not entirely sure the world would've looked much better than it does today under the glare of mass media (meaning both institutions and general social media outlets).

National conflicts that could be ignored by news institutions under governmental pressure can no longer be hidden away so easily. There is always someone out there telling us about this or that war, this or that human despair.

The "Illuminati" are more than likely the product of wishful thinking, something akin to the atheists concept to replace "God". It is a way to shirk responsibility. That said we can assume if such organoisations exist they will be in as much human confliction as the rest of humanity. The main difference being they are most likely completely out of touch with the "average" human and certainly have even less apprectaion than I do of how 1 billion poor people in theh world live.
AKA badgerjelly
Burning ghost
 
Posts: 1620 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#6  Postby TheDreamWeaver » July 12th, 2017, 7:16 pm

Has anyone considered that Open Source will cause people to stop using money in the future? There's no job which a person does today which a machine cannot do better in the future. How could a person earn an income if the ones designing the machines have proven that Open Source works better than the alternative? Everything a person needs for their survival will be produced onsite by automation technologies.

Without money the following problems melt away.
* There would be no reason to steal.
* Government cannot exist because they have nothing to bribe soldiers and authority with. That is, there's no power without taxation.
* Without government there can be no more war or prison.
* Bad guys would have to managed in a non-authoritative manner. For example bio-metric "black flags" could show up when a smartphone is held up to the crowd or a stranger at the door. If someone hits a "help" button it would attract others nearby to observe, and record video (attached to "black flags").

The question is this...
When will humanity figure out that the secret to its problems is collaboration, not competition?
User avatar
TheDreamWeaver
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 7 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#7  Postby Burning ghost » July 13th, 2017, 2:18 am

Dreamweaver -

There's no job which a person does today which a machine cannot do better in the future.


Mechanical, you're likely correct. As for creative and such, AI is no where near the human brain and I assume actual intelligence in needed not simulated intelligence. Computers are not intelligent.
AKA badgerjelly
Burning ghost
 
Posts: 1620 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#8  Postby Greta » July 13th, 2017, 8:25 pm

TheDreamWeaver wrote:Has anyone considered that Open Source will cause people to stop using money in the future? There's no job which a person does today which a machine cannot do better in the future. How could a person earn an income if the ones designing the machines have proven that Open Source works better than the alternative? Everything a person needs for their survival will be produced onsite by automation technologies.

Without money the following problems melt away.
* There would be no reason to steal.
* Government cannot exist because they have nothing to bribe soldiers and authority with. That is, there's no power without taxation.
* Without government there can be no more war or prison.
* Bad guys would have to managed in a non-authoritative manner. For example bio-metric "black flags" could show up when a smartphone is held up to the crowd or a stranger at the door. If someone hits a "help" button it would attract others nearby to observe, and record video (attached to "black flags").

The question is this...
When will humanity figure out that the secret to its problems is collaboration, not competition?

Interesting perspective, DW. Collaboration tends to beat individualism. Each of our bodies is a marvel of collaboration forged over time between microscopic organisms through natural selection.

Yet, competition is also why humans have achieved so much, with each major warfare resulting in a spike in innovation and technological advancement. We have been forged by competition but are now increasingly being shaped by cooperation. There is much tension around this issue between cooperation and freedom, collectivism and individualism. There are always tradeoffs between the security and enhanced capabilities provided by the group and the frustrations with the limits set by the rules of cooperation.

So, rather than now figuring out that cooperative groups tends to do better than internally competitive groups, increasingly people are spontaneously forming huge collectives. Note that while the collectives are powered by internal cooperation, they are still competing hard with other large collectives/cultural groups. Thus collectives become ever more empowered though the innovations born of conflict's pressures, although this doesn't necessarily help the lifestyles of the individuals that make up that collective.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5407 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#9  Postby TheDreamWeaver » July 13th, 2017, 10:36 pm

Oh man, I'm so happy I found you guys. Really, I've been on a long journey with nobody to talk with about this stuff.

What if there were some incredibly simple answers to the whole mess, albeit bewildering like considering a heliocentric solar system for the first time?

As for creative and such, AI is no where near the human brain and I assume actual intelligence in needed not simulated intelligence. Computers are not intelligent.

B.G. I couldn't agree more, machines are entirely inverse to imagination. They can never have epiphanies which is why computer scientists have been fighting an uphill battle trying to make them do something that they were never intended for. There's a way to defeat the Turing Test using less than 200KB of code but I hit a little snag (probably 98% into it) and put the project on ice for while. Here's a simple demonstration which roughly explains how it works.

Session A
-----------
Person #1: Hello
COMPUTER: Hey
Person #1: How is the weather today?

Session B
-----------
Person #2: Hey
COMPUTER: How is the weather today?
Person #2: It's sunny, but why would you care? You're just a computer.

Session C
-----------
Person #3: How is the weather today?
COMPUTER: It's sunny, but why would you care? You're just a computer.
Person #3: Ha ha, nice joke.

Session D
-----------
Person #3: You're just a computer.
COMPUTER: Ha ha, nice joke.

It seems stupid, like an echo chamber but it's "time" which makes the system grow increasingly intelligent. That is, unique and thoughtful submissions make others pause and think about a worthy response. Statistically, intelligent thoughts begin to outweigh the unimaginative an uninformed.


There are always tradeoffs between the security and enhanced capabilities provided by the group and the frustrations with the limits set by the rules of cooperation.

Greta. I really loved your response by the way. It was spot on but I just wanted to draw attention to the last thing that you said... "the rules of cooperation". This is that one of the "simple answers" that I was talking about at the start of this thread. It has the power to completely revolutionize the way that humans collaborate. It's also the reason that I put the A.I. project on hold because I wanted to design software around this new type of philosophy. What do you think about my post on this form titled General Philosophy > "Why truth-by-default is a game changer for humanity?" Nobody has replied to it yet and I'm extremely curious to know what people think. I believe that the world is currently broken, but not beyond repair. The future looks very bright to me.
User avatar
TheDreamWeaver
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 7 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#10  Postby Greta » July 14th, 2017, 12:32 am

TheDreamWeaver wrote:
There are always tradeoffs between the security and enhanced capabilities provided by the group and the frustrations with the limits set by the rules of cooperation.

... I just wanted to draw attention to the last thing that you said... "the rules of cooperation". This is that one of the "simple answers" that I was talking about at the start of this thread. It has the power to completely revolutionize the way that humans collaborate. It's also the reason that I put the A.I. project on hold because I wanted to design software around this new type of philosophy. What do you think about my post on this form titled General Philosophy > "Why truth-by-default is a game changer for humanity?" Nobody has replied to it yet and I'm extremely curious to know what people think. I believe that the world is currently broken, but not beyond repair. The future looks very bright to me.

Consider this question in context with your project, DW - is there a difference between "artificial" intelligence and collective human intelligence?

As much as possible, you take the best parts of billions of available brains over many years and this becomes our body of knowledge (database) from which stem laws and regulations (protocols). It looks as though we are already being run by AI - large, intelligent entities with interests that favour themselves, not necessarily its components. The word "artificial" in this context (and others) is arguably misleading because everything that is "artificial" is simply a novel natural dynamic, one yet to be absorbed in the fabric of existing natural systems.

You could say that AI is condensed human intelligence, a small representation of that larger body of knowledge, laws and culture.

The world is clearly reforming at the moment at an accelerated rate. Life everywhere wants one thing - to expand its influence - and humans expressed this by covering the globe, creating space programs and talking smack on philosophy forums :). From an external standpoint, the Earth is becoming an entity that is now shooting small, informational parts of itself out to other worlds. Eventually that will result in entities with earthling DNA growing on other worlds, perhaps fostered by AI machines that too would either follow their own self-improving evolutionary path, or cease to be.

Non biological intelligence appears to be a necessity since the idea of sending any significant numbers of people off-world seems pie-in-the-sky. Just as politicians don't invite the homeless to come sleep comfortably on their office shag pile carpets, any spacefaring craft in the future will not include average people. Many pundits figure that cyborgism is humanity's inevitable route and I'd argue that we're already partway there; consider the advantage a child with an internet connected phone has over a peer living in poverty without mod cons. Once technology is implanted the concept will become ever more clear to more people, and less abhorrent.

We are not being taken over by machines. We are becoming them - ever less biological. This opens up the possibility of eventually becoming autotrophic, a development that would completely transform ethics - no more need to kill to live. It would also open up the possibility of increasingly non-physical ways of living, which is also good news for any emerging life forms on the planet that manage to survive the Anthropocene. If cyborg humans increasingly only seek resources in the digital realm then that would largely eliminate their footprint on the rest of nature.

Without largely autotrophic virtual needs I cannot see humanity transcending its brute nature the way it has dreamed. Every time humans think they've achieved greater depth the gains would would always fall away through tragedies of the commons. You could say that our ideals are ultimately beyond an animal vessel that remains "nine meals from anarchy", despite the thin layers of civility we have constructed.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5407 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#11  Postby TheDreamWeaver » July 15th, 2017, 5:17 am

Greta, thank you so much for the thoughtful reply! You are an excellent writer BTW, I started reading some of your other stuff. I wasn't able to detect your Australian accent and you caused me to look up quite a few new words :) I'm here to learn as much as teach and having dialogs like this is tremendously helpful and fun for me.

Consider this question in context with your project, DW - is there a difference between "artificial" intelligence and collective human intelligence?


The answer is always both as a consequence of duality, which is a fascinating discussion on its own.

Yes: People will be communicating with a standalone computer, not a collection of people. The "artificial" part comes from the interpolation process which is necessary for not-verbatim pattern matching in the context of the 6 previous statements. The method which I described earlier meets the first definition/threshold of what constitutes A.I. (i.e. the Turing Test).

No: Computers are merely copy-cats. They duplicate pixels, characters, and everything else with infallibility. When an engineer/programmer creates an amazing machine it should be recognized that the resulting processes are merely replicas of human thought (encoded in the past). Once humans fully understand the fundamentals of intelligence (mostly based upon mistake-avoidance rather than rights/objectives) it will be trivial to have machines replicate, thereby making it "artificial".


The Key to A.I.
-------------------
The mind is inverse to machines and failure to recognize this causes developers to swim upstream. We're building A.I. today, but the hard way. There's a key which will make the development of intelligent machines much more natural. The mind thinks in terms of "rights" and "objectives" so, as programmers, we try giving the same to our copy-cat counterparts. Inverting the objectives into mistake-avoidance feels strange, like a loss of control. For example, if I was going to build a robotic maid I would give it all of the things which it cannot do and let objectives be reached by happenstance.
* Don't fall over
* Don't stay in one place... keep moving until you find a combination which is not prohibited.
* Don't touch a human
* If you need to find something... keep certifying all of the places where it is not until it's found by accident.

That is, a machine can never know that it's right... just that it's not-wrong. The same inversion which is plaguing A.I. designers is also responsible for society's problems.


As much as possible, you take the best parts of billions of available brains over many years and this becomes our body of knowledge (database) from which stem laws and regulations (protocols).


I only have a problem with the last part because it is fundamentally impossible to be right outside of the imagination. Once the moment passes decisions/beliefs are inverted into physical memories (such as statements) and they are subject to duality. Humans should not be creating laws and regulations because they are based upon "rights" instead of mistake-avoidance. That is, an intelligent society must stand upon a Bill of Wrongs and avoid hypocrisy. It's easy to get people to agree upon what constitutes a contradiction. The biggest problem with rights is that they give people permission to create mistakes which get in their way.


It looks as though we are already being run by AI - large, intelligent entities with interests that favour themselves, not necessarily its components.


That's because the world is currently competing instead of collaborating. Once a relatively small group of people can demonstrate that it's possible to thrive without money it will become immensely contagious. The solution(s) must be local, open source, and able to be replicated by automation. This will let it scale ad infinitum at any rate that people choose to migrate. These inventions are the big 5:
  • Food - will be grown underground by machines in sterile environments without pesticides. It will soon be possible to print high quality meat (if it's not already).
  • Water - atmospheric water generators
  • Electricity - Solar, thermo-electric, geothermal, and closed-circuit evaporation pumps (to be explained some other time).
  • Shelter - People will largely live underground or etched into plateaus within hillsides (with private backyards). They'll be carved out by digger-bots after people design their houses in Minecraft :) 1) It doesn't require much building materials. 2) It's safe from natural disaster. 3) It greatly reduces energy requirements (heating/cooling).
  • Medicine - Future machines will print drugs. In the interim people will acquire specialty materials/products/services through the Open Supply Network (which doesn't exist yet).

The word "artificial" in this context (and others) is arguably misleading because everything that is "artificial" is simply a novel natural dynamic, one yet to be absorbed in the fabric of existing natural systems.


Can you explain what you meant by this?



The world is clearly reforming at the moment at an accelerated rate. Life everywhere wants one thing - to expand its influence - and humans expressed this by covering the globe, creating space programs and talking smack on philosophy forums :). From an external standpoint, the Earth is becoming an entity that is now shooting small, informational parts of itself out to other worlds. Eventually that will result in entities with earthling DNA growing on other worlds, perhaps fostered by AI machines that too would either follow their own self-improving evolutionary path, or cease to be.


That's interesting because I never really thought such motivations in terms of "expanding influence". I always thought of it as just selfishness (which is different than greed). But from what you said. Do you think that it's a bad thing?


Just as politicians don't invite the homeless to come sleep comfortably on their office shag pile carpets, any spacefaring craft in the future will not include average people. Many pundits figure that cyborgism is humanity's inevitable route and I'd argue that we're already partway there; consider the advantage a child with an internet connected phone has over a peer living in poverty without mod cons. Once technology is implanted the concept will become ever more clear to more people, and less abhorrent.


I think most people would welcome nanobots swimming through them to reverse aging and cure cancer. That is, providing that authority and human ownership has been extinguished. Without money these issues go away... along with the notion of haves and have-nots. Money is based upon the notion of "finite supply", however wealth has no bounds.


We are not being taken over by machines. We are becoming them - ever less biological. This opens up the possibility of eventually becoming autotrophic, a development that would completely transform ethics - no more need to kill to live. It would also open up the possibility of increasingly non-physical ways of living, which is also good news for any emerging life forms on the planet that manage to survive the Anthropocene. If cyborg humans increasingly only seek resources in the digital realm then that would largely eliminate their footprint on the rest of nature.


You can't say that we need to become cyborgs to greatly reduce our footprint on nature because when humans mostly go underground with local / self-sufficient automation technologies the surface will heal. In an open world there's no need for military or endless corporations who are antagonistic to telecommuting. The world can support limitless population growth on a pristine planet once mistake-avoidance becomes society's primary objective.


Without largely autotrophic virtual needs I cannot see humanity transcending its brute nature the way it has dreamed. Every time humans think they've achieved greater depth the gains would would always fall away through tragedies of the commons. You could say that our ideals are ultimately beyond an animal vessel that remains "nine meals from anarchy", despite the thin layers of civility we have constructed.


I'm positive that humanity has just been preparing for maturity... but we could go extinct before reaching it. Our new world will not be based upon capitalism or communism, but open-source, plentifulism. Once desperation is eliminated, by means of automation and overabundance, we will no longer be sitting upon a precipice.

Society's dismal state is purposefully created because people gain power from impeding the things which are most important to us. If someone found out that they could get their children to do chores for candy it wouldn't be wise to pay them by the bag because then the kids would have little incentive to work the next day. Computers have had a billion-fold price performance increase over the past few decades but the family-home is still on the verge of unattainable. My father paid for a house on a single income working in a supermarket 40 years ago. Now we have barcode scanners, RFID, the Internet, and amazing tree/log-cutting machines, etc. all of which should have made the work-of-one-person greatly more efficient. Sadly, there's no way that a person could get a job in a supermarket today and purchase that same exact home which is falling apart. It's outrageous and I don't know why people aren't talking about this "backwards progress" when it comes to basic necessities. Perhaps it's just too painful to admit that we are born into a cage. The only way to peacefully escape our captivity is to stop using the junk that they print.

It was known since the Industrial Revolution that automation could provide for the masses. That's when leaders devised plans to keep the population busy and confused. They get children as soon as they are potty-trained and give them homework for the nighttime. School deeply instills the importance of competition which prepares us for a career full of it. It's hard for people to see that competition is horrible because they see progress coming out of it. It must be said that innovation really comes from collaboration that occurs within the competing entities. Duality? Competition is great for entertainment.
User avatar
TheDreamWeaver
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 7 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#12  Postby Greta » July 17th, 2017, 3:40 am

Thanks for your kind words, DW. Mum was a writer so I suppose a bit rubbed off on me. It's good to get down into this kind of nitty gritty conversation.

TheDreamWeaver wrote:
Consider this question in context with your project, DW - is there a difference between "artificial" intelligence and collective human intelligence?


The answer is always both as a consequence of duality, which is a fascinating discussion on its own.

Yes: People will be communicating with a standalone computer, not a collection of people. The "artificial" part comes from the interpolation process which is necessary for not-verbatim pattern matching in the context of the 6 previous statements. The method which I described earlier meets the first definition/threshold of what constitutes A.I. (i.e. the Turing Test).

No: Computers are merely copy-cats. They duplicate pixels, characters, and everything else with infallibility. When an engineer/programmer creates an amazing machine it should be recognized that the resulting processes are merely replicas of human thought (encoded in the past). Once humans fully understand the fundamentals of intelligence (mostly based upon mistake-avoidance rather than rights/objectives) it will be trivial to have machines replicate, thereby making it "artificial".

Yet that duality has been rapidly dissolving. An interesting division you make between human and machinelike operations. Are you a programmer yourself and basing your observations on that?

In considering error elimination, my concern is there's many more ways to get things wrong than to get them right. For instance, an intact egg has many fewer configurations, which are much more similar to each other, where it's intact than the almost infinite variety of smashed versions. So, if trying to create an egg you would refer to 3D ovoid shapes rather than describe the shape of all the broken possibilities.


The Key to A.I.
-------------------
The mind is inverse to machines and failure to recognize this causes developers to swim upstream. We're building A.I. today, but the hard way. There's a key which will make the development of intelligent machines much more natural. The mind thinks in terms of "rights" and "objectives" so, as programmers, we try giving the same to our copy-cat counterparts. Inverting the objectives into mistake-avoidance feels strange, like a loss of control. For example, if I was going to build a robotic maid I would give it all of the things which it cannot do and let objectives be reached by happenstance.
* Don't fall over
* Don't stay in one place... keep moving until you find a combination which is not prohibited.
* Don't touch a human
* If you need to find something... keep certifying all of the places where it is not until it's found by accident.

That is, a machine can never know that it's right... just that it's not-wrong. The same inversion which is plaguing A.I. designers is also responsible for society's problems.


I think this process of elimination makes sense but not applicable in all circumstances:

1. How can you describe "not falling over"? Aim to keep feet on ground. Aim to keep head in certain orientations. They are positives, aren't they?
2. "Keep moving to a new location" is a positive command
3. The instruction could be to maintain x amount of space space between the unit and designated living things.
4. Yes. Trial-and-error at high speed is a machine's great ability.

There's no need for emotions and discernment when correct options can simply be found via a process of elimination, considering options a million times more quickly than a human brain is capable of doing, even with discernment.

DreamWeaver wrote:
As much as possible, you take the best parts of billions of available brains over many years and this becomes our body of knowledge (database) from which stem laws and regulations (protocols).


I only have a problem with the last part because it is fundamentally impossible to be right outside of the imagination. Once the moment passes decisions/beliefs are inverted into physical memories (such as statements) and they are subject to duality. Humans should not be creating laws and regulations because they are based upon "rights" instead of mistake-avoidance. That is, an intelligent society must stand upon a Bill of Wrongs and avoid hypocrisy. It's easy to get people to agree upon what constitutes a contradiction. The biggest problem with rights is that they give people permission to create mistakes which get in their way.

Maybe there will come a post-regulatory time, but the first steps will surely be via protocols.

DreamWeaver wrote:
It looks as though we are already being run by AI - large, intelligent entities with interests that favour themselves, not necessarily its components.

That's because the world is currently competing instead of collaborating. Once a relatively small group of people can demonstrate that it's possible to thrive without money it will become immensely contagious. The solution(s) must be local, open source, and able to be replicated by automation. This will let it scale ad infinitum at any rate that people choose to migrate. These inventions are the big 5:
  • Food - will be grown underground by machines in sterile environments without pesticides. It will soon be possible to print high quality meat (if it's not already).
  • Water - atmospheric water generators
  • Electricity - Solar, thermo-electric, geothermal, and closed-circuit evaporation pumps (to be explained some other time).
  • Shelter - People will largely live underground or etched into plateaus within hillsides (with private backyards). They'll be carved out by digger-bots after people design their houses in Minecraft :) 1) It doesn't require much building materials. 2) It's safe from natural disaster. 3) It greatly reduces energy requirements (heating/cooling).
  • Medicine - Future machines will print drugs. In the interim people will acquire specialty materials/products/services through the Open Supply Network (which doesn't exist yet).

If we are taking it this far, I would vary the above. For instance, the holy grail is to find a way of turning rocks into food and, as you say, air into water.

Underground environments will be one option. Floating cities is another. Also, there will surely be insulated environments, biodomes. Also note that people are becoming less physically inclined, more sedentary, more limited in the movements they are allowed to make in public (as much by crowding as anything), more "living in the screen". This is especially evident in some of the more advanced parts of east Asia; they give us hints as to our future.

DreamWeaver wrote:
The word "artificial" in this context (and others) is arguably misleading because everything that is "artificial" is simply a novel natural dynamic, one yet to be absorbed in the fabric of existing natural systems.


Can you explain what you meant by this?

Humans, despite appearances, are as much part of nature as koala bears and beetles. So whatever we do is ultimately natural, albeit transformative rather than adaptive.

DreamWeaver wrote:
The world is clearly reforming at the moment at an accelerated rate. Life everywhere wants one thing - to expand its influence - and humans expressed this by covering the globe, creating space programs and talking smack on philosophy forums :). From an external standpoint, the Earth is becoming an entity that is now shooting small, informational parts of itself out to other worlds. Eventually that will result in entities with earthling DNA growing on other worlds, perhaps fostered by AI machines that too would either follow their own self-improving evolutionary path, or cease to be.


That's interesting because I never really thought such motivations in terms of "expanding influence". I always thought of it as just selfishness (which is different than greed). But from what you said. Do you think that it's a bad thing?

Heh ... good and bad depends on your perspective. Climate change is terrible for Pacific Islanders but will bring plenty (opening up new arable and liveable land to many now living in the frozen north.

All my life I have believed in equality. I now only see it as a temporary sense of balance that - thanks to a dynamic reality - is inevitably disrupted and, dare I say it, refreshed. All homogeneous regions - from proto-planetary discs to balanced economies - will form concentrated regions that will ultimately control the rest and absorb more than its fair share of available energy. Crudely, everything grows a head.

DreamWeaver wrote:
Just as politicians don't invite the homeless to come sleep comfortably on their office shag pile carpets, any spacefaring craft in the future will not include average people. Many pundits figure that cyborgism is humanity's inevitable route and I'd argue that we're already partway there; consider the advantage a child with an internet connected phone has over a peer living in poverty without mod cons. Once technology is implanted the concept will become ever more clear to more people, and less abhorrent.


I think most people would welcome nanobots swimming through them to reverse aging and cure cancer. That is, providing that authority and human ownership has been extinguished. Without money these issues go away... along with the notion of haves and have-nots. Money is based upon the notion of "finite supply", however wealth has no bounds.

I think it does. There will always be competition to be located in the best places, with the best food and resources and so on unless we eschew our biology and basically disappear into the network, so to speak.

DreamWeaver wrote:
Without largely autotrophic virtual needs I cannot see humanity transcending its brute nature the way it has dreamed. Every time humans think they've achieved greater depth the gains would would always fall away through tragedies of the commons. You could say that our ideals are ultimately beyond an animal vessel that remains "nine meals from anarchy", despite the thin layers of civility we have constructed.


I'm positive that humanity has just been preparing for maturity... but we could go extinct before reaching it. Our new world will not be based upon capitalism or communism, but open-source, plentifulism. Once desperation is eliminated, by means of automation and overabundance, we will no longer be sitting upon a precipice.

Yes, there appears to be a maturing process going on with the biosphere and, by inference, humanity. Many disagree with this, still going with Gould's "evolution is a bush" approach, with humans as one tiny branch that just happened to have gone rogue. Still, anything that develops is not guaranteed full development - so many things can go wrong in the interim.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5407 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#13  Postby TheDreamWeaver » July 18th, 2017, 1:21 am

Yet that duality has been rapidly dissolving.

What do you mean by this?

An interesting division you make between human and machinelike operations. Are you a programmer yourself and basing your observations on that?

It started out that way. I was designing A.I. image recognition software for "business cards" when I realized that it was impossible for me to be absolutely sure of anything (i.e. ketchup stain versus a purposeful design element). So, I took a big step and made the following assertion which kick-started everything.

"It's impossible to be right."

Now if I make such a claim then I have to admit that the very statement cannot be correct itself. It would create an immediate contradiction if I wasn't willing to embrace duality. However believing that it's both impossible-to-be right and possible-to-be-right is complete madness unless I'm willing to divide this truth between inverse realms.

X/1 - It is impossible to be wrong in the moment within the imagination. People are always right given there life experiences, genetics, and momentary context. "Right" is relative to an individual's selfish interest.

1/X - After the moment passes beliefs/decisions become inverted into tangible memories, all of which fundamentally stand as contradictions (like the Evil Demon Thought Experiment). It's impossible to be universally and permanently correct because "time" gives people the power to invalidate any assertion from an alternate context. When it comes questions, assertions, and otherwise tangible memories, the answer will always be both.

Once I snapped these pieces together it opened up a wormhole that you wouldn't believe. I knew that people would, at best ignore me, or at worst, burn me at the stake for suggesting something so radical. I would have to discover hard and convincing evidence to support this claim, and after I started looking it opened up breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, a revolution in number theory, and a clear pathway to Peace on Earth. I can't start dumping my 4,000 pages of research into this forum so I'll just be patient and wait for questions or criticisms.

For now, I'd like you to see the first proof that the Pythagorean Theorem is FALSE. I started with that because it's widely considered to be the crown jewel of mathematics... a building block for countless other proofs.

I can't post links in the form and I can't add ASCII art. Trust me, you'll want to see this.
https://medium dat com/"AT SYMBOL"TheDreamWeaver/a-major-flaw-in-the-pythagorean-theorem-6d021604e9fe
(You'll have to 1) convert the "dat" into a period, 2) remove both spaces, and 3) substitute the "AT SYMBOL" within the URL)

Everyone loves to point out that 1+1 = 2.

How much is 1 lollypop plus 1 kangaroo?

In computing I could say that the following is correct in the context of "string" data types.
1 + 1 = 11

The more that people add context to clarify what they mean (why they are right in their imagination) the more that contradictions (letters/words) begin to accumulate in the tangible realm. These just widen the target for misinterpretation from alternate contexts and so keeping the argument alive is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Humans have an insatiable lust for being right. Why? Because we're always right, we know it, and can't help it. We're so blinded by our own righteousness in the moment that all of the great thinkers haven't bothered to look for tangible reasons which go against their objectives. It bothered me for a long time... how can I have been the first person to have considered that "it's impossible to be right" or "truth-by-default"? But then I remember laughing a little when I realized that you actually have to want to be wrong... to dwell on your mistakes. That must become the objective and it's actually painful to recognize/accept contradictions, like touching a hot frying pan. Biology enforces some kinds through pain, but the conceptual type can be shoved in the closet where they may tangle with other righteous fallacies over time. The more that errors accumulate the more painful it becomes to untangle because of a cascading effect.


In considering error elimination, my concern is there's many more ways to get things wrong than to get them right. For instance, an intact egg has many fewer configurations, which are much more similar to each other, where it's intact than the almost infinite variety of smashed versions. So, if trying to create an egg you would refer to 3D ovoid shapes rather than describe the shape of all the broken possibilities.

This brings up a very important topic. That is, "division destroys value".

In this context, object/right/value are all related. For example, if a painting is cut in half the pieces aren't worth half as much. Nobody would pay half-price for a loaf of bread that was opened in the store. An automobile becomes worthless while it is divided... but if a mechanic can put it back together then value is restored. Not everything can be undivided and this leads into other fascinating topics.

Duality? Sometimes it's necessary to destroy the value of one object to create value somewhere else. From this perspective it's possible to say that division creates value. When an egg is broken it loses its value... but it's necessary to create an omelette. At some point the omelette has to be divided by teeth to create value for the body.

A broken/divided egg is no longer an object, each of the pieces are.

I think this process of elimination makes sense but not applicable in all circumstances:

1. How can you describe "not falling over"? Aim to keep feet on ground. Aim to keep head in certain orientations. They are positives, aren't they?
2. "Keep moving to a new location" is a positive command
3. The instruction could be to maintain x amount of space space between the unit and designated living things.
4. Yes. Trial-and-error at high speed is a machine's great ability

You're extremely perceptive, I actually wondered if anyone would notice. I described this in greater detail within some of my other writings but didn't mention the recursion here. The definition of a mistake in many cases contains sub-objectives which must be recursively inverted. Computers can never understand objectives. Duality? If a programmer designs a middle layer which knows how to implicitly invert then it is possible for humans to give commands or objectives to their robots. Failure to account for inversions causes developers to swim upstream.

This brings up another interesting discussion about the painful evolution in computer science away from Objected Orientated programming back to functional. At first it seems natural to model software around the mind's natural inclination, but the two are diametrically opposed. OOP does have a purpose, but I'll ignore duality for now.


Maybe there will come a post-regulatory time, but the first steps will surely be via protocols.

There will always be protocols. Of course, people interpret them as being something "right" (which cannot be avoided), but machines are programmed in a way that considers deviations a mistake.

I'd like to point out a subtle difference between laws or regulations and protocols. Protocols are something which should receive unanimous agreement over... like TCP/IP. If anyone disagrees that some process or system is not ideal, they should contradict (or find a mistake) using the Intelligence Algorithm before possibly offering an alternative. Laws or regulations are something which a majority pushes down the throats of everyone else by the threat of force (which is itself a mistake).
Duality? Sometimes protocols and regulations/laws are one and the same. Also, some laws are things which receive unanimous support (like murder).

In the future democracy will be abolished in the light of unanimity. Duality? Democracy is great for quantifying popularity on things like music/art/film.


Underground environments will be one option. Floating cities is another. Also, there will surely be insulated environments, biodomes. Also note that people are becoming less physically inclined, more sedentary, more limited in the movements they are allowed to make in public (as much by crowding as anything), more "living in the screen". This is especially evident in some of the more advanced parts of east Asia; they give us hints as to our future.

I totally agree. As long as people don't object then we are all welcome to build anything we want or pursue any dream. There will be many amazing habitats for humans to enjoy in the future. What I mentioned about going underground is just something that I believe mankind will gravitate to because it's likely to cause the least amount of disputes and require minimum resources. In fact, the removal of space would even produce resources... there's something magical about inversions.

All endeavors should be put on hold as long as people are raising a stink. All objectives should be unanimous, or relatively mistake-free because that's intelligent. If someone tries claiming 1,000 acres of beach-front in the most beautiful place on Earth it will surely cause some friction. Duality? If a person terraforms some land (like what was done in Dubai) with some hard work and ingenuity people would welcome this. There's no reason for innovators to keep their work secret, so everyone benefits. The most beautiful place on Earth is always one project away from creation.
Heh ... good and bad depends on your perspective. Climate change is terrible for Pacific Islanders but will bring plenty (opening up new arable and liveable land to many now living in the frozen north.

It's always both :)


absorb more than its fair share of available energy.

(-) You can't say that people will take at another's expense (+) because the future will be based upon local capabilities and self-sufficiency. Our world today is founded upon "central sources", competition, and purposeful "finite supply". The latter is responsible for greed when we should all be worried about selfishness instead.


Code: Select all
I think it does. There will always be competition to be located in the best places, with the best food and resources and so on unless we eschew our biology and basically disappear into the network, so to speak.

If people object to something then others will need to adapt until there are no more disputes. I know that this sounds impossible but that's only because humanity has just discovered the Intelligence Algorithm. If multiple people want to live in the "best place" then they'll have to go underground, in a high-rise, time-share, or create a "better place". People always take the path of least resistance for selfish reasons. If they want to hog some beach-front, in everyone's face, they'll have to live with hecklers outside of their gate and dog crap shoveled over their fences.

There's enough sun for everyone. Resources are purposefully restricted in today's world because people gain power from impedance. We already have the technology to create overabundance, especially if we stop squandering everything for competition.

Can you think of something genuinely important to people which there's not enough of... and which cannot be overcome with ingenuity in the near future?
User avatar
TheDreamWeaver
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 7 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 11th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Society is about to go through it's most dramatic change

Post Number:#14  Postby Ranvier » July 30th, 2017, 5:38 am

I love the energy that permeates from the flow of ideas. I notice a significant momentum in increased perception in myriad of aspects of human reality, not only here in this forum but also in general public. Even a few years ago it was difficult to capture attention of others in discussion of anything other than pop culture. Now, almost every person can be engaged in a conversation about science, technology, environment, economy, or politics. It's nice to feel that I need to keep pace, it gives me hope for humanity :)
User avatar
Ranvier
 
Posts: 538 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA


Return to General Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST