Archive

Archive for April, 2012

The Automatons

April 26, 2012 7 comments

Replaced Humans

Every single economic theory or philosophy whether it is capitalism or communism function under one primary assumption, humans are always doing work. In the past 50 years something has happened that puts all economic theories into jeopardy and the consequences are not science fiction, they are already happening. Humans are being replaced by automatons both in physical activity, by robots, and virtually with code.

Capitalism which to date has been the best system for rising quality of life has had an unexpected consequence that no one is truly confronting. Contrary to what idealists may believe capitalism doesn’t have the objective of creating jobs, instead jobs are a bi-product or a side effect of greed. If a CEO has the option of two employees that can do the same job as ten employees, if he is a capitalist, he will choose two. Employees are a huge expense, everyone knows it, but they are a requirement of scale. The system works perfect until you start cutting humans out. The side effect of creating jobs is being cured paradoxically by the very system everyone believes is supposed to create jobs.

Capitalism works perfect until you start cutting humans out.

Unemployment will continue to rise and everyone will continue to look at the traditional reason and this is highly problematic. Governments will dump money into companies who will throw it into R&D to create more advanced systems that cut more humans out.  Most developers are aware that their job usually involves making things that cut jobs. The more efficient the code, the less people are needed. When I write code there is the potential I could be writing an employee that will work 24 hours a day, and be 100% efficient; you won’t stand a chance no matter how nice your resume is. These problems will continue to snow ball and by the time everyone realizes that the biggest competition for a job isn’t a human but a mainframe, it may be too late.

The answers may be difficult, but a place to start is to realize that work generated by automatons at some point, even if it is a percentage, need to be redistributed socially. Since automatons don’t generate revenue for themselves, they can not spend their own work product. Without spending all economies will fall apart. If automatons are not taxed the only way anyone will be able to purchase anything is by enslaving themselves to corporations who will employ people not because they need them but because they can. If this happens it will make both robber barons and the darkest communism look like utopia. Even worse would be the situation that, in response to wide scale loss of jobs due to technology, humans respond by destroying technology and moving the world back in time in order to support dated economic systems.

AI and Government

20120422-214716.jpgA primary issue of government is that regardless of the political affiliation it suffers from scalability issues, as a population grows, government grows. As government grows the amount of money needed to support it will often grow at a rate that exceeds the net economic units created by the population growth. In simple terms as a population grows the net income produced by taxes will not be enough to cover the new cost of government because of inefficiency. Whether you support it or not, this is further made worse by social features of government which will have an additional uncontrolled cost.

In a hyperbolic example if a road system costs $1000 to make there will need to be a government management fee to pay for management of said project, for this example we will say $100. In order to pay for the $1000 project $1100 would need to be collected. This is fine since most social projects people understand the utility of and most would not contend the management fee. What happens in reality however is that as the population grows the management fee does not grow in a predictable fashion because of system complexity so what will end up happening is that the developer of the road project will either be paid a sub-optimal fee or a provider will be selected that can work at a sub-optimal fee which will result in lower then average quality product. The other option of course is that the inefficiency cost will be subsidized by credit, a possible unending black hole.

Having people implement methods that would cost them their own jobs is a tough sell.

As the demand for social services increases there is only one possible way it can be economically feasible and this is through reduction of government size. This will sound contradictory to expectation and the views of most that support social programs but the reality is that now we are in a situation to actually make this a reality. No longer does an increase of population need to translate into an increase of government work force. No other time in history would of this ever been possible and that is because of technology. With the emergence of computers, computerized automation, and artificial intelligence we can now start moving a lot of required government functions to electronics. There are hurdles to this of course because many of the efforts that could be automated would cost the jobs of the people responsible for implementing such automations. Having people implement methods that would cost them their own jobs is a tough sell.

What do you think? Are there easy ways to get government minimizing technology implemented?

Instantaneous Education

20120421-003745.jpgWe spend at a minimum 15 to 25% of our time on this planet learning things that we already collectively know as a race. Over time we have created better and faster mechanism for data assimilation and transfer through things like books and standardized education, however, this is a serious problem because not only does education take such a large portion of our life away, the fact that we don’t all collectively have the same core knowledge functions, such as math, makes the knowledge spread inconsistent and unfair.

Worse still, education poses a serious financial burden not only on the governments that support it but also because of lost productivity and lost income of society as a whole. Now governments should not cancel education and in fact doing such a thing would completely destroy any opportunity for Elolight which is at the core of all my beliefs but we must figure out a better way to transfer knowledge.

It is very important that we set a moral precedent that predefined or instantaneous education is restricted to core literacies and history only.

When a company has an expense margin one of the primary ways to try and reduce it is through increasing efficiency. This is step #1 to reducing the expense of education to society; we must do everything in our power to make it more efficient. We can easily evaluate how good our education system is by how quickly the average child can learn something. Right now our systems required an ungodly amount of patience and, despite major advances in interactive, education through the class room still seems to be the most efficient and this is rather tragic because it has been this way for so long.

There are a lot of fictional possibilities out there such as brain flashing where we could create and store data by turing the right neurons on and off. We could also possibly modify children at the genetic level before they are born to extend their instinctual pre-existing knowledge of function with things like math and reading literacy. There is a concern with all of these possibilities and that is that humans could be given specific education to make them more likely to choose certain philosophical beliefs. It is very important that we set a moral precedent that predefined or instantaneous education is restricted to core literacies and history only because otherwise we may find ourselves building a very inflexible and motivated army.

The Most Popular Girl

20120420-094709.jpg

I once met two girls who were very close friends. The one was a brunette russian who spoke four different languages and the other was a blonde who came from Canada. The brunette believed that taking chances was important and believed in nature and spirituality. The other didn’t really appear to believe in anything.

I met the two ladies out of an act of Spontaneity, a friend requesting they come with us in the excitement of the night. However, the flow has an interesting way of pulling people to the surface. Up to this point the blonde had always visited the same bar, and did the same things. When suddenly she was pulled out of it for a brief moment and it forced her to put her entire life into perspective.

The blonde informed me that at one point she used to be he most popular girl at largest high school in Quebec, and now she informed me she was doing nothing with her life. When I asked her what she wanted, she told me to go home and sleep. I then re-asked the question of what she really wanted in life and everything. She went on to tell me that she wanted to stop feeling sorry for herself and do all the things she knew she could. Unfortunately a conversation as heavy as that would quickly end the joy of anyone’s night, and she left shortly after.

Every moment we can either consider the second we lost or the second we are about to gain.

The most popular girl turned void is not a new or even unique story. However, it is a tragedy. Despite the quality of one’s character, being in a void of regret, self loathing, and what could be is very sad. This has much larger and broader applications. As a race we tend to get caught up in our previous success or happiness. We call it nostalgia and it can bring everything to a screeching halt. While this is not true of everyone, some people will get caught up in a desire to get something back which they used to have and instead of doing new things it is almost as if they sit and wait for them to re-emerge. Life can either be about loss or gain, every moment we can either consider the second we lost or the second we are about to gain. While subtle, the later opens your life up to many more opportunities.

Remembering Yourself

20120417-234147.jpg

When considering how we can become something greater then ourselves or how we can improve ourselves a lot of people will ask themselves how they will be remembered. Indeed this is a very important question to many. Everyone has the desire to change the world and to be remembered but there is a far bigger tragedy then not being remembered by anybody and that is not remembering yourself.

The word responsibility will often be abused in order for someone who could be extraordinary to remain ordinary.

When a life becomes so common and so cohesive that you can’t actually remember what you did yesterday but instead you just draw on what you have always done, that is a tragedy. The biggest tragedy of all is if it is easy for you to change your life in a fundamental way but out of an illusion of security, you don’t. The word responsibility will often be abused in order for someone who could be extraordinary to remain ordinary. It is your life and your experiences, to not experience is to not live. Not everyone is in a place where they can simply quit their job, build a product, or go back to school. Circumstance is circumstance but if you are a future Architect you will choose to make the critical decisions that will put you into The Flow because you realize that your impact on the world and modifying human consciousness is far greater then any simple desire of instinctual self requirements.

When you choose that remembering your life is important and that the value of the experiential far out weighs the value of the predictable or comfortable you will not only have a life that you can remember but there is also a far higher probability you will also be remembered by others.

When Matt quit his job and took his life savings to make a video of himself dancing around the world , I doubt he could of predictable it would go on to be one of the most watched videos on the internet with over 40 million views. Matt chose The Flow and it reaped him great rewards. Check out his video below.

Fighting Nature

April 16, 2012 3 comments

Ants, my favorite insect, have been known to build very large and impressive nests. Hypothetically, if ants could get to the point where they could regularly build sky scrapers, would we look at ants and call them unnatural? Only with humans do you have such a level of arrogance that we believe the things we make are outside the scope of nature. Some humans go to great lengths to defend primitive nature, sometimes even going as far as putting their own lives on the line to do so, but not only is this wrong, but the value of what people call “natural” is relative to where we are at as a human race.

If we as humans don’t make ourselves the #1 priority there is no value to the universe and every creature that has died, or will die, in the process we have identified as evolution has died in vain.

Nature doesn’t exist to exist in some kind of harmonious nonfluctuating state, it also doesn’t exist to support us in particular and we don’t exist to support it either. Nature exists for one reason and this is to promote evolution and progression. If it wasn’t meant to do this, simply put, we would not exist. Cities are are our forest. While I am aware that my views of this will not be popular with many, there are some very important delusions I must point out regarding nature.

1.  Nature is Peaceful
When strolling through man made parks we get a skewed view of what nature is actually like. If you believe that humanity is so bad with our murders, you haven’t seen murder on a larger scale until you enter a rain forest. If you’re any creature in a rain forest (heck even if you’re a human) you’re death by murder is around 50%+, so that means you will likely be killed for food or defense by another creature if you’re living there.

2. Nature is Efficient
Trees while the best mechanism we have right now for cleaning the air, and creating oxygen (and really one of the primary reasons we want to defend primitive nature) are horribly horribly inefficient. If they were actually good at their jobs, we wouldn’t need a ton of them, and Global warming wouldn’t be an issue. Tree’s weren’t designed to support us, instead they were designed to feed off us. In fact, using technology we are coming up with better and more efficient ways to not only clean the air but also create oxygen. However, that said, clear cutting down forests wouldn’t be suggested since we don’t have such systems implemented yet.

3. Humans are “unnatural”
We are completely natural, everything we do and all of our inventions are made in this universe. To believe our cities are doing some kind of disservice to the world is an illusion of arrogance; that we are some how outside the scope of reality. Imagine for a moment that you are an ultra advanced entity that is living in an ecosystem that we can barely fathom right now and you looked at the human race. Not only would you see a mix of forests and cities, but you also wouldn’t point to one and say that forest is nature and that city is not. In the same way we wouldn’t point at an ant nest and say that’s no longer nature.

Conclusion
Protecting primitive nature is important because it provides us a significant amount of resources, however, trying to create sustainable solutions that some how have to work with primitive creatures and plants is a waste of time if we can create our own ecological systems that are sustainable and benefit us directly. We should not focus on trying to make things work with what is already here if it is too difficult. If tomorrow all the humans died off because of a nuclear war, nature would come back, because that is nature. There is no guarantee that any of those creatures that come back will have any form of compassion at all, or ever even have the possibility of exploring space or creating universes like we currently do.

If we as humans don’t make ourselves the #1 priority there is no value to the universe and every creature that has died, or will die, in the process we have identified as evolution has died in vain.

The Architect and The Cult

It was later in the evening, and I was in Santa Monica. In Santa Monica there is a street that is closed off so that tourists etc.. can roam. On each side there was the standard fare stores but what made this street particularly interesting is that spaced, almost evenly, down the street were street preachers from different religions. There was a Jew, a Protestant Christian, and a Muslim. I was listening to one of them speak as I ate a hot dog. As soon as I heard the preacher turn to the common rhetoric of damnation I turned to start walking back towards my hotel.

I have to say that I was completely aware of how bad of an idea this was.

A shorter woman came up to me, dressed in some what casual clothing, and handed me a card. The card had all kinds of questions on it like why do bad bad things happen to good people? and is there a God? after briefing over them she looked at me and said which of these questions interest you? I replied, “all of them.” Though what I meant was interest in them as a means of inquiry, but not in the answers. As I started engaging her, she asked me if I would come with her to talk in a building nearby.

I have to say that I was completely aware of how bad of an idea this was but being in my early 20s, and also sensing no malicious intent from her, I said yes. She lead me to a building and we went inside. We took an elevator up several floors and emerged in what felt like a very small winding hallway and she lead me to a small room. At this point I was some what more nervous but it felt as if my actions were like a train wreck and I couldn’t stop myself. The small office had several different rooms and was well up kept.

She told me they had a video set, and I needed to watch the first which was 5 or so minutes and then they would discuss it. So against my better judgement, I watched it. The essence of the video was that they were trying to teach a modified Christianity that was reconciled with other religions. Some of the core philosophical beliefs they were teaching, regarding good and evil, I unequivocally disagreed with.

People want to believe in something and if what they want to believe in doesn’t exist, they can create it.

I talked with the young lady after and she informed that they needed to talk because everyone has different perceptions of reality but she was fully convicted in this new belief herself, I could tell. I asked her what she did or went to school for and she told me she was a biochemist but was now doing this for a living. When she saw that I was not turning over she told me that if I would watch all the other videos, I would get a better understanding. I thanked her and told her I needed to get up early and I left as quickly as possible.

People want to believe in something and if what they want to believe in doesn’t exist, they can create it. Creating a new belief is not necessarily a bad thing if it inspires people into The Flow. However, we need to be careful of beliefs that are just modified versions of things that already exist in order to get unification of things that were never designed to be unified. Religions are incompatible with each other despite what some idealists might believe or say.

Perception Convergence

In an interesting article on CNN today, perception was discussed and how easily it can be modified by context. In a much earlier post I pondered perception and gave an example of perception modification that was brought on by physical strain. Imagination and perception can be great and wonderful things, most of the time but it can also lead to reverse motion destructive conflict. As Architects we don’t necessarily want to stop conflict, because conflict can put people into The Flow, which when resolved can lead to evolution and progression. We do however want to limit destructive conflicts that can reverse work that has already been done.

Our alternate perceptions emerged as an extension of our need to survive and as a bi-product of our evolution. The way we perceive the world might be completely different then the way our ancestors saw the world but it is really impossible to know. Our only hope is that through technology we can start to bridge the gap in a meaningful way and create mechanisms to start gaining psychic integration with one another. This is not to say we should eliminate alternate perceptions as a means to form a singularity, Elolight is not a singularity, instead we must create the technology so that we can gain insight into another’s perception of reality.

We must create the technology so that we can gain insight into another’s perception of reality.

A goal of Elolight will always be to help converge human perception. We already have certain characteristics that make this some what possible such as empathy but the fact that we cannot literally see through another persons eyes, both literally and metaphorically (feeling what they feel), creates great hurdles for Elolight attainment. No where can this be witnessed more then in a debate of a convicted Christian versus a convicted Muslim. They will both argue aggressively and both, whether they admit it to themselves or not, truly believes that if the other person knew the way they felt or knew what they knew, their opponent would change their minds. The reality is that both actually feel the same in both conviction and intensity but their lack of perceptional insight makes it impossible for them to realize this. As Architects we can try to shift their perceptions but it may be completely useless and the only thing we can really do in the above case is to prevent destructive conflict (stop them from killing each other).

The Fit Problem

April 13, 2012 3 comments

The fit problem is a problem that all mainstream religions or any religion claiming to have a truth directly from God has. The problem is the fact that what people believe and want “God” to be does not fit in with their own texts and further does not fit in with time as a complete whole. The best example of this is modern day Christianity, the primary text of this religious philosophy is made of two parts. The first is the old testament which is actually the holy book of the Jews (Judaism) and the second part of the book came into being after the death of Jesus. The lack of fit is that the first part of the book outlines a certain a set a rules and the second part of the book literally overturns some of them. Despite that this is glaringly true, the adherents of the belief system still espouse that God is unchanging, morality is not subjective, and that truth is absolute. How could this possibly be true when God could overturn on a whim what was true for one set of people.

It’s not the believer’s fault of course, most are raised and taught to believe these things and it becomes a fundamental part of their psychology.

Further, in the case of Christian based religions there is the concept of Judgement, however, this judgement would have to be completely relative based on the time the person died within because, for instance, Jesus did not exist 3000 years ago.

It’s not the believer’s fault of course, most are raised and taught to believe these things and it becomes a fundamental part of their psychology. In the grand scheme of things even if they are completely wrong it is not a problem as long as the belief system causes utilitarianism, as Architects we are concerned with forward motion above all. There are many ways to Elolight and truth doesn’t necessarily have to be one of them, but the odds of getting there without truth are improbable. These religious belief systems often don’t cause utilitarianism, and if they do, it is usually temporary. Religions will usually force a morality stagnation and so instead of morality improving it either gets worse or stays the same. Without moral evolution, we would not be able to eat shell fish according to the old testament. Further, physical conflict can be created simply over philosophical ideas and this is the worst type of conflict to resolve ideas because it depletes resources that would ultimately be used for the idea that would arise as the victor.

Malcolm Gladwell : Architect of Insight

Whether it is explaining why things become successful or the mechanics behind snap judgements; Malcolm Gladwell leads the pack. What makes Malcolm Gladwell unique is that he not only discovers things, another very important characteristic, he then looks at what he has discovered and asks what else is here? or why did this happen?

Human life is complex and our understanding of it is critical if we are to ever achieve Elolight. More importantly, we need to gain insights into the things that really move us and affect us and Malcolm helps with this significantly. For this reason Malcolm Gladwell is the 2nd to be added to my list of major positive Architects.

Find below two insightful talks by Malcolm Gladwell.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: