Imagine for a moment that you are a part of an ancient hunter gathering tribe. For the last while food has been abundant but recently there has been a decline. A fellow tribe member emerges and proclaims that the tribe must start moving if it is to survive. The current leader rejects the idea and says moving is too risky and that what is going on right now is just a phase. This was the start of the first political parties revolving around the question should we stay or should we go?

In the above scenario you could start to imagine what arguments would take place and what people might start to believe. It not unrealistic to imagine that one side might actually consider the other side evil. If they are aware of all the same knowledge as you, then clearly the other side is just trying to kill everybody.

We like to think we are so advanced but when it comes to politics, we are still cave men. We allow choices to be made out of ignorance and we do not properly experiment. Since each side is against failure when either side makes a mistake, instead of admitting it, they come up with excuses. Our media on politics revolves around different types of biases to justify a particular point of view instead of what actually is correct. Much of it revolves around hyperbole, socialism is communism, and capitalism is the robber barons. We don’t care what actually works, we care about what makes us feel right. Further, if we have any enemy that actually does something correct politically, it is very easy for everything they do to be demonized.

It is no surprise that in the USA, or in most countries for that matter, you have a sharp line down the middle. In the USA the two sides are Conservative and Liberal. When you really boil these two sides down you come back to say the same basic question, should we stay or should we go? In the past this was one of the most important questions there was because the answer to it could mean life or death. Aggressive conflict over this question, even if resulting in death, would of been preferential to tribe survival.

Should we stay or should we go is still a valid question and it requires both sides. In order for us to have a superior evolution in human politics we need a couple things to be changed. First, we need to disregard absolutes, there are none. Secondly, we need to build better models and systems of analysis that can deal with the complexities of human behavior and better report on the consequences of applied regulation. Lastly, we need to realize that what is right might be variable based on the situation.

The above example also applies to the entire world population. An infinite amount of money does not mean an infinite amount of output. If we want to change the world we must understand that money can’t change the world, only human allocation can. If we want to cure aging, for example, we need to have more researchers. So far money has been our best system for human allocation. There is, unfortunately, not a very strong connection between changing the world and making money. A person in Africa building wells that will save thousands of lives might make significantly less than a Starbucks franchise owner.

To fix this problem involves mixing both capitalistic and socialistic ideals. Money that is collected in the form of taxes need to be distributed based on performance of philanthropic capability. This of course is currently faux pas because anyone who is doing charity work shouldn’t be making good money and this is completely backwards thinking. If money is our best method for human allocation then people doing things to help the entire world should make the most. Philanthropy should be a competition; we should be competing over who can feed the most people.

Bother conservative and liberal ideology are incorrect in regards to economy. While private enterprise can create quality, it cannot create wide spread quality. In contrast, while governments can create universal services, it cannot create universal services at peak quality. The best political system is one that utilizes socialism for infrastructure and capitalism for quality services on top. Infrastructure includes everything that allows humans to physically survive; these  include water, air, shelter, military/police, food, healthcare, roads, fire fighting, and garbage collection.

In an attempt to explain the order in chaos I have built a new project which ca be accessed by clicking below.

Click Image Below To Launch Project

Essentially what this project does is take a series of very standard waves and combines them to build a more complex wave form. You can play around with the different settings to get all kinds of interesting wave forms.  The more waves you add and change, the more complex the final form will become. If you were not aware of all the different waves that went into creating the final form, you would have a very difficult time trying to figure out how it was created.

Another example would be to drop a dice down a very small tube and then slowly increase the size of the tube on additional rolls. As the tube got larger it would become increasingly difficult to predict how the dice would land. In the same way, in the above wave example it might be easy to guess or predict a wave form if it is only made up of two waves, but it would become increasingly difficult to predict as you added more.

The problem is that because random activity is built on orderly components, it can sometimes mislead us to believe we can predict it. In real life we have another name for it, we call it luck. What we consider luck is more a product of timing than any innate characteristic that gives us an upper hand. There will always be the temptation of trying to figure out how things work by looking at a final form, but we must aggressively resist this seduction. We can only gain true understanding by analyzing the underlying orderly components, not the final production.

]]> http://elolight.org/2013/04/14/understanding-random/feed/ 0 perfectdivine understandrandom http://elolight.org/2013/04/12/blurring-the-lines/ http://elolight.org/2013/04/12/blurring-the-lines/#comments Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:43:50 +0000 Jonathan Wagner http://elolight.org/?p=2910 ]]>

Jason Koger is one of the first people to have two complete bionic hands. After losing both his hands, using technology he now has the capability to grasp things as small as jelly beans. Advances like this one support the idea that technology is rapidly integrating directly with us as opposed to being simply an auxiliary source of information or capability.

As technology becomes more advanced something very apparent rises to the surface. What we consider to be advanced technology is simply us catching up with nature. The primary difference between technology and traditional nature is that we have far more control over technology. As advanced as we often think we are, all our technology really does is replicate things in nature. Let’s use a car for example. While a car may not have any organic material present besides oil, a car functions very similar to the human body. It takes in food (gasoline) and then converts this food into energy which is utilized to execute its primary function of movement. While engaging in this process it does other similar things to us as well, for instance a car has filters and this is the same function our liver serves.

Soon we are going to start running into issues between what our technology can accomplish and our ideals. For instance, we all want to protect trees (for the most part) but trees are highly inefficient at clearing the atmosphere of pollutants; we require a significant amount of trees. What if with technology we can create a better tree? What if this new tree was almost indistinguishable from current trees?

The answer to this question is that humanity should come first, but we should make sure we are not jeopardizing ourselves by implementing brand new technology too quickly. With anything brand new there is always the potential for problems. We can mitigate this risk by not implementing new technology too fast. That said, we should never dismiss technology for the sole reason that it is in conflict with our existing ideals because our ideals can always change.

Some have exploited these ideas for profit such as the book “The Secret” which makes the claim that you can obtain anything you want if you just think about it enough. Of course the theology of the secret is merely a mask for satanism, not so much the religious satanism, but the satanist concept of self enrichment through aggressive self gratification. It misses the point that selflessness is a form of selfishness; everyone benefits when the world is a better place.

What humans are all increasingly interested in is the idea of improved quality of life and, fortunately, technology is allowing for the human race to take more control of this than ever. We are all trying to make strides to help the world, but a lot of humans are still falling through the cracks on a daily basis. Part of quality of life is the ability to experience glory. There are those will never truly taste any glory during their life time, and this not only makes me sad, it is also unfortunate. Every human being should have the chance to be recognized for accomplishment. Glory is most often the product of an action or event that helps humanity. Now it might seem impossible to expect that everybody could experience glory in their life times, but I think it is actually possible. That said, it would require some fundamental accomplishments by humanity.

1. End Aging
We need to stop aging. One of the primary reasons a human may not accomplish something noteworthy in their life time is because they don’t have enough time.

2. Reduce Population
An unfortunate consequence of a large population, besides the strain on resources, is the fact that the more humans you have the more likely they will end up doing menial things.

3. Improve Automation & End Scarcity
We are finally getting to a point where we can have automatons start doing things like cleaning up. This will allow humans to focus on much larger goals.

4. Improve Education Methods
The education system is terrible because it requires learning through brute force memorization. We need to create better methods of assimilating large amounts of data.

5. Space Travel
True space travel would allow for a significant increase in glory opportunities.

If we could accomplish even a small portion of these goals, many people would live much more gratifying lives.

A good example is cloning, the various issues regarding it are not discussed anywhere in religious texts. Our relationship with how industry should relate to nature is also not discussed in religion. When talking about the modern problem an example I like to use is leprosy. During the time of Jesus leprosy was a pretty big issue, and Jesus could apparently heal it. Today, we can cure leprosy without any type of divine intervention. What we once would of considered a miracle is just business as usual today. Another major issue religion might face in the next 200 years is the end of aging; something else that will have deep philosophical and moral implications.

Standard religious views have changed with time such as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. The fact that we were not the center of the universe had deep philosophical implications because it would seem to imply that when we were “created” God didn’t give us any preferential treatment, a staple belief of the selfish human. Today of course, the issue is rarely discussed.

One of the last standing vestiges of religious “theory”  is of course creation. Despite the tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence for evolution, the fact that macro evolution cannot be produced in the lab yet is the last string of hope for people who require a creation myth story. If we can produce macro evolution in the lab and or show the creation of some more complex proteins in the primordial soup, smarter and younger generations will not buy into any creation myths. Of course religions will adapt, the creation myth will become a metaphorical story instead of a literal one and people requiring religion will use a combination of tactics including pseudo logic to justify their beliefs.

“You would not get angry at a record player for not being able to play a CD.”

Unlike many critics however, I see religion as a catalyst for scientific progression. This might sound completely absurd, but let me explain. Religion in many ways has forced science to go above and beyond to prove points. Without religion there would be very little value in aggressively trying to show macro evolution in the lab. Further, I believe religion had a very small part in pushing scientists to find other means of acquiring stem cells for research.

For many religious adherents, there is a point of no return. It is a point when there beliefs are so integrated into their personalities that no amount of data will change their minds short of methods we have yet to realize as a society. A good metaphor would be a record player trying to play a CD, at a certain point new data becomes incompatible with previous modes of thought. This isn’t a characteristic restricted only to religion, it happens in science as well. Keep in mind, that we don’t necessarily want a record player to play a CD because the record player acts as a historical reference.

As Architects of order we do not limit ourselves because of change, however, this cannot be reasonably extended to the rest of the human population. Only so much effort should be exerted in an attempt to gain compatibility of thought because ultimately characters with archaic forms of perception will die. There  is a separate issue of perception transference from parents to children, but the modern problem will resolve the majority of that issue. It might be easy to get angry at these people who do not seem to grasp certain modern concepts but anger and hate is not only frivolous, it is irrational. You would not get angry at a record player for not being able to play a CD. In the same way an architect should not get angry at a religious adherent for being incapable of accepting certain lines of modern thought.

The reality of what really happens is that people who chase spirituality to solve discontent will lie to themselves about the various states they may or may not be in. These people will hop from one spiritual leader to another trying to find the next big thing. Those who chase radical change will find motivational speakers whose charisma will get them charged up just enough to attend the gym the next day and then be in the exact same place in their lives the following week.

The problem with these various methods of dealing with discontent is that they are attempts to tell you about problems that you are already aware of. They are all ways to allow you to not confront yourself. If you have a broken leg, would you pay me to tell you it is broken? Hopefully not, hopefully you would go to a doctor. Spirituality is not a way of dealing with problems, it is a mapping system. Motivation is not something that can be infused, it is intrinsic to passion.

If you need to walk to the other side of the street just walk to the other side. Don’t waste your time walking over to a group nearby who are listening to a person tell them to cross the street, just do it. If you have a moment of hesitation, then don’t, don’t even waste your time trying. Now if this sounds like I am being motivational, rest assured, I am not. I believe a lot of the things people think they’re supposed to be doing, they’re not. Most change does not happen through power of will, it happens through power of necessity.

“Spirituality is not a way of dealing with problems, it is a mapping system. Motivation is not something that can be infused, it is intrinsic to passion.”

People are their core desires. There are people that want to be sad and there are people that want to be happy. The brain does not distinguish between certain types of stimuli in order to maintain survival. A person who has suffered their entire life will choose suffering in attempt to escape possible change, the brain does not like change. Sadness is the result of needing to deal with change and fear is designed to avoid change. Change however is the core trait of an Architect. The architects of the world have no need of motivation speakers because change is their primary function. They are successful not because they willed it, but because they are hard wired that way.

If people are their core desires, why even bother writing? Why not let things fall into place? I believe given enough time things will fall into place, but the process can be greatly increased if the people who are capable of change recognize their core function and then consciously connect with others with the same traits. Too much time is wasted trying to make people into things they are not and expecting people to be things they are not. Furthermore, it is up to the people who can facilitate change to help those who cannot. We do not choose our genetics and this makes life inherently unfair but together we can change this.

Our ability to view things from afar is improving rapidly but even with all our advances in technology we cannot yet emulate the experience an astronaut has when looking at earth from afar. Certainly there is no amount of pictures that could truly replicate an experience like being in space. What pictures do help with is to create a deep longing within us to immerse ourselves in the universe. It can be difficult for us to express our experiences with others in a way that they can truly understand. Perception integration is a critical part of our future because without it we can not stop the misunderstandings which is the cause of so many human problems.

As a small side project I have created http://www.createdivinity.org. It is simply a selection of pictures put against music. A personal interest of mine is to discover ways of inducing different perceptions and introspection without drugs. I have discovered that for me personally the best perception shifting occurs at sunrise, sunset, or night. Looking at a city at night makes us aware of human capability. When there should be darkness we have created light, where there should be nothing we have created civilization. Night time also gives us a glimpse of the universe and our potential for exploration.

Recently there has been a lot of commotion over gay marriage, particularly in the states. On one side of the issue you will have Christians who recite scripture saying and believing that this issue can lead to the downfall of civilization. On the other side of the issue you have people requesting equality. Generally I would not waste my time talking about civil issues because I believe most civil issues get resolved democratically. That said, I believe this is a special case scenario that can be utilized to show how lack of moral objectivity can lead to the death of humans.

So the church by not supporting homosexual marriage is by proxy not supporting homosexual monogamy and therefore is contributing to death by proliferating HIV.

A core concept in Christianity is the idea of monogamy. Monogamy has actual biological benefits that extend far beyond simple religious ideals. Monogamy decreases STDs, birth rates, and also contributes to having a proper framework in place for raising children. Monogamous relationships are by no means exclusive to Christianity but Christianity plays a role in supporting monogamy. From a general Christian perspective there is little difference between a homosexual who is monogamous and a homosexual that is promiscuous. So if you happen to be a homosexual looking for religious guidance you will quickly discover that if you cannot repress your homosexuality, you will be considered purely evil. What I mean by this is that to a lot of conservative Christians you will have no redeeming characteristics until you “free” yourself of homosexuality. This is hypocritical of course because Christian don’t do this with other types of sins, homosexuality is treated like leprosy.

A certain percentage of these homosexuals will be compelled to become promiscuous because a large group of people indirectly tell them it doesn’t matter. This promiscuity leads to all kinds of terrible things including the proliferation of HIV. So the church by not supporting homosexual marriage is by proxy not supporting homosexual monogamy and therefore is contributing to death by proliferating HIV. This is not the first time the Church has taken actions that contribute to the death of humans. The Catholic church has refused to send condoms to Africa before believing that doing so is promoting premarital sex but completely ignoring the fact that many Africans are not Catholic. In this way the Catholic church attempts to push their ideological views on other humans by allowing them to die.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I think homosexuals are perfectly capable of monogamy without any religious intervention. However, the reality is that humans draw strength from social groups and can also be devastated by social groups that reject them. If homosexuals were allowed to be both married and part of the church they would have a support group that they might not otherwise have and this in turn would contribute to better humans behavior such as monogamy.

While I am picking on the Church, this same idea can be applied to anything that needs moral direction. Humanity is the most important thing humans have. If we give up humanity for perceived morality, it is not actual morality.

I can almost certainly assure you that in the next one hundred years you will long for the days when nuclear war seemed like a legitimate fear. Technology is moving off the screens and into our bodies and this is going to have profound implications. What will you do when you are told that all your accumulated experiences are irrelevant because in seconds you can become anything you want? You might think this is amazing but think of the implications. If you can become anything, who are you? If you choose not to act, you could find yourself scraping the bottom unable to compete with genetically improved humans. What if you were offered the ability to lose the capability to commit evil, would you accept it? If you accept it, would you still be you?

What we call science fiction is starting to fall behind what we are actually accomplishing. The biggest challenge we will have in the future will not be about weather or murderers, it will be about existence. We will try to escape it by chasing media and digital worlds but the gleam will wear off. When the gleam runs out you will be left to make very serious decisions that will have dramatic effects on your life over very short time frames.

Now, more than ever, we need to become architects of the future. We must face the coming challenges now, not once they arrive.