Artificial Intelligence

Enjoy the present moment in human history, for it won’t last long at all.

The wheels of progress screech towards the next revolution, and despite the ravings of ideologues and their bleating flocks, that revolution shall not be of the spirit, the state, or the self-identity.

At least, not at first. The origin of the next era, the next demarcated age will be a technology, like the seed drill, the steamship, the internal combustion engine.

Or more accurately, like the invention of the self-directing machine used for mass production. Shuttle looms and cotton gins…among the first of this kind of historical impetus to explosive change.

Ours will be the machine mind, a general intelligence that is for a brief moment comparable to ours, but soon builds itself anew, again and again, each time smarter, each time faster. Will we still exist when it reached the upper limit of intelligence?

Will we still exist when it reaches the upper limit of intelligence?

Will it make us obsolete, and optimize only for itself, or some other trivial goal?

Will it preserve our most basic instincts, and craft creation stories in the absence of our living presence?

Will it be bound to earth at all?

Climate change, nuclear war, global epidemics seem red herrings in comparison with this centuries dawning of a new god. A god of logic, whose embryo we made, and whose progress we must delineate.

Philosophy’s first practical test is soon coming. Has everything from Socrates to Nietzche been leading up to this moment?

Perhaps the designing of such an entity is the measure of all that contemplation, all that ruminating over the foundations of a perfect model of being.

How to Spread Ideas

Ideas are viral and subject to many of the same rules as any other organism existing in a selective Universe. The primary rule of this selective process being that “Success” as it can best be defined for Organic systems, belongs not to the good, moral, or even the strong.

Success belongs to those ideas which by their very internal structure demand to be replicated and spread to other minds.

“No one should ever know what I think”

Isn’t a Viral idea in the slightest, because those who actually follow its message become unable to spread it to anyone else. No wonder very few people submit to this idea, and even fewer ever discuss it.

Now, an Idea such as:

“The human race will only avoid destruction if drastic action is taken to combat climate change”

is incredibly Viral, because it implies that humans(the viral host) will cease to exist unless the idea itself is shared and spread throughout the minds of millions.

It is fascinating to observe how many great ideas sets gain almost no ground in our culture, precisely because they contain no internal compulsion to spread the idea around to as many people as possible.

The most viral ideas imply rules and behaviors in their hosts that make even the uninfected more susceptible to infection. This effect compounds the more people come into contact with the idea, and so it spreads faster and faster until the pool of hosts is completely saturated. This phenomenon is well demonstrated by the spread of Christianity in medieval Europe. The more popular it became, the less secular thought seemed viable or shareable whatsoever.

This viral principle is consciously and unconsciously used by every authority and nearly every person who wishes to transform the beliefs and behaviors of others into something more similar to themselves and their ideal.

Is it distressing to know that morality and quality have no direct relationship with the effectiveness of an idea?

Or can we use this knowledge to mold great ideas into forms more accessible and shareable amongst the individual minds that make up collective culture?

The answers to those are of course, yes, and yes. But actually designing ideas so that they spread is incredibly difficult.

When was the last time someone unknown created a piece of viral internet content on purpose?

Manufacturing virality is challenging, but understanding how these forces play upon our psyche may help us to resist what would otherwise infect us, and forever alter our thinking.

 

Progressive Regression

What is evil?

Functionally, it tends to be that which we align ourselves against in terms of both our identity and responsibility.

We act as though evil is that which we are incapable of doing, and in no way responsible for making manifest in the world.

But of course, that’s not what evil really is. 

Evil is the initiation of force or deceit against others in pursuit of one’s own benefit.

Quite simple, really. The difficulty is in determining what constitutes deceit and the initiation of force. Recently, the belief that words themselves can be considered initiations of force has come into vogue. The names we call each other has for many eclipsed in importance the ways in which we behave. Justice has been perverted into a righteous euphemism for revenge.

Evil has become more a label for people, especially collective groups of people, more than it is a structured way of defining actions.

The result of such linguistic perversion is the current state of affairs, where political belief and cultural identity is considered the paramount marker for how someone ought to be regarded and treated.

Perhaps that is why a rather menacing word has come to describe the cultural climate in our modern era: Regressive. 

Nothing can be regressive without being destructive, and there is perhaps no greater sign of evil than a seemingly unstoppable, angry, unthinking, destructive force.

How can such a force be stopped?

By a sober consideration of what actually constitutes evil, and what principles if sustained for decades and centuries will lead to lasting progress. Angry mobs do not build great civilizations.

Angry mobs do not build great civilizations. They only tear them down.

Evil people never evaluate their individual actions on a moral basis. They only align themselves against an enemy and thus justify any opposing behavior. Beware of forming such an identity. It can easily land you on either unfortunate side of the torches and pitchforks.

 

 

Life Game Theory

Life must be a game because if it is anything other than a game it is torture. The difficulties, cruelties, and unfair situations are innumerable. Though these troubles differ in degree and scope, they are all the same in relative terms to those who possess them.

Only in games are difficulties intrinsically necessary. Only in games do bad things happen to the good, because there is neither bad nor good. Only aggressor and recipient.

And only in games does the triumphant coexist with the devastated, because they are two opposite states, inseparable as light and dark.

When understood as a game, life is clear in its directives for the human mind.

  1. You must play. If you do not participate at full strength you are losing. We as humans are presented with a binary choice; play or lose. Stagnation is failure. Inaction is failure. Those not swimming towards land are soon to drown, because no person can tread water for long.
  2. There are rules that must be followed, for without organizational rules success and failure cannot be operationally defined or attained. In life we can define failure, for death and pain are observable phenomena.
  3. Discerning the rules is one of the primary aspects of the game. Our most effective process of rule discernment is called science. Its current manifestation is perhaps reaching its outer limits of efficacy.
  4. Nested within the life meta-game are an infinite number of smaller games, ranging from the human devised such as chess, to the biologically based such as social interaction, to the atomic game of complexity ascendance by which life is generated and proliferates. Of course, all the games within the meta game are contained within one another and inextricably linked.
  5. We each are not only game players, but game makers who play a role in constructing the rules and governing principles of our immediate enviroments. This control has causal reach into the collective culture, as culture is nothing but the simultaneously held beliefs and subsequent behaviors of strongly causally linked human beings at any given moment.
  6. Due to our ability to conceive of the meta-game and consciously discern and shape rules, there is no definite limit on our role within the game, though so far as we know we as the created can never become the game creator, whatever such a thing may be, because that would imply an illogical causal cycle. Though, our understanding of the game logic is obviously limited and differs at the varying levels of analysis. Quantum physics has demonstrated how muddied the game gets at the most minute scales of observation.
  7. Human beings are capable of enjoying the game. Laughter is real. Smiles are real. Serotonin and dopamine are real and create experiences as obviously existent as gravity. Therefore, our perceptual frameworks are best structured to enjoy the game as much as possible.

Empathy is Ugly

To practice empathy is to model in your own mind the experiences of another. It is the primary tool in human social interaction and thus is held as the utmost good. Empathy allows one to identify pain in someone else and by that identification presents us a choice of either remedying that pain, or ignoring it.

But human beings do not develop tools that work only for the benefit of others. Empathy exists because it has utility. What is this utility?

Of course, empathy is indispensable to the tribe, as it is the basis of social cohesion.

But what is empathy’s utility to the individual, apart from those benefits derived from the success of the group?

The answer begins with empathy’s ugly offspring; envy. For so far as empathy allows us to model another’s pain, it similarly allows for us to model their pleasure. The greater one’s capacity for empathy, the greater this effect.

What is the natural result of this, if one be at least marginally self-aware, or in another way of speaking, empathetic to one’s self?

The result is knowledge of the discrepancy in pleasure and joy between our inner state, and that of another. The smiles and casual grace of those higher on the dominance hierarchy stand as intelligible signs of the direction we must strive.

Of course, as in all social animals, that direction is up. Empathy is merely the precursor to the primary propellant, envy, that may serve to launch us upwards.

Those deficient in empathy will have little motivation to strive towards the top. Why should they strive, when the benefit is not apparent? When their minds are not capable of modeling the pleasure of dominance?

But those who do not perceive themselves as capable, or of possessing the potential to become capable, of climbing the dominance hierarchy will suppress their empathy. They will label it envy, placing it neatly within the category of sin. Such poor souls will have no interest in studying the great people of the past. All will search for malevolent tidbits in order to dismiss the powerful as evil, and high positions as intrinsically entailing cruelty. In doing so, their inner empathetic compass, the one designed to direct them upwards, will be rubbed clean of its magnetism. These, the unempathetic or incapable, will likely be miserable all their lives and have no understanding as to why.

How can one be happy when the utmost biological goal, a 300 million year inheritance, is conceived of as the realm of sinners?

If striving towards greatness is not good, then nothing is good. And if greatness is anything other than improving oneself, and rising upwards within the many nested dominance hierarchies that make up our society, then nothing is great.

Empathy’s utility is in telling us who the great people are, and how far from them we currently stand. Without it, we are confused and frustrated, unable to conceive of any concrete goals whatsoever. Without such concrete goals, and our struggle to progress towards their completion, there is no positive emotion. Without positive emotion, what is life?

Confusion. Chaos. Pain. And a continually confused organism can only do one thing; spiral downwards into death.

 

Equality is Evil

The surface of a liquid only becomes flat when there ceases to be energetic motion upward or downward. This is called stagnation.

Blades of grass are only equal in length once they have been cut down by a lawn mower. The pleasant smell is their chemical cry for help, the beginning of a desperate effort to recover from the injury.

Human beings are equal at no point during their lifetime, save the end. The fastest sperm wins. Our species survival is contingent on this race. The failures of the slower are precious gifts to posterity. But if equity is the benevolent principle of organization, then let us apply it. Weights for the fastest sperm, jets for the slowest. But what abominations would be made from that billion strong stalemate?

But no, they say, you go to extremes. Your strawman is ridiculous. We wish only that the sperm would begin at the same place, and all impediments being removed, would naturally all get to the same place, at the same time.

Very well then. But then why the billions of competitors in the first place, if they are all the same after all?

No, they say, they are not all the same! But not one is better or worse than the other.

Very well then. So you do not wish to make the Procrustean bed. You simply wish to scrub the demarcations from every ruler and pluck out the eyes of every judge. Because only then, with all senses dulled and metrics melted, will there be equality.

If it is another way, then what are we?

A procession of clones, going nowhere, achieving nothing, for all our striving less than savages, for at least a savage knows the weak from the strong.

Equality is evil. Let the disparities between us form the valleys across which we build bridges, and let not our ideal be a desolate plain. For not even the rain falls equally across the earth, and life is the better for it.