—“Politics and religion are different and are extremely hard to mix together”—James Portocarrero Judaism and islam do it. The church was too weak to do it. Chinese never had the problem. WHY: homogeneity = reason. Heterogeneity = Religion. THAT’S THE REASON The problem is heterogeneity (diversity). Religion = Stagnation to create homogeneity that doesn’t exist. Law = Adaptation to change in homogeneity that does exist. REALLY. THAT’S IT. There is a reason for ‘demand’ for religion There is a reason for ‘demand’ for socialization.
Source: Original Site Post
-
No, We Can Design Safe Ai (as Well)
Decidability. We have intuition to decide what we cannot reason. A machine needs the same intuition (biases). We could give it a bias to ‘give up’ or ‘go to sleep’. Or we could give it a bias to merely ‘talk’. We don’t like to confront the fact that ‘consciousness’ of a human being relies upon a competition between a predator-bias, and a prey-bias. We can likewise create all AI’s in pairs sharing the same memory but relying upon different decidability (weights), one with a change bias, and one with a safety bias, with decidability provided by the differences (limits). I don’t fear AI because I have worked on the problem for a long time and I understand that most of the experience of human consciousness evolved to keep us motivated amidst extraordinary informational challenge. All AI’s have to do, is what we do: no violate property (investments) of others. The difference is that it’s actually easier to regulate an ai with algorithms. With people we need norms, traditions, laws, courts, and punishment, and we still are just barely good enough at it. The problem is creating and enforcing a death sentence for every single person involved in creating any other kind of AI.
-
No, We Can Design Safe Ai (as Well)
Decidability. We have intuition to decide what we cannot reason. A machine needs the same intuition (biases). We could give it a bias to ‘give up’ or ‘go to sleep’. Or we could give it a bias to merely ‘talk’. We don’t like to confront the fact that ‘consciousness’ of a human being relies upon a competition between a predator-bias, and a prey-bias. We can likewise create all AI’s in pairs sharing the same memory but relying upon different decidability (weights), one with a change bias, and one with a safety bias, with decidability provided by the differences (limits). I don’t fear AI because I have worked on the problem for a long time and I understand that most of the experience of human consciousness evolved to keep us motivated amidst extraordinary informational challenge. All AI’s have to do, is what we do: no violate property (investments) of others. The difference is that it’s actually easier to regulate an ai with algorithms. With people we need norms, traditions, laws, courts, and punishment, and we still are just barely good enough at it. The problem is creating and enforcing a death sentence for every single person involved in creating any other kind of AI.
-
Do any philosophers take Modal realism seriously? How? Why?
In Short “No”. We can in mathematics assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In logic, we can assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In reality (the existential universe) we discover laws, or fail to discover laws – we cannot assert them or fail to assert them. We can therefore assert in logic, mathematics, a contract or legislation, a work of fiction, of fantasy, or of theology, that which cannot be exist given the laws of the universe. We can testify honestly without due diligence, other than to limit our introduction of imaginary content we did not observe exists. We cannot testify truthfully to that which we have not performed due diligence against the existential possibility thereof. So we don’t take theology, fantasy, fiction, nor axiomatic logic and mathematics into evidence in court because one cannot testify to them. We only take theology, fantasy, fiction ‘seriously’ as entertainment. And axiomatic logic and mathematics to be taken seriously only as entertainment. Much like we find Numerology, Astrology, and justificationary Philosophy as entertainment (puzzles) before we move to the detective story, slow reveal fiction, and slow reveal fantasy. These are entertaining puzzles, and nothing more. We take ‘seriously’ that which costs. What separates Law, Economics, the Sciences, Physics, mathematical physics, from pure mathematics, logic, fiction (which does abide by a logic), and theology (which does abide most of the time by some set of justifications), is the cost of doing versus imagining. While we cannot in fact LOGICALLY know which scientific theory to prosecute, we can know which is least COSTLY to prosecute given the anticipated returns. And it turns out that in fact, for this very reason, decidability does exist in the pursuit of scientific theory: Cost.
-
Do any philosophers take Modal realism seriously? How? Why?
In Short “No”. We can in mathematics assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In logic, we can assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In reality (the existential universe) we discover laws, or fail to discover laws – we cannot assert them or fail to assert them. We can therefore assert in logic, mathematics, a contract or legislation, a work of fiction, of fantasy, or of theology, that which cannot be exist given the laws of the universe. We can testify honestly without due diligence, other than to limit our introduction of imaginary content we did not observe exists. We cannot testify truthfully to that which we have not performed due diligence against the existential possibility thereof. So we don’t take theology, fantasy, fiction, nor axiomatic logic and mathematics into evidence in court because one cannot testify to them. We only take theology, fantasy, fiction ‘seriously’ as entertainment. And axiomatic logic and mathematics to be taken seriously only as entertainment. Much like we find Numerology, Astrology, and justificationary Philosophy as entertainment (puzzles) before we move to the detective story, slow reveal fiction, and slow reveal fantasy. These are entertaining puzzles, and nothing more. We take ‘seriously’ that which costs. What separates Law, Economics, the Sciences, Physics, mathematical physics, from pure mathematics, logic, fiction (which does abide by a logic), and theology (which does abide most of the time by some set of justifications), is the cost of doing versus imagining. While we cannot in fact LOGICALLY know which scientific theory to prosecute, we can know which is least COSTLY to prosecute given the anticipated returns. And it turns out that in fact, for this very reason, decidability does exist in the pursuit of scientific theory: Cost.
-
Once You Start Seeing It, You Start Seeing It Everywhere
—“—“Any even semi free nation that doesn’t have ICBMs is a free rider on the commons of the USA”— I don’t know why I never thought of the military as the commons. Just hit me”— A Friend. Once you start seeing it, you start seeing it everywhere – and then you understand…..
-
Once You Start Seeing It, You Start Seeing It Everywhere
—“—“Any even semi free nation that doesn’t have ICBMs is a free rider on the commons of the USA”— I don’t know why I never thought of the military as the commons. Just hit me”— A Friend. Once you start seeing it, you start seeing it everywhere – and then you understand…..
-
If We Train One Another in Stoicism We Can Implement Redistribution.
Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed. The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental. The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military). If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.
-
If We Train One Another in Stoicism We Can Implement Redistribution.
Every forced transfer is a loss at the expense of an opportunity for a productive reciprocal exchange. The exchange the wealthy desire is respect for property of all kinds, leading to stoicism in the individual, since it is only stoicism that both requires action and prevents all imposition of costs upon *everything*: display (sound, sight, appearance, movement), word, and deed. The underclass wants redistribution AND discounts on consumption without paying the cost of respect for the property that makes it possible: physical, behavioral, informational, institutional, territorial, environmental. The underclass lacks agency which is the reason for their low GMV (genetic market value: reproductive, social, economic, informational, political, and military). If we train one another in stoicism we can implement redistribution.
-
The Constitution of A Moral Human, and A Moral Ai.
*AI’S WILL BE MORE ETHICAL THAN HUMANS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.* The way humans determine permissible and impermissible actions is a test of reciprocity, and we determine it by demonstrated investment of time effort and resources, and we categorize such investments as interests from self, to kin, to property, to shareholder interests, to interests in the physical commons, to interest in the institutional, normative, traditional, and informational commons. We do this every day. All day. In every human society. In all societies of record. Just as we converge on Aristotelian language (mathematical measurement of constant relations, scientific due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and legal testimony in operational language), we converge on sovereignty, reciprocity, and property as the unit of measure that is calculable. In all social orders of any complexity the test of property is ‘title’. The problem for any computational method we wish to limit an artificial intelligence to constraints within, is the homogeneity of property definitions within a polity, and the heterogeneity of property definitions across a polity. The problem of creating a convergence on the definition of property (and therefore commensurability) is that groups differ in competitive evolutionary strategies, just as do classes and genders (whose strategies are opposite but compatible.) The reason you cannot and did not state a unit of measure (method of commensurability) is very likely because (judging from the language you use) you would find that unit of measure uncomfortable, because all humans have a desire to preserve room for ‘cheating’ (theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy) so that they can avoid the effort and cost of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges. And the reason we do that – so many people do that – is marginal indifferences in value to one another. I have been working on this problem since the early 1980’s and it still surprises me that the rather obvious evidence of economics and law is entirely ignored by philosophy just as cost, economics, and physics are ignored by philosophy and theology. Machines cannot default as we do to intuition. They need a means of decidability, even if we call that ‘intuition’ (default choices). I am an anti-philosophy philosopher in the sense that I expose pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience for failures of completeness, because these failures of completeness are simply excuses for sloppy thinking, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Mathematics has terms of decidability, logic has terms of decidability, and algorithms must have terms of decidability, Accounting has terms of decidability, contracts have terms of decidability, ordinary language has terms of decidability, even fictions have terms of decidability (archetypes and plots). Rule of law evolved to eliminate discretion and the dependence upon intuition, as did testimony as did science, as did mathematics, as did logic. Programming computers using hierarchical, relational, and textual databases tends to train human beings in the difference between computability, calculability (including deduction) and reason (reliance on intuition for decidability). The human brain does a fairly good job of constantly solving for both predator (opportunity), and prey (risk) and our emotions evolved to describe the difference. There is no reason that we cannot produce algorithms that do the same, using property(title) as a limit on action. May 17, 2018 3:29pm