“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Saturday, February 4, 2023
Artificial Intelligence vs. Artificial Communication
Elena Esposito and Hans-Georg Moeller discuss intelligence, algorithms, and communication.
The Immanent vs. Transcendent Qualities of intelligence?
ChatGPT is more a one-way interface/interpretter between the unintelligibility of an AI and the human race... provided ChatGTP was trained on both the AI's curated culture and ours.
When most people are talking of artificial intelligence, they're really talking about artificial communication. Intelligence and communication are two separate things. An "algorithm" can never "become intelligence"... it always represents a human intelligence translated into an algorithm that machines can process, but never "understand" and become "sentient" thereby.
Even if it's adaptive, and can modify it's own algorithm, it's still not "intelligence" to the extent that the adaptations are also algorithms, added to the original like a DNA string. Is DNA "intelligent"? Or is it a stored algorithm for the cellular life forms it controls?
Consciousness isn't in the DNA/code. Consciousness and its' "intelligence", it's posited "self-identification" through the "mirror stage" and seeing itself as a singular (vice collective) entity is a falsification of reality.
The term AI really refers to artificial communication which is then mis-perceived by intelligence as "having intelligence" and subsequently labelled AI (instead of AC).
Artificial communication employs a "list-making" strategy. When you "Google" something it gives you a "list". A list of possibly desireable results. The intelligence must select "which" of these possible list items best applies.
Lists are useful for organizing and re-organizing data in new and novel ways.... which is what ChatGTP does. It's just a more/higher processed Google list. At NASA we have Level 0 data, Level 1, Level; 2, Level 3. etc. AT each level the abstraction from the raw science data (Level 0) into useful data products increases.
Chat GTP Looks for patterns and structures in listed data search results which then allows for further/ higher level algorithmic abstractions being applied to the produced lists eventually becoming "predictive" in nature based upon the probabilities calculated/derived from observing the higher level patterns. A kind of "divination" from probabilistic "signs".... from an aggregate of sources to create an "average" result re-applied to produce singular/ individual one (ie DJIA vs Apple Stock), which then become "performative". Oedipus gets his fate from the delphic oracle, and then "makes it happen".. it (the delphic prediction) "changes the future".
ie - An algorithm monitoring your data inputs and searches proposes a product to buy in the form of an "Ad". You then sunconsciously "consider" the product's utility as you continue browsing (if you've never seen it before), and may later buy the product, thereby altering the future... all from this subliminal suggestion.
Esposito believe that the path forward is to stop trying to simulate human intelligence. Just like whith the airplane, the real advancements in aeronautics happened when we stopped trying to imitate birds.
How does the mind participate in communication? (Lumen)
Lumen believes that Minds cannot communicate and they do not communicate, their operation is thinking and feeling and other mental things (their MO) and this is all Minds do. Communication and Mind are separate, operationally closed systems. How does the mind "influence" communication (w/o participating in it) Mind "manages" communication, but does not participate in it.
So algorithms are involved in communication, but aren't involved in it? The algorithm is involved in communication w/o participating in it. Structural coupling with environment. In order for communication to happen, there must in general be at least two devoted consciousness participating
...two devoted consciousness participating into that. That's why speaks participating baptized in this form. This means we can go on thinking about ourselves, and not to participate in uh in communication at all, or we can devote our thoughts to the content of the communication. For example, me and you now, you can think about yourself... what you want to do tonight, if you are hungry, if you are tired, if you have a bad mood or a good mood, or you can listen to what i'm saying and focus your thoughts, that sort of connect your thought with what i'm saying, by which of course you don't accept, have any access to my thoughts. i simply do something that through communication which system theory says "irritates", if you want, your thoughts in order to produce something, which, well if it works out, produce some information, with your information different from mine. And so that's how communication goes on. So um, the idea that in the case of of consciousness, structural coupling becomes more strict because it's not just an environmental background, it's an actual operation of the psychic system that's to be devoted to the actual operation of the social system. That's why they coincide in this event... my psychic event is coupled to a communicative event, and yours too, and they want to. Everybody's listening so it's a stronger requirement. And that makes the concept artificial communication in a sense tricky, because i propose it, because i think empirically what's going on in in the interaction with algorithms is so close to communication that it's a we have to try to find a way to extend that to expand or to amend or to change the concept of communication also to include what's going on because there's something that cannot be described in any other way than through reference to communication, or i can, i cannot describe it any other way.
Well... try to be "not sincere" with a computer... while programming it.
That way you'd need a "symbolic imagery" to placate your trauma, of course. ;-P
\\Esposito believe that the path forward is to stop trying to simulate human intelligence. Just like whith the airplane, the real advancements in aeronautics happened when we stopped trying to imitate birds.
Meaningless babbling... while that who pointing at uselessness of flapping his hands to make flight, DID NOT proposed HIS vision of how we can. ;-P
\\So algorithms are involved in communication, but aren't involved in it? The algorithm is involved in communication w/o participating in it. Structural coupling with environment. In order for communication to happen, there must in general be at least two devoted consciousness participating
Blah-blah-blah... I never knew that wise words of Lem was so true...
\\all from this subliminal suggestion.
Yep. Marcketologists would like it...
\\Consciousness isn't in the DNA/code. Consciousness and its' "intelligence", it's posited "self-identification" through the "mirror stage" and seeing itself as a singular (vice collective) entity is a falsification of reality.
Mixing of categories. First you said about physical level -- physical body of a human. And than, started talking from our "inner I". Obvious mistake. As our languages do not equiped to do it any other way -- understanding og that antinomy -- is whole point of Golem XIV screed AFAIK. ;-P
\\...a combined "second-order once removed" artificial communicator.
The curated database from which ChatGTP draws it's material and composes it's response doesn't originate with any "intelligence" within ChatGTP. So whatever response it generates isn't "primary source" material. it's at best second order collection of recombined primary/ seondary/ tertiar/ etc. materials.
Example... Plato writes a dialogue, then a historian uses a part of that dialogue in a textbook on philosophy. Plato's material is "primary source". If I quote the textbook version, it's a "secondary source". This is what Roland Barthes, et al, called "The Death of the Author".
When I read, I prefer using primary sourced materials. It has a more complete context than excepts quoted elsewhere and looses less in its' "communication" from Plato's brain to mine..
I've read the Iliad by several different translators. It's a different book with each one. Alexander Pope used to try and render his translations in Iambic pentameter/ verse. Again, a spin on the text that distorts it.
\\This is what Roland Barthes, et al, called "The Death of the Author". Hardly that is important, AFAIK.
Are sources of information important?
\\Just like you might read Lem in the original, I must go through translators... and the original meaning gets lost. /If so... then it was uniportant. ;-P
So if a 70 IQ translator translates the work of a 150 IQ author, anything "lost in translation" was unimportant?
\\Is the Google algorithm that translates the material an "intelligence"? or just an algorithm used for communication facilitation? /Same old question -- is language intelligent by itself? ;-) Or... same "chinese room" argument. I myself have working hypothesis that that words/language -- that's just a labels.
The Chinese room experiment is an experiment in artificial communication, not "artificial intelligence". The intelligence was in the person who put together the instruction sets (algorithm) for the person inside the Chinese room experiment. The words/language was just the labels (as you say). The intelligence lay in the "ordering" of them [as captured by the algorithm (ChatGTP), but only present/inherent in the mind of the algorithm's "author" (the human development team for ChatGTP)].
\\It's a different book with each one. /Like something bad. ;-)
Some books are good, others are bad. I like reading the "good" ones. The "classics" that have withstood the tests (and tastes) of "time".
Reflecting upon and Recording, experimenting with...Difference, Repetition, Result... Difference, Repetition, Result... That is the "tech" of a predictive Intelligence. For all intelligence, ultimately, is "recollection".
Plato, "Meno" SOCRATES: They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.
MENO: What was it? and who were they?
SOCRATES: Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied how they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there have been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like Pindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say—mark, now, and see whether their words are true—they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness. 'For in the ninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has received the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the light of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings and mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in after ages.' The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the sluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In that confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of virtue.
MENO: Yes, Socrates; but what do you mean by saying that we do not learn, and that what we call learning is only a process of recollection? Can you teach me how this is?
SOCRATES: I told you, Meno, just now that you were a rogue, and now you ask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no teaching, but only recollection; and thus you imagine that you will involve me in a contradiction.
It can be algorithmically "programmed" into a sequence of muscle movements, it can be programmed into a sequence of computer keystrokes, it can be programmed into a brain's cerebellum to coordinate the muscle movements necessary for pedaling and riding a bicycle. But "creating" those ordered neuronal firing pattern sequences only come from a long and studied practice of order, difference, and repetition... trial and error... then "myelination" of axons (through repeated use) to make those sequences "instinctual".
Sure, you can transfer the developed pattern algorithm onto a different computer and it will perform competently UNTIL it meets a "black swan event", something the pattern's originator failed to anticipate. And at that point it will fail, and the process of difference, repetition, and result must begin again. We stand upon the shoulders of the giants who developed the original algorithm pattern.... yet begin anew, often grossly unaware of the materials used to devise the original giants' pattern, for the variables of "difference" previously attempted and discarded are lost in the translation of the algorithm onto a new computer.
Transferring the pattern to another computer is not intelligence, THAT is communication. Intelligence is what happens after the transferred and communicated pattern/ algorithm fails.
...if it changes nothing, it will fail again (provided the black swan event became a permanent and growing fixture of its' environment)... and will go extinct. If it changes the wrong things in adapting to the new circumstances, it will fail and go extinct. Only the few who make the "right/successful" changes/ adaptations will survive, and live to transfer their pattern/algorithm to the "next generation".
Communication can be a form of "reproduction" when transferring an algorithm from one computer to another (like a DNA code sequence)
...but not all attempts at communication or reproduction are entirely successful.
The phrase qui pro quo, or quiproquo (from medieval Latin: literally qui instead of quo), is common in languages such as Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and French, where it means a misunderstanding.
Adaptive is what "intelligence" is. Whether artificial or natural. And adaptations which conserve/ preserve the greatest number of options available for future adaptations, are probably the "most" intelligent (unless it also lead more easily to confusion and failure, as what seems to be increasingly true for the case of man's late-post-modernism).
\\...one minute, and then after a black swan/ or extinction threatening event, poof, a new "mean" intelligence for survival may be required.
And answer is... diversity. ;-)
\\The IQ normal-distribution curve
And what IQ mean? And what normal-distribution mean? ;-)
\\Adaptive is what "intelligence" is.
Yap.
\\Intelligence is what happens after the transferred and communicated pattern/ algorithm fails.
Little problem here. Brain not needed for that. ;-P
Well, I'm just a losy prol and technologist... wannabe. I just know how to pile break onto a break... to make that piramid.
And I see it... that there is only TWO ways of doing things. Top down and bottom up.
Like... when pharaoh wants that piramid -- he asks mason, and that trying to devise a way.
But well... from where comes very idea of that piramid -- if not from a mason... well, at first he was not called that way, piled one break on another... just idly, of while playing, but it showed its perspective, and that's pileing of breaks tech started. ;-)
My problem, AFAIS... is that my idea *neither* top down nor bottom up. But something in the middle. And as that -- question -- how to push it into Reality. ;-P Was there examples of it, even???
Like... That Einstain's Letter. ;-)
\\Some books are good, others are bad. I like reading the "good" ones. The "classics" that have withstood the tests (and tastes) of "time".
And how do acquire taste, that way? ;-)
\\The Chinese room experiment is an experiment in artificial communication, not "artificial intelligence".
Correct? Maybe. But... fruitless. Another word -- can it give you idea of how o make it? How to make something new, at all??? Doubt it.
\\So if a 70 IQ translator translates the work of a 150 IQ author, anything "lost in translation" was unimportant?
You know that saying of Feynman(?): "if you cannot explain your theory to a 6 year old"... you are lossy theorticain, so to say. ;-P
\\Are sources of information important?
Imagine... POTUS suddenly barfed -- what very valuable information you can devise from such an "exclamation" of a such "very important source".
That is thing Derpy do not understand. All that "rules of thumbs" is just heuristics... NOT laws. And as such, need to be discerned, intelligently -- what to take,and what to throw aside...
"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application.
Plato, in his attempt to define a "part" of virtue, "courage" (Laches Dialogue) defines the whole of virtue as follows:
Plato, "Laches"
SOCRATES: I will tell you. He and I have a notion that there is not one knowledge or science of the past, another of the present, a third of what is likely to be best and what will be best in the future; but that of all three there is one science only: for example, there is one science of medicine which is concerned with the inspection of health equally in all times, present, past, and future; and one science of husbandry in like manner, which is concerned with the productions of the earth in all times. As to the art of the general, you yourselves will be my witnesses that he has an excellent foreknowledge of the future, and that he claims to be the master and not the servant of the soothsayer, because he knows better what is happening or is likely to happen in war: and accordingly the law places the soothsayer under the general, and not the general under the soothsayer. Am I not correct in saying so, Laches?
LACHES: Quite correct.
SOCRATES: And do you, Nicias, also acknowledge that the same science has understanding of the same things, whether future, present, or past?
NICIAS: Yes, indeed Socrates; that is my opinion.
SOCRATES: And courage, my friend, is, as you say, a knowledge of the fearful and of the hopeful?
NICIAS: Yes.
SOCRATES: And the fearful, and the hopeful, are admitted to be future goods and future evils?
NICIAS: True.
SOCRATES: And the same science has to do with the same things in the future or at any time?
NICIAS: That is true.
SOCRATES: Then courage is not the science which is concerned with the fearful and hopeful, for they are future only; courage, like the other sciences, is concerned not only with good and evil of the future, but of the present and past, and of any time?
NICIAS: That, as I suppose, is true.
SOCRATES: Then the answer which you have given, Nicias, includes only a third part of courage; but our question extended to the whole nature of courage: and according to your view, that is, according to your present view, courage is not only the knowledge of the hopeful and the fearful, but seems to include nearly every good and evil without reference to time. What do you say to that alteration in your statement?
NICIAS: I agree, Socrates.
SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.
SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, according to this new definition of yours, instead of being a part of virtue only, will be all virtue?
NICIAS: It would seem so.
SOCRATES: But we were saying that courage is one of the parts of virtue?
NICIAS: Yes, that was what we were saying.
SOCRATES: And that is in contradiction with our present view?
NICIAS: That appears to be the case.
SOCRATES: Then, Nicias, we have not discovered what courage is.
In other words, another so-called part of virtue (besides the courage:temperance opposites) is "wisdom". In the Catholic cardinal virtues, this is called "prudence". Science (the new universal religion) calls this "intelligence". Each "part" of virtue is "opposed" by its' opposite. And the "opposite/ opposed" virtue to "wisdom" is "justice"... (like showing "mercy").
So virtue's (4) cardinal elements can be described as follows:
\\Intelligence: When to "lie" instead of telling the "truth"... to "speak" (communicate) or "not speak" intelligently...
I already stated it clear... I'm not interested (that much) into whataboutism around-around it... but in real deal thing. ;-P
\\..for ultimately, "modernity" or "the enlightenment" was merely the "secularization" of religion. Taking the "G_d" out of it.
Aha... that idea that our predecessors was dumb, and didn't know it that very idea of "god"... is bogus in its core. ;-P
Even though their deeds scream 'bout it...
\\So the question becomes, what is intelligencee(s) virtuous opposed counterpart if it constitutes the twins of wisdom:justice. Communication?
I'm not equipped for that question to mean something to me. Sorry.
See. I'm saying it frankly here. Even though it can ruin mood, maybe.
But isn't truthfulness is a virtue too??? But is it revered... by most. ;-P Too much, like only as for lip-service purposes. ;-)
You wanna definition of Intelligence from me? In such a phylosophical way???
Then... its Truth. ;-) Embodyment of Truth itself. ;-)
\\Science (the new universal religion) calls this "intelligence".
Still... I would like your agreement here. To discern. Real Science... and mere scientism -- which is religion, true. I will not even try to placate it... that it is only partly, only in some wrong places... whatever.
\\"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application.
Only superficial resemblance. AFAIU.
\\SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness?
Well... you give this excerpt to me second(?) time. AFAIR. And previous time I gave you answer -- isn't that word to word what Lem/GolemXVI said?
So.. what you wanna squizze out of me?
While I declared openly myself as a pragmatist. By need (as technologist wannabe). Therefore... if I can rever ANYTHING as that idealistic thing as virtue or holiness, or whatever... that'll be pragamaticism itself. ;-)
\\Intelligence: When to "lie" instead of telling the "truth"... to "speak" (communicate) or "not speak" intelligently... /I already stated it clear... I'm not interested (that much) into whataboutism around-around it... but in real deal thing. ;-P
But that IS the real deal thing. It's conditional and can only be seen in "hindsight". It depends upon "success".
\\So the question becomes, what is intelligencee(s) virtuous opposed counterpart if it constitutes the twins of wisdom:justice. Communication? /I'm not equipped for that question to mean something to me. Sorry. See. I'm saying it frankly here. Even though it can ruin mood, maybe. But isn't truthfulness is a virtue too??? But is it revered... by most. ;-P Too much, like only as for lip-service purposes. ;-) You wanna definition of Intelligence from me? In such a phylosophical way??? Then... its Truth. ;-) Embodyment of Truth itself. ;-)
Ever encounter the "Truth-tellers dilemna?" Let me see if I can find Kant's ethical argument for always telling the truth as a "categorical imperative"
\\"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application. /Only superficial resemblance. AFAIU.
No, I still think its' exactly the same argument.
\\SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? /Well... you give this excerpt to me second(?) time. AFAIR. And previous time I gave you answer -- isn't that word to word what Lem/GolemXVI said? So.. what you wanna squizze out of me? While I declared openly myself as a pragmatist. By need (as technologist wannabe). Therefore... if I can rever ANYTHING as that idealistic thing as virtue or holiness, or whatever... that'll be pragamaticism itself. ;-)
No, you need to squiggle with yourself, determine what your conscience tells you about the efficacy of knowing the truth vs always telling the truth in the name of "pragmatism"???
btw - On the "trolley problem" discussed in the link above... would you jump yourself from the bridge? Just wondering as to the extent of your pragmatism.
Social systems are of three types... autopoetic (reproduces itself like the economy), Interactions (time limited f-t-f with doctor/dentists), organizations (performed hierarchies like university)
Society has separated into separate specialist spheres of communication... law, economy, politics, art, religion, health, education, etc. (evolved from religion) (multiple realities, one for each sphere, problem systems requiring solutions.
Social systems are not real, they are actualized in comms between people. They're persistent, but NOT real.
Society constrains people as a set of rules, but is constructed out of multiple realities (legal reality, economic reality, etc.)
Each differentiation is a functionally-based subsystem has a distinct "reality" and pov. (you demand that concepts like truth and reason, that shaped the self-understanding of the people and their social order, to be newly functionally defined) We need a new social theory of truth (a code of rules which transfers reductions of experience from one to others?)
Each functionally divided social subsystem has its' own truths, its own realities.
And as Isaiah Berlin once remarked..."the unavoidability of conflicting ends" or, alternatively, the "incommensurability" of values. He once called this "the only truth which I have ever found out for myself... Some of the Great Goods cannot live together.... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".
\\But that IS the real deal thing. It's conditional and can only be seen in "hindsight". It depends upon "success".
I mean I want to ride it... instead of being under its wheels. ;-P
\\Ever encounter the "Truth-tellers dilemna?" Let me see if I can find Kant's ethical argument for always telling the truth as a "categorical imperative"
That is problem with old phylosophers.
Newest researches do show oftenly -- that they are not right. (in a way Newtonian Theory is not right in compare with Einstainian ;-))
\\\\"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application. /Only superficial resemblance. AFAIU.
\\No, I still think its' exactly the same argument.
As in math. There is "necessary". And "sufficient" conditions.
That is only necessary.
And quit trivial one. AFAICare.
\\Society is composed of communications, and ONLY communications. These occur between individuals and social systems (Luhmann?)
Well... if one'd used it as axiom...
\\No, you need to squiggle with yourself, determine what your conscience tells you about the efficacy of knowing the truth vs always telling the truth in the name of "pragmatism"???
Sorry. I don't see any problem here. Tellin the truth is pragmatic... especially in a long and complex talks. Or, when you doing some lengthy,complex,intellectual job. Like programming. ;-P Especially programming.
Because writing texts... it will be conditioned on a sufficiently smart reader -- to catch your lie/mistake/error, and to reveal it.
But your code... it will fall just the moment you'd try to compile it. ;-P
\\btw - On the "trolley problem" discussed in the link above... would you jump yourself from the bridge? Just wondering as to the extent of your pragmatism.
I feel you use here different from my definition of pragmatism. ;-)
\\In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".
Well. Certainly. The moment you have choose something... you losing all other choices. Per se. More truisms? (yawn)
We skipped the light fandango Turned cartwheels cross the floor I was feeling kinda seasick But the crowd called out for more The room was humming harder As the ceiling flew away When we called out for another drink The waiter brought a tray
And so it was that later As the miller told his tale That her face, at first just ghostly, Turned a whiter shade of pale She said, there is no reason And the truth is plain to see. But I wandered through my playing cards And would not let her be One of sixteen vestal virgins Who were leaving for the coast And although my eyes were open They might have just as wellve been closed
She said, Im home on shore leave, Though in truth we were at sea So I took her by the looking glass And forced her to agree Saying, you must be the mermaid Who took neptune for a ride. But she smiled at me so sadly That my anger straightway died
If music be the food of love Then laughter is its queen And likewise if behind is in front Then dirt in truth is clean My mouth by then like cardboard Seemed to slip straight through my head So we crash-dived straightway quickly And attacked the ocean bed
Why so many examples? Nails/Tacks for securing your "portrait of Daedalus" (lest they all "run away" ala Plato, "Meno")
from the Jowett introduction of Plato's "Meno"
Socrates returns to the consideration of the question 'whether virtue is teachable,' which was denied on the ground that there are no teachers of it: (for the Sophists are bad teachers, and the rest of the world do not profess to teach). But there is another point which we failed to observe, and in which Gorgias has never instructed Meno, nor Prodicus Socrates. This is the nature of right opinion. For virtue may be under the guidance of right opinion as well as of knowledge; and right opinion is for practical purposes as good as knowledge, but is incapable of being taught, and is also liable, like the images of Daedalus, to 'walk off,' because not bound by the tie of the cause. This is the sort of instinct which is possessed by statesmen, who are not wise or knowing persons, but only inspired or divine. The higher virtue, which is identical with knowledge, is an ideal only. If the statesman had this knowledge, and could teach what he knew, he would be like Tiresias in the world below,—'he alone has wisdom, but the rest flit like shadows.'
Right opinion. The man who knows the Road to Larisa (also described in Meno)
SOCRATES: O Meno, there was a time when the Thessalians were famous among the other Hellenes only for their riches and their riding; but now, if I am not mistaken, they are equally famous for their wisdom, especially at Larisa, which is the native city of your friend Aristippus. And this is Gorgias' doing; for when he came there, the flower of the Aleuadae, among them your admirer Aristippus, and the other chiefs of the Thessalians, fell in love with his wisdom. And he has taught you the habit of answering questions in a grand and bold style, which becomes those who know, and is the style in which he himself answers all comers; and any Hellene who likes may ask him anything. How different is our lot! my dear Meno. Here at Athens there is a dearth of the commodity, and all wisdom seems to have emigrated from us to you. I am certain that if you were to ask any Athenian whether virtue was natural or acquired, he would laugh in your face, and say: 'Stranger, you have far too good an opinion of me, if you think that I can answer your question. For I literally do not know what virtue is, and much less whether it is acquired by teaching or not.' And I myself, Meno, living as I do in this region of poverty, am as poor as the rest of the world; and I confess with shame that I know literally nothing about virtue; and when I do not know the 'quid' of anything how can I know the 'quale'? How, if I knew nothing at all of Meno, could I tell if he was fair, or the opposite of fair; rich and noble, or the reverse of rich and noble? Do you think that I could?
SOCRATES: I will explain. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or anywhere else, and went to the place and led others thither, would he not be a right and good guide?
MENO: Certainly.
SOCRATES: And a person who had a right opinion about the way, but had never been and did not know, might be a good guide also, might he not?
MENO: Certainly.
SOCRATES: And while he has true opinion about that which the other knows, he will be just as good a guide if he thinks the truth, as he who knows the truth?
MENO: Exactly.
SOCRATES: Then true opinion is as good a guide to correct action as knowledge; and that was the point which we omitted in our speculation about the nature of virtue, when we said that knowledge only is the guide of right action; whereas there is also right opinion.
MENO: True.
SOCRATES: Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge?
MENO: The difference, Socrates, is only that he who has knowledge will always be right; but he who has right opinion will sometimes be right, and sometimes not.
SOCRATES: What do you mean? Can he be wrong who has right opinion, so long as he has right opinion?
MENO: I admit the cogency of your argument, and therefore, Socrates, I wonder that knowledge should be preferred to right opinion—or why they should ever differ.
SOCRATES: And shall I explain this wonder to you?
MENO: Do tell me.
SOCRATES: You would not wonder if you had ever observed the images of Daedalus (Compare Euthyphro); but perhaps you have not got them in your country?
MENO: What have they to do with the question?
SOCRATES: Because they require to be fastened in order to keep them, and if they are not fastened they will play truant and run away.
MENO: Well, what of that?
SOCRATES: I mean to say that they are not very valuable possessions if they are at liberty, for they will walk off like runaway slaves; but when fastened, they are of great value, for they are really beautiful works of art. Now this is an illustration of the nature of true opinions: while they abide with us they are beautiful and fruitful, but they run away out of the human soul, and do not remain long, and therefore they are not of much value until they are fastened by the tie of the cause; and this fastening of them, friend Meno, is recollection, as you and I have agreed to call it. But when they are bound, in the first place, they have the nature of knowledge; and, in the second place, they are abiding. And this is why knowledge is more honourable and excellent than true opinion, because fastened by a chain.
MENO: What you are saying, Socrates, seems to be very like the truth.
SOCRATES: I too speak rather in ignorance; I only conjecture. And yet that knowledge differs from true opinion is no matter of conjecture with me. There are not many things which I profess to know, but this is most certainly one of them.
MENO: Yes, Socrates; and you are quite right in saying so.
...and now, much as Jowett concludes his summary...
The question which Plato has raised respecting the origin and nature of ideas belongs to the infancy of philosophy; in modern times it would no longer be asked. Their origin is only their history, so far as we know it; there can be no other. We may trace them in language, in philosophy, in mythology, in poetry, but we cannot argue a priori about them. We may attempt to shake them off, but they are always returning, and in every sphere of science and human action are tending to go beyond facts. They are thought to be innate, because they have been familiar to us all our lives, and we can no longer dismiss them from our mind. Many of them express relations of terms to which nothing exactly or nothing at all in rerum natura corresponds. We are not such free agents in the use of them as we sometimes imagine. Fixed ideas have taken the most complete possession of some thinkers who have been most determined to renounce them, and have been vehemently affirmed when they could be least explained and were incapable of proof. The world has often been led away by a word to which no distinct meaning could be attached. Abstractions such as 'authority,' 'equality,' 'utility,' 'liberty,' 'pleasure,' 'experience,' 'consciousness,' 'chance,' 'substance,' 'matter,' 'atom,' and a heap of other metaphysical and theological terms, are the source of quite as much error and illusion and have as little relation to actual facts as the ideas of Plato. Few students of theology or philosophy have sufficiently reflected how quickly the bloom of a philosophy passes away; or how hard it is for one age to understand the writings of another; or how nice a judgment is required of those who are seeking to express the philosophy of one age in the terms of another. The 'eternal truths' of which metaphysicians speak have hardly ever lasted more than a generation. In our own day schools or systems of philosophy which have once been famous have died before the founders of them. We are still, as in Plato's age, groping about for a new method more comprehensive than any of those which now prevail; and also more permanent. And we seem to see at a distance the promise of such a method, which can hardly be any other than the method of idealized experience, having roots which strike far down into the history of philosophy. It is a method which does not divorce the present from the past, or the part from the whole, or the abstract from the concrete, or theory from fact, or the divine from the human, or one science from another, but labours to connect them. Along such a road we have proceeded a few steps, sufficient, perhaps, to make us reflect on the want of method which prevails in our own day. In another age, all the branches of knowledge, whether relating to God or man or nature, will become the knowledge of 'the revelation of a single science' (Symp.), and all things, like the stars in heaven, will shed their light upon one another.
I like to fasten my portraits of Daedalus with NAILS, to keep them from running away. Nails from popular culture work the best. But if I can't find one, I always go back to the original "source" and "mine" it.
...or Hephaestus will put a nail in you and fasten you to "his" selected spot.
from Wiki:
Kratos and Bia, personifications of brute power and callous violence respectively, are engaged in fettering the silent Prometheus to a mountainside in Scythia, and are assisted in the task by the begrudging blacksmith of the gods, Hephaestus.[12][13] Zeus, an off-stage character in this play, is portrayed as a tyrannical leader.
When your "intelligence" guesses "right", it's called "intelligence". When it guesses "wrong", we call it "stupidity". The label gets applied in Hindsight, since the back of Kairos' head is always clean shaven and his fore-knot of hair can only be grasped from the front as he runs by.
Should a make an intuitive "guess", or a deductive one derived through a long chain of prior "reasoning"? (Nietzsche's slow and methodical tightrope walker or the motley cow's spry and "leaping" jester?) Left hemisphere of brain "deduction" or right hemisphere's "induction" /intuition?
The Hunting of the Snark BY LEWIS CARROLL Fit the First The Landing
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with care; Supporting each man on the top of the tide By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."
So? You grown unhappy, with venerating Lindy's Effect???
\\Should a make an intuitive "guess", or a deductive one derived through a long chain of prior "reasoning"? (Nietzsche's slow and methodical tightrope walker or the motley cow's spry and "leaping" jester?) Left hemisphere of brain "deduction" or right hemisphere's "induction" /intuition?
As pragmatist... ;-P I'd say it depends... ;-) of your goal.
\\When your "intelligence" guesses "right", it's called "intelligence". When it guesses "wrong", we call it "stupidity". The label gets applied in Hindsight, since the back of Kairos' head is always clean shaven and his fore-knot of hair can only be grasped from the front as he runs by.
Is it?
I will not argue that such definition possible. But... is it what you really want it be???
\\SOCRATES: Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge?
Go ask developers of expert systems. Or modern fashionable AI/NNs. Or... some programmer. Or just mechanic, trying to ward off gremlins from some complex system. Or... some scientist. ;-)
About all other... long words. If you lost -- try to trace back... to a Source. ;-P
But well, at first... one must admit that one is lost... and that is -- most tedius part of work. ;-P
\\What I tell you three times is true." \\...or maybe just "right opinion". :( So? You grown unhappy, with venerating Lindy's Effect???
You can still say that when half my "examples" are over 2,000 years old? I only offer "modern nails" for PT Barnum's modern suckers.
\\Should a make an intuitive "guess", or a deductive one derived through a long chain of prior "reasoning"? (Nietzsche's slow and methodical tightrope walker or the motley cow's spry and "leaping" jester?) Left hemisphere of brain "deduction" or right hemisphere's "induction" /intuition? /As pragmatist... ;-P I'd say it depends... ;-) of your goal.
My goal is a "right" (not necessarily true) answer.
\\When your "intelligence" guesses "right", it's called "intelligence". When it guesses "wrong", we call it "stupidity". The label gets applied in Hindsight, since the back of Kairos' head is always clean shaven and his fore-knot of hair can only be grasped from the front as he runs by. /Is it? /I will not argue that such definition possible. But... is it what you really want it be???
What does "want" got to do with it? Are you a Seer? Are you the at Sibyll/ Priestess of Delphi? The Oak of Dodona? The Gypsy's crystal ball? Or her "sucker"?
\\SOCRATES: Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge? /Go ask developers of expert systems. Or modern fashionable AI/NNs. Or... some programmer. Or just mechanic, trying to ward off gremlins from some complex system. Or... some scientist. ;-)
How much money have they earned from suckers?...e-r-r-r-r, investors?
About all other... long words. If you lost -- try to trace back... to a Source. ;-P /But well, at first... one must admit that one is lost... and that is -- most tedius part of work. ;-P
Ah, More Plato from "Meno"... hence the need for "torpidity"... ;)
MENO: O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits' end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you; and though I have been delivered of an infinite variety of speeches about virtue before now, and to many persons—and very good ones they were, as I thought—at this moment I cannot even say what virtue is. And I think that you are very wise in not voyaging and going away from home, for if you did in other places as you do in Athens, you would be cast into prison as a magician.
SOCRATES: You are a rogue, Meno, and had all but caught me.
MENO: What do you mean, Socrates?
SOCRATES: I can tell why you made a simile about me.
MENO: Why?
SOCRATES: In order that I might make another simile about you. For I know that all pretty young gentlemen like to have pretty similes made about them—as well they may—but I shall not return the compliment. As to my being a torpedo, if the torpedo is torpid as well as the cause of torpidity in others, then indeed I am a torpedo, but not otherwise; for I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly perplexed myself. And now I know not what virtue is, and you seem to be in the same case, although you did once perhaps know before you touched me. However, I have no objection to join with you in the enquiry.
/...the moment it flyes -- you'd knw what you true desires is. ;-)
...but the 'J' of "the other" most likely is not the same as mine. Just as the "collective 'J" of the economic or legal "social systems" my have very different "realities" with which to contend with the very same problem? So who's reality is "true"? Mine? The "legal system's guilty/innocent truth?" The economic system's "economic truth (it's too expensive!)?
\\You can still say that when half my "examples" are over 2,000 years old? I only offer "modern nails" for PT Barnum's modern suckers.
Obviously, you know that fact that Universe itself 15 billions years old? ;-P
\\My goal is a "right" (not necessarily true) answer.
That is incorrectly formulated goal. IMHO.
\\/Is it? /I will not argue that such definition possible. But... is it what you really want it be???
\\What does "want" got to do with it? Are you a Seer? Are you the at Sibyll/ Priestess of Delphi? The Oak of Dodona? The Gypsy's crystal ball? Or her "sucker"?
Parable about elephant and bunch of blind men here. Surely, you knw it.
\\How much money have they earned from suckers?...e-r-r-r-r, investors?
Ehm???
\\which then "captures" "my reality" (the reality of my desires) for me. ;P
Well... of course. Question of how to overcome youself, is not your question. And not your goal. Well, whatever.
No, there are no "Philosopher's Stones"... artificially intelligent or otherwise. Kairos runs too fast, even for the computer to spot the "proper moment"/ the "opportune time" and provide the correct answer to the questioner in time... before Kairos has passed.
(Diotoma) 'Because to the mortal creature, generation is a sort of eternity and immortality,' she replied; 'and if, as has been already admitted, love is of the everlasting possession of the good, all men will necessarily desire immortality together with good: Wherefore love is of immortality.'
All this she taught me at various times when she spoke of love. And I remember her once saying to me, 'What is the cause, Socrates, of love, and the attendant desire? See you not how all animals, birds, as well as beasts, in their desire of procreation, are in agony when they take the infection of love, which begins with the desire of union; whereto is added the care of offspring, on whose behalf the weakest are ready to battle against the strongest even to the uttermost, and to die for them, and will let themselves be tormented with hunger or suffer anything in order to maintain their young. Man may be supposed to act thus from reason; but why should animals have these passionate feelings? Can you tell me why?' Again I replied that I did not know. She said to me: 'And do you expect ever to become a master in the art of love, if you do not know this?' 'But I have told you already, Diotima, that my ignorance is the reason why I come to you; for I am conscious that I want a teacher; tell me then the cause of this and of the other mysteries of love.' 'Marvel not,' she said, 'if you believe that love is of the immortal, as we have several times acknowledged; for here again, and on the same principle too, the mortal nature is seeking as far as is possible to be everlasting and immortal: and this is only to be attained by generation, because generation always leaves behind a new existence in the place of the old. Nay even in the life of the same individual there is succession and not absolute unity: a man is called the same, and yet in the short interval which elapses between youth and age, and in which every animal is said to have life and identity, he is undergoing a perpetual process of loss and reparation—hair, flesh, bones, blood, and the whole body are always changing. Which is true not only of the body, but also of the soul, whose habits, tempers, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears, never remain the same in any one of us, but are always coming and going; and equally true of knowledge, and what is still more surprising to us mortals, not only do the sciences in general spring up and decay, so that in respect of them we are never the same; but each of them individually experiences a like change. For what is implied in the word "recollection," but the departure of knowledge, which is ever being forgotten, and is renewed and preserved by recollection, and appears to be the same although in reality new, according to that law of succession by which all mortal things are preserved, not absolutely the same, but by substitution, the old worn-out mortality leaving another new and similar existence behind—unlike the divine, which is always the same and not another? And in this way, Socrates, the mortal body, or mortal anything, partakes of immortality; but the immortal in another way. Marvel not then at the love which all men have of their offspring; for that universal love and interest is for the sake of immortality.'
I was astonished at her words, and said: 'Is this really true, O thou wise Diotima?' And she answered with all the authority of an accomplished sophist: 'Of that, Socrates, you may be assured;—think only of the ambition of men, and you will wonder at the senselessness of their ways, unless you consider how they are stirred by the love of an immortality of fame. They are ready to run all risks greater far than they would have run for their children, and to spend money and undergo any sort of toil, and even to die, for the sake of leaving behind them a name which shall be eternal. Do you imagine that Alcestis would have died to save Admetus, or Achilles to avenge Patroclus, or your own Codrus in order to preserve the kingdom for his sons, if they had not imagined that the memory of their virtues, which still survives among us, would be immortal? Nay,' she said, 'I am persuaded that all men do all things, and the better they are the more they do them, in hope of the glorious fame of immortal virtue; for they desire the immortal.
'Those who are pregnant in the body only, betake themselves to women and beget children—this is the character of their love; their offspring, as they hope, will preserve their memory and giving them the blessedness and immortality which they desire in the future. But souls which are pregnant—for there certainly are men who are more creative in their souls than in their bodies—conceive that which is proper for the soul to conceive or contain. And what are these conceptions?—wisdom and virtue in general. And such creators are poets and all artists who are deserving of the name inventor. But the greatest and fairest sort of wisdom by far is that which is concerned with the ordering of states and families, and which is called temperance and justice. And he who in youth has the seed of these implanted in him and is himself inspired, when he comes to maturity desires to beget and generate. He wanders about seeking beauty that he may beget offspring—for in deformity he will beget nothing—and naturally embraces the beautiful rather than the deformed body; above all when he finds a fair and noble and well-nurtured soul, he embraces the two in one person, and to such an one he is full of speech about virtue and the nature and pursuits of a good man; and he tries to educate him; and at the touch of the beautiful which is ever present to his memory, even when absent, he brings forth that which he had conceived long before, and in company with him tends that which he brings forth; and they are married by a far nearer tie and have a closer friendship than those who beget mortal children, for the children who are their common offspring are fairer and more immortal. Who, when he thinks of Homer and Hesiod and other great poets, would not rather have their children than ordinary human ones? Who would not emulate them in the creation of children such as theirs, which have preserved their memory and given them everlasting glory? Or who would not have such children as Lycurgus left behind him to be the saviours, not only of Lacedaemon, but of Hellas, as one may say? There is Solon, too, who is the revered father of Athenian laws; and many others there are in many other places, both among Hellenes and barbarians, who have given to the world many noble works, and have been the parents of virtue of every kind; and many temples have been raised in their honour for the sake of children such as theirs; which were never raised in honour of any one, for the sake of his mortal children.
Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle.
Will Durant ----
When a nation goes down, or a society perishes, one condition may always be found; they forgot where they came from. They lost sight of what had brought them along.- Carl Sandburg
--- Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives.
So concluded the historian Arnold Toynbee in his 12-volume magnum opus A Study of History. It was an exploration of the rise and fall of 28 different civilisations. ---
There remains still the finest and fairest of all men and all States—tyranny and the tyrant. Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. Both arise from excess; the one from excess of wealth, the other from excess of freedom. ‘The great natural good of life,’ says the democrat, ‘is freedom.’ And this exclusive love of freedom and regardlessness of everything else, is the cause of the change from democracy to tyranny. The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals. Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women. Nay, the very animals in a democratic State have a freedom which is unknown in other places. The she-dogs are as good as their she-mistresses, and horses and asses march along with dignity and run their noses against anybody who comes in their way. ‘That has often been my experience.’ At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master. Such is the glorious beginning of things out of which tyranny springs. ‘Glorious, indeed; but what is to follow?’ The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; for there is a law of contraries; the excess of freedom passes into the excess of slavery, and the greater the freedom the greater the slavery.
You will remember that in the oligarchy were found two classes—rogues and paupers, whom we compared to drones with and without stings. These two classes are to the State what phlegm and bile are to the human body; and the State-physician, or legislator, must get rid of them, just as the bee-master keeps the drones out of the hive. Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard. And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people. When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob. Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf. Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf—that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination. Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant: Let us enquire into the nature of his happiness.
I'd say it was pretty anti-fragile. The scribes kept copying the scrolls... so that even after the Library of Alexandria burned, The Moslem's kep copying the scrolls, and took the to Spain... and they later made their way to Florence... which led to a "classical re-birth". The Renaissance. thanks in no small part to Lorenzo the Magnificent.
That is not tech. Or, as Lem say, that is not OUR human tech.
\\In America, that "principle" is freedom.
Means? You want to forfeit that principle?
Well, you can pledge your loyalty to Putin, or even directly to Xi. Or, grow your own, homebrew one. ;-P
NMP.
Now, I can supparise.
You want The Answer(s?)?
But you will not have me.
Because.
All WE can have -- it's to plant a seed, and watch how it grow, care about it, or neglect it... but result will depend on from many-many other factors one cannot control.
Because of lack of intellect for that.
Or... that one can try to became... smarter. ;-P
Well. Essentially, we humans are not like animals. We more like trees. Depend on place and time and circumstances -- what branches we'll grow. And which branches will be cut/broken by a wild winds (Kairos, you say, heh)
How all occasions do inform against me And spur my dull revenge. What is a man If his chief good and market of his time Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more. Sure He that made us with such large discourse, Looking before and after, gave us not That capability and godlike reason To fust in us unused. Now whether it be Bestial oblivion or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on th’ event (A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward), I do not know Why yet I live to say “This thing’s to do,” Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means To do ’t.
For the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, America seized "nothing". Instead, it continued to play Cold War Chess, slowly moving NATO countries closer and closer to its' former foe. Kairos ran past, un-noticed.
We failed to "break our pattern" and the old rules. We kept on stupidly following the old Cold War ones. We failed to notice or take advantage of the changed circumstances.
\\Arming Ukraine is the "old pattern". Proxy wars of "containment" from strategies developed in the 1950s.
Go read about microbes. Really. ;-P
ALL war strategies invented by them... very long ago. :-))))
\\...and once I have those four, all I need do is await Kairos... the "opportune time" and success is all but guaranteed.
And preparedness. You forgot about preparedness. ;-P
Obviously... because you are not a scout, isn't it? ;-)
\\Of thinking too precisely on th’ event (A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom And ever three parts coward), I do not know Why yet I live to say “This thing’s to do,” Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means To do ’t.
Eagle Scout? No. To have "means" is to be "prepared".
I was once a "Life" Scout, Sr. Patrol Leader/ Jr. Asst Scoutmaster" in the Boy Scouts of America, and earned the rank of "Caballero" (Star in the American Scouting System) in the Scouts de Venezuela.
I dropped out of Boy Scouts in High School to play American football. But I never played in a single game. I dropped out of that as well. When I got to the Academy (USMMA) I stopped "dropping out" and learned to "persist". Now you have to kick me out if you want to get rid of me. ;P
Please, no need to apologize, EVER. Say what's on your mind! If I misunderstand, that's my problem.
No, when I was a child, almost every "good" television show was a Western... Have Gun will Travel, The Rifleman, Gunsmoke, The Big Valley, Bonanza. Then, they all disappeared ('68) and the cultural cr*p started. It's taken 40's year to come full circle back to Western's.
That is integral part of language. And in my character. And well, I see meta-level of discussion as very important... if not ONLY important. ;-)
\\No, when I was a child, almost every "good" television show was a Western... Have Gun will Travel, The Rifleman, Gunsmoke, The Big Valley, Bonanza. Then, they all disappeared ('68) and the cultural cr*p started. It's taken 40's year to come full circle back to Western's.
Cannot emphatise with that cultural experience. Sorry. If only you'd say that spagetti-western. Clint Eastwood and Co -- that is adeuate summary of it (of which I doubt)... And, as I was saying before. My "Bonanza" was some canadian flick. From 90th? Where they placed tht Bonanza on border of USA and Canada, and therefore there was both: Sherif and Canadian Ranger. Also quite good and giving a good vibe and some cultural understanding... but still.
Yeah... but there is one wild cherry on that cake.
Putin CAN decide it single-handedly.
You cannot. Your whole Deep State need to take such decision.And that is... no time near to happen.
PLUS. There is certain Xi... that closing down to that ability to "decide everything single-handedly" too.
But well... that is not the main problem. Not an elephant in that room.
Elephant is... technologies.
Just imagine -- what all bright minds of Russia and China can come up with... if there'd be ONLY ONE sphere to apply that minds, ahh?
Are you, USA, ready for that?
While you brightest mind keep playing pacifist's card. Like that same Elon, who declare "no robotic weapon".
What was name of that who started DARPA? Is there bright enough minds of that same caliber? Do they have access to and influence on POTUS for it to take off?
Another word -- how many of Cold War technological race do you know/remember?
\\No, no RCMP's in my version...
Well. I have perfect excuse. ;-P How I, as foreigner. Can know all abbreveatures.
\\Q said... \\"Time when men was real men... and programmed drivers for their devices themself"... with a Kairos knife. ;-P \\ \\PS Do my comments comprehensive enough here?
Well... that was famous citate of modern icon -- Linus Torvalds
And given with that -- allusion is apparent -- each times have own ideas about "basic training". ;-P
Your time that was about knifes... today about codes... well, err, today it would be about ChatGPT. ;-P
That was ref to concept of geodesic lines and principle of lesser action. ;-)
\\Arming Ukraine is the "old pattern". Proxy wars of "containment" from strategies developed in the 1950s.
Natural thing.
If modern tech, devices gone wrong -- fallback to a prev tech happenning.
That's why it's better to keep that fallback working. ;-)
So? Can USA fall back to it's "SDI initiative" mode? And where I can find contacts and seek for attention of ones who govern over it? ;-) (kidding... but only one half of it)
/Yeah... but there is one wild cherry on that cake. Putin CAN decide it single-handedly. You cannot. Your whole Deep State need to take such decision.And that is... no time near to happen.
That may be true for first strikes, but look at the Ukraine fiasco and we can see how "Institutional Powers" can use their momentum to do things just as stupid (ie NATO expansion and 2014 coup). Biden is just a "rubber stamp" for whatever the "experts du jour" decide.
/PLUS. There is certain Xi... that closing down to that ability to "decide everything single-handedly" too. But well... that is not the main problem. Not an elephant in that room. Elephant is... technologies. Just imagine -- what all bright minds of Russia and China can come up with... if there'd be ONLY ONE sphere to apply that minds, ahh? Are you, USA, ready for that?
Actually, Putin and Xi are limited. They need willing minions (scientists) to develop their tech's. In America we have an entire country filled with naive "willing minions". That makes us MUCH more dangerous. It's why we developed "the bomb" first. Our scientists "had no doubts" but that the weapon would be "used for good".
/While you brightest mind keep playing pacifist's card. Like that same Elon, who declare "no robotic weapon".
Yes, we have a fear of "skynet" (Terminator movie). Call it a need to always be "in control"... with a reliance upon human emotions and empathy being the greatest fail-safe (just as they are responsible for the "willfullness" of our scientific minions).
/What was name of that who started DARPA? Is there bright enough minds of that same caliber? Do they have access to and influence on POTUS for it to take off?
Nikita Kruschev? DARPA was created in response to Sputnik. It spun off NASA as a civilian/ peacetime component. Neil McElroy was no brilliant thinker. This was all developed out of the post-WWII grab and importation of NAZI scientists and the establishment of centralized intelligence and defense operations outgrowths of the OSS and US Defense Industrial Complex. And the President's scientific advisory council now PCAST isn't the real "power behind the throne". DOD/DOE/CIA own all those bodies... all the National Labs and NGO's (ie- oxymoronic USIP "Institute for Peace").
/Another word -- how many of Cold War technological race do you know/remember?
My whole childhood and career up til now has been related to it. My father and mother were both involved in it. My first NASA mission was a derivative of the original Explorer I program. I spent much of my time at Martin Marietta developing and testing Vertical Launch System (MK41 VLS) derivatives (ASROC/Tomahawk/SM-2+) and Sonar Systems (AN/SLR-24 and beamformer for Surface Ship torpedo defense). I worked on UAV proposals, NATO AAW for Surface Ship proposals, and many classified programs I can't talk about. And before that, I wrote a lot of proposal for T-AGOS and T-AGS sonar surveillance and mapping ships... having won the T-AGS one for Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point before leaving and going on to Martin Marietta.
\\No, no RCMP's in my version... /Well. I have perfect excuse. ;-P How I, as foreigner. Can know all abbreveatures.
Me too. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
\\"Time when men was real men... and programmed drivers for their devices themself"... with a Kairos knife. ;-P \\ \\PS Do my comments comprehensive enough here? /Well... that was famous citate of modern icon -- Linus Torvalds And given with that -- allusion is apparent -- each times have own ideas about "basic training". ;-P Your time that was about knifes... today about codes... well, err, today it would be about ChatGPT. ;-P
I suppose that's true for the inhabitants of today's hyper-reality. I'm only a visitor. I hope to be leaving it soon enough (retiring). :)
\\No way is easy in this Universe. ;-P \\If you are not photon. ;-P /That was ref to concept of geodesic lines and principle of lesser action. ;-)
Which Lagrangian point do you orbit? ;)
\\Arming Ukraine is the "old pattern". Proxy wars of "containment" from strategies developed in the 1950s. /Natural thing. If modern tech, devices gone wrong -- fallback to a prev tech happenning. That's why it's better to keep that fallback working. ;-) So? Can USA fall back to it's "SDI initiative" mode?
No, I wouldn't advise a reliance upon SDI. I'd advise trying "peace" for a change.
And where I can find contacts and seek for attention of ones who govern over it? ;-) (kidding... but only one half of it)
\\That may be true for first strikes, but look at the Ukraine fiasco and we can see how "Institutional Powers" can use their momentum to do things just as stupid (ie NATO expansion and 2014 coup). Biden is just a "rubber stamp" for whatever the "experts du jour" decide.
Why no comment about reaction on 9/11? Or that non-problem, because Rep potus did it? Isn't it look like bias.
About all other -- go check your sources -- but only if you do not likr to be on hook of Putin's Propaganda.
But if you like... I can suggest you to turn it to eleven, and consume only "most honest, most true" media of RFia. ;-P
\\Actually, Putin and Xi are limited. They need willing minions (scientists) to develop their tech's. In America we have an entire country filled with naive "willing minions". That makes us MUCH more dangerous. It's why we developed "the bomb" first.
Elementary knowledge of History says opposite.
Bright minds who fled from Europe made that bomb for you.
Yourself... you was not bright enough even to make own Tank. So Wolter Cristie was forced to sell his design to USSR -- and that became base for BEST tank of ww2.
There is Russian saying: "There is nobody who are prophet in his own country".
And well... China buying out that bright minds of Europe... today. ;-P
\\Nikita Kruschev? DARPA was created in response to Sputnik.
So... I see, you are waiting for a stimulus(in an initial sense of word, yap). ;-P Like Pearl Harbor. Or 9/11.
\\My whole childhood and career up til now has been related to it.
Then... I should been started not from Golem XVI of Lem.
But from other his work -- where he propheticly describes use of the Moon as safe testing grounds... to develop most advanced intellectual weaponry possible.
Much preceding all that NNs, GPTs and alas which are such obvious today.
But well, as he formulated in one other text: "One need to be wise themself... to listen to wise advices". :-(
Of Sun and Pluto. ;-P Norbit, pleased to meet you. ;-)
\\No, I wouldn't advise a reliance upon SDI. I'd advise trying "peace" for a change.
You really have no experience of a thug cornering you on a secluded street, asking for your wallet, isn't it? :-))) So you still think in such a case "peace talks" would help you, yes? :-)))
\\The new SAM.gov? I've never used it, but I used to browse the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) all the time.
Thank you... but I already tryed to talk with your Digital Burocracy. :-)))
\\That may be true for first strikes, but look at the Ukraine fiasco and we can see how "Institutional Powers" can use their momentum to do things just as stupid (ie NATO expansion and 2014 coup). Biden is just a "rubber stamp" for whatever the "experts du jour" decide. /Why no comment about reaction on 9/11? Or that non-problem, because Rep potus did it? Isn't it look like bias.
Are you kidding? I was against Afghanistan invasion. I voted for Ralph Nader. Bush was an idiot, he did EXACTLY what Osama bin Laden wanted him to do... come and fight, train his army on his ground. That's why I was FOR the Iraqi debacle, because I thought that some more "clever" strategic thinkers were finally "getting it". They weren't. I was wrong. Or Iran/Iraq would be a single country under Moqtada al Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani today, with Najaf restored as the holiest city and Qom's clerics excommunicated.
About all other -- go check your sources -- but only if you do not likr to be on hook of Putin's Propaganda. But if you like... I can suggest you to turn it to eleven, and consume only "most honest, most true" media of RFia. ;-P
lol! And where would THAT be? Don't tell me... Ukraine. ;P
And well... there'd be no first strikes. ww3 is war for minds of people. Your already conquered. ;-P
...at least I won't be a member of the Net Zero Blue Economy.
\\Actually, Putin and Xi are limited. They need willing minions (scientists) to develop their tech's. In America we have an entire country filled with naive "willing minions". That makes us MUCH more dangerous. It's why we developed "the bomb" first. /Elementary knowledge of History says opposite. Bright minds who fled from Europe made that bomb for you.
Yes, willing minions who never would have revealed their ideas to Hitler as slave laborers in secret underground factories.
Yourself... you was not bright enough even to make own Tank. So Wolter Cristie was forced to sell his design to USSR -- and that became base for BEST tank of ww2. There is Russian saying: "There is nobody who are prophet in his own country". And well... China buying out that bright minds of Europe... today. ;-P
...tell that to Igor Sikorsky. ;)
\\Nikita Kruschev? DARPA was created in response to Sputnik. /So... I see, you are waiting for a stimulus(in an initial sense of word, yap). ;-P Like Pearl Harbor. Or 9/11.
I've said before, Bureaucrats don't take "risks" unless they're forced to. There's no "profit" in it.
\\My whole childhood and career up til now has been related to it. /Then... I should been started not from Golem XVI of Lem. But from other his work -- where he propheticly describes use of the Moon as safe testing grounds... to develop most advanced intellectual weaponry possible. Much preceding all that NNs, GPTs and alas which are such obvious today. But well, as he formulated in one other text: "One need to be wise themself... to listen to wise advices". :-(
\\No, I wouldn't advise a reliance upon SDI. I'd advise trying "peace" for a change. /You really have no experience of a thug cornering you on a secluded street, asking for your wallet, isn't it? :-))) So you still think in such a case "peace talks" would help you, yes? :-)))
Ukraine isn't my wallet. It's yours. :)
\\The new SAM.gov? I've never used it, but I used to browse the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) all the time. /Thank you... but I already tryed to talk with your Digital Burocracy. :-)))
Talk is cheap. Win a contract. Deliver a product. Repeat. It's pretty simple.
\\Are you kidding? I was against Afghanistan invasion.
I apologize. How could I know?
Still... and what about Iraq? They needed not to be punished?
\\lol! And where would THAT be? Don't tell me... Ukraine. ;P
Ha-ha... that way you'd need to learn to eat your own dog food. ;-P
Because English-speaking sources from Ukraine pretty much unexistant. And to find Ukrainian propaganda -- if you'd find one, please throw me a link. That is rarety I trying to find myself. ;-P
\\...at least I won't be a member of the Net Zero Blue Economy.
Und wat zat? Well, whatever.
\\Yes, willing minions who never would have revealed their ideas to Hitler as slave laborers in secret underground factories.
Do you know history of creation of that bomb?
There is quite good series. ;-)
\\...tell that to Igor Sikorsky. ;)
Like I should care??? While I already said it -- Russian saying. Or what... I have written it just to fill some empty space, ah?
\\I've said before, Bureaucrats don't take "risks" unless they're forced to. There's no "profit" in it.
But they like to monetise "extra-measures" funds. ;-P
\\One of the first "books" I ever read was Tom Swift and his Rocket Ship... which led me to The Hardy Boys... :)
Emm? And one of my first was about edgy soviet submarine "Pioneer"... which was "flying" through oceans, eliminating nasty imperialists and helping innocent aborigenes from Rapa-Nui island. ;-P
So, what?
\\Ukraine isn't my wallet. It's yours. :)
Errare humanum est. Putin... as Hitler before him wants ALL World. And that is NOT Ukraine that on his way -- USA on his way.
USA CANNOT avoid it. That is in nature of things. You cannot play it like that cops in Uvalde. Or... you can try... and you will have "and war, and shame"
IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT... YET
What did Winston Churchill mean when he said, “You chose ... - Quora www.quora.com › What-did-Winston-Churchill-mean-when-he-said-You-c... "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." This was Winston Churchill's statement after Neville ...
\\Talk is cheap. Win a contract. Deliver a product. Repeat. It's pretty simple.
Aha... just imagine that that would be in official answer to that Einstain's letter. ;-P
Well... it was something between that lines in case of Cristie... and he even made working prototype.
It seems that Kairos... need to come closer to you, and made something dirty with that his knife... to open your (USA smartypants from IC and MIC) mind to possibilities.
Nothing personal. That is just figural and metaphorical. Of course. I just trying to say ot in most direct and to the point way...
\\Are you kidding? I was against Afghanistan invasion. /I apologize. How could I know? Still... and what about Iraq? They needed not to be punished?
No, this is all mostly an intramural game at this point... Sunni vs. Shi'a and Arabs (sunnia/Shi'a) vs. Israel/US (near Satan [Jews]/far Satan [Christians]). The Ummah must be unified before the inter-league battle with the "far Satan".
\\lol! And where would THAT be? Don't tell me... Ukraine. ;P /Ha-ha... that way you'd need to learn to eat your own dog food. ;-P /Because English-speaking sources from Ukraine pretty much unexistant. And to find Ukrainian propaganda -- if you'd find one, please throw me a link. That is rarety I trying to find myself. ;-P
It's called the "New York Times" and "Washington Post".
\\...at least I won't be a member of the Net Zero Blue Economy. /Und wat zat? Well, whatever.
Exactly. THAT is the problem. You have NO idea who you're climbing into bed with EXCEPT that they want to destroy Russia.
\\Yes, willing minions who never would have revealed their ideas to Hitler as slave laborers in secret underground factories. /Do you know history of creation of that bomb? There is quite good series. ;-)
I once held a CNWDI clearance... not that I used it. I also helped develop a proposal to run DOE's Savannah River NL for $1 a year and remediate Pit-9 @ INEL, so yes, I know a little bit of superficial info about the Manhattan Project.
\\I've said before, Bureaucrats don't take "risks" unless they're forced to. There's no "profit" in it. /But they like to monetise "extra-measures" funds. ;-P
Not to "outsiders". They like to keep all their funding within their club, and you and I aren't members. You're an outsider, and I'm just a soon to be retired "minion".
\\One of the first "books" I ever read was Tom Swift and his Rocket Ship... which led me to The Hardy Boys... :) /Emm? And one of my first was about edgy soviet submarine "Pioneer"... which was "flying" through oceans, eliminating nasty imperialists and helping innocent aborigenes from Rapa-Nui island. ;-P So, what?
Hey, at least it wasn't Thor Heyerdahl on the Kon-Tiki (yes, I read THAT, too).
\\Ukraine isn't my wallet. It's yours. :) /Errare humanum est. Putin... as Hitler before him wants ALL World. And that is NOT Ukraine that on his way -- USA on his way.
I doubt Putin's much of a Trotsyite. Even Stalin couldn't stomach the globalist pr*ck.
/USA CANNOT avoid it. That is in nature of things. You cannot play it like that cops in Uvalde. Or... you can try... and you will have "and war, and shame" IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT... YET
Watch us.
/What did Winston Churchill mean when he said, “You chose ... - Quora www.quora.com › What-did-Winston-Churchill-mean-when-he-said-You-c... "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." This was Winston Churchill's statement after Neville ...
\\Talk is cheap. Win a contract. Deliver a product. Repeat. It's pretty simple. /Aha... just imagine that that would be in official answer to that Einstain's letter. ;-P
...and if Einstein had no Nobel, but his later came from a Swiss patent clerk? He wouldn't have gotten a response... his letter would have landed in a "circular file" instead of on the Presiden't desk.
/Well... it was something between that lines in case of Cristie... and he even made working prototype. It seems that Kairos... need to come closer to you, and made something dirty with that his knife... to open your (USA smartypants from IC and MIC) mind to possibilities. Nothing personal. That is just figural and metaphorical. Of course. I just trying to say ot in most direct and to the point way...
No offense taken. Yours is every prophet's dilemna. From Cassandra to Tiresias, nobody believes them or takes them seriously.
\\It's called the "New York Times" and "Washington Post".
Huh... I didn't knew that Ukrainian oligarchs are so mighty. ;-P
\\You have NO idea who you're climbing into bed with EXCEPT that they want to destroy Russia.
Do I look that stoopid fer ya? Really??? :-)))
\\I know a little bit of superficial info about the Manhattan Project.
I saluting to your sense of humor. But well, that is that case, where open info... or even legends, myths... are more important and informative. ;-)
\\Hey, at least it wasn't Thor Heyerdahl on the Kon-Tiki (yes, I read THAT, too).
Not my hero. But... watched movie. Quite good. And to the point of my struggles... or not? What do you think??? ;-)
\\I doubt Putin's much of a Trotsyite. Even Stalin couldn't stomach the globalist pr*ck.
Again. That is Nature of things at play. Why Stalin found himself stuck in brawl with Hitler??? While he freakingly DIDN'T WANTED it. Not in that way. Not in that time. Why he then trapped himself in instant stalmate with USA??? You was freaking allies with him. Uncle Joe and uncle Sam was best buddies. Until...
\\Watch us.
Hmmm...
Isn't that NMP?
\\Putin isn't Trotsky/Lenin.
And Xi?
Why you keep ignoring Xi???
Or. That is in the nature of things, again... ALL people just that biased inside there minds -- to ignire elephant in their freaking room??? :-)))))
\\...and if Einstein had no Nobel, but his later came from a Swiss patent clerk? He wouldn't have gotten a response... his letter would have landed in a "circular file" instead of on the Presiden't desk.
Well... History NEVER repeats that perfectly and conviniently. ;-P
\\Yours is every prophet's dilemna. From Cassandra to Tiresias, nobody believes them or takes them seriously.
Do you think that is ONLY dilemma standing before my face???? :-))))
And not whole crowd of em... mobbing at my door. Like that creditors around unfaithful debtor.
But... is there any other way possible? Something you gain, somthing you loose.
\\It's called the "New York Times" and "Washington Post". /Huh... I didn't knew that Ukrainian oligarchs are so mighty. ;-P
They bought a Vice President's son (Biden), the son of the Speaker of the House (Pelosi), and the son a powerful Seantor and former Presidential Candidate (Kerry).
\\You have NO idea who you're climbing into bed with EXCEPT that they want to destroy Russia. Do I look that stoopid fer ya? Really??? :-)))
How long have you been playing inside baseball?
\\Hey, at least it wasn't Thor Heyerdahl on the Kon-Tiki (yes, I read THAT, too). /Not my hero. But... watched movie. Quite good. And to the point of my struggles... or not? What do you think??? ;-)
I think that you need to still go find some more bouyant logs.
\\I doubt Putin's much of a Trotsyite. Even Stalin couldn't stomach the globalist pr*ck. /Again. That is Nature of things at play. Why Stalin found himself stuck in brawl with Hitler??? While he freakingly DIDN'T WANTED it. Not in that way. Not in that time. Why he then trapped himself in instant stalmate with USA??? You was freaking allies with him. Uncle Joe and uncle Sam was best buddies. Until...
Stalin was pragmatic. The "internaccionale" was a bit overly ambitious, even for him.
\\Watch us. Hmmm... Isn't that NMP?
You wish. I wish. We all wish. But this isn't going to end well for Ukraine.
\\Putin isn't Trotsky/Lenin. /And Xi? Why you keep ignoring Xi??? Or. That is in the nature of things, again... ALL people just that biased inside there minds -- to ignire elephant in their freaking room??? :-)))))
Xi has other problems. Serious problems. He's trying to sleep with all the girls, and they all know it. And now he's staring at the back side of Kairo's shaved head, trying to figure out how to make the best of it.
\\...and if Einstein had no Nobel, but his later came from a Swiss patent clerk? He wouldn't have gotten a response... his letter would have landed in a "circular file" instead of on the Presiden't desk. /Well... History NEVER repeats that perfectly and conviniently. ;-P
My advice? Pitch Zelensky and hope he throws you a "Hail Mary" and DARPA an introduction.
\\Yours is every prophet's dilemna. From Cassandra to Tiresias, nobody believes them or takes them seriously. /Do you think that is ONLY dilemma standing before my face???? :-)))) And not whole crowd of em... mobbing at my door. Like that creditors around unfaithful debtor. But... is there any other way possible? Something you gain, somthing you loose.
\\They bought a Vice President's son (Biden), the son of the Speaker of the House (Pelosi), and the son a powerful Seantor and former Presidential Candidate (Kerry).
I like Hollywood stories. Especially if with action and many ka-booms and car crashes.
But this one... not good. Even for C-rate movie. Bleh.
Go haunt Derpy with it. As it NMP. You'd not be able to acqure any suspense from me. With such a losy plot.
\\How long have you been playing inside baseball?
Bible Gateway Ecclesiastes 1 :: NIV web.mit.edu › Bible › NIV › NIV_Bible › ECC+1 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
\\I think that you need to still go find some more bouyant logs.
Don't know how in book. But movie showed it pretty damn excellent -- that that is not raw material that was a problem(s).
\\Stalin was pragmatic. The "internaccionale" was a bit overly ambitious, even for him.
Of course. After your "troops" was bleeded out by 50-somthing millions. And your "allie" just showed new shiny bomb he posess.
And well. Didn't you mean Comintern?
Pragmatic... my ass. :-)))))))))
\\You wish. I wish. We all wish. But this isn't going to end well for Ukraine.
I will say it again. And you will ignore it again. You are freakingly DO NOT KNOW history of Ukraine.
\\Xi has other problems. Serious problems.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. A-a-a-and? How dictators of all of the times, in all of the world... tend to resolve all their problems??? What way? With with what... am I used enough 'w's to give a hint? ;-)
Well. That is BEYOND obvious. TODAY. Go filter your news feed. What they declared. Lately. About AMOUNT of NUKES they want to have??? Obviously. They DO IT, because they want to use em... to make Peace and Prosperity, Spread Fluffiness and Cuteness and Make Friends Around Whole World, yes??? :-))) And yes, SARCASM!!!!!
\\My advice? Pitch Zelensky and hope he throws you a "Hail Mary" and DARPA an introduction.
Well. If you grown bored of me, of this topic... just say it.
As... another Russain saying: "People infested with fleas... tend to think only about bath". ;-P
\\Nature's a nasty b*tch, that's for sure.
But that is not your problrm too? As tht b*tch, Nature, have NO power over USA, yes? ;-)
\\They bought a Vice President's son (Biden), the son of the Speaker of the House (Pelosi), and the son a powerful Seantor and former Presidential Candidate (Kerry). /I like Hollywood stories. Especially if with action and many ka-booms and car crashes. But this one... not good. Even for C-rate movie. Bleh. Go haunt Derpy with it. As it NMP. You'd not be able to acqure any suspense from me. With such a losy plot.
I already showed you Senator's McCain and Graham yucking it up with Ukrainian troops. Do I need to name the entire US power structure?
\\I think that you need to still go find some more bouyant logs. /Don't know how in book. But movie showed it pretty damn excellent -- that that is not raw material that was a problem(s).
It is if you intend upon 3-D printing and self-assembling AI nanobots.
\\Stalin was pragmatic. The "internaccionale" was a bit overly ambitious, even for him. /Of course. After your "troops" was bleeded out by 50-somthing millions. And your "allie" just showed new shiny bomb he posess. And well. Didn't you mean Comintern? Pragmatic... my ass. :-)))))))))
When was Trotsky exiled again? '29? That was even before Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch.
\\You wish. I wish. We all wish. But this isn't going to end well for Ukraine. I will say it again. And you will ignore it again. You are freakingly DO NOT KNOW history of Ukraine.
No I don't. I do know the history of America, though. And I've said before, NOT the most reliable ally.
\\Xi has other problems. Serious problems. /E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. A-a-a-and? How dictators of all of the times, in all of the world... tend to resolve all their problems??? What way? With with what... am I used enough 'w's to give a hint? ;-)
I simply point to the Pacific Ocean and repeat my Latin. "Molon labe..." and then whisper, "Do you know where those 200+ submarine-based Trident missiles are?"
Well. That is BEYOND obvious. TODAY. Go filter your news feed. What they declared. Lately. About AMOUNT of NUKES they want to have??? Obviously. They DO IT, because they want to use em... to make Peace and Prosperity, Spread Fluffiness and Cuteness and Make Friends Around Whole World, yes??? :-))) And yes, SARCASM!!!!!
They also have a death wish to match their coming "one-child policy" inspired democraphic collapse? There're soon to be the Greek equivalent of Sparta when the Macedonians invaded the Pelloponese. No kids.
\\My advice? Pitch Zelensky and hope he throws you a "Hail Mary" and DARPA an introduction. /Well. If you grown bored of me, of this topic... just say it. As... another Russain saying: "People infested with fleas... tend to think only about bath". ;-P
We have a saying too, "People who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas." Better bring some powder.
\\Nature's a nasty b*tch, that's for sure. But that is not your problrm too? As tht b*tch, Nature, have NO power over USA, yes? ;-)
\\I already showed you Senator's McCain and Graham yucking it up with Ukrainian troops.
Ehm???
\\It is if you intend upon 3-D printing and self-assembling AI nanobots.
Ehm, again?
Military of Chile(afaik) gave to em all essentials needed, and even helped with workforce and start... for a little PR. ;-P
Crucial point was... at least as it was showed in the movie -- to attract first follower, very first team member -- engineer that helped with adjusting scratchy back f the envelope Thor's design into production state blueprints. ;-P
Other problems was: no wind, sharks and storms, team members loosing some of their screws in process, and etc... Natural and ordinary problems AFAIK. Good for a documentary stuff. ;-P Well... our start is well-documented. So future biographers whould need just to dive into archives of your bolg threads... to find some pearls, for their auditory. ;-P So, maybe it's time to start to watch for what you say... to not be ashamed before future generations. ;-)
\\When was Trotsky exiled again? '29?
WHY you think that is important??? Anyhow???? That is one infinitely little and unsignificant detail. Like... "See... this flea, fel from under tail sweep of that elephant... let's examine it MORE... that can be VERY important" :-)))))))))))))
\\No I don't. I do know the history of America, though. And I've said before, NOT the most reliable ally.
O. K. I'll say it directly. IF. You'd give you some hassle to learn some history of Ukraine... you'd know, that ALL history of Ukraine... is pretty much about betrayal of unreliable allies. BUT. In our case -- you are forced to be reliable. Because, that is in YOUR, ?USA best interests. ;-P Well, you can try to disprove it.
\\I simply point to the Pacific Ocean and repeat my Latin. "Molon labe..." and then whisper, "Do you know where those 200+ submarine-based Trident missiles are?"
And how much that "submarine-based Trident missiles" helped you with recent Baloon Attack? How they can, even theoreticly help with TikTok Attack??? And so on, so forth. ;-P
Another word. Your reliance on that "submarine-based Trident missiles" is akin to France reliance on Magino Line of Fortresses. You must be KNOW history of ww2 enough to grasp what I'm talking about, am I right?
\\They also have a death wish to match their coming "one-child policy" inspired democraphic collapse? There're soon to be the Greek equivalent of Sparta when the Macedonians invaded the Pelloponese. No kids.
Little problem here. There ALREADY freaking 1.5 billions... and if they'll be able to attract youth from all over the world... Millions of fresh young barbaric youth... from Africa, from Latin America...
\\We have a saying too, "People who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas." Better bring some powder.
\\I already showed you Senator's McCain and Graham yucking it up with Ukrainian troops. /Ehm???
You hinted that my comments were better aimed at Dervy (partisan). McCain and Graham are Republicans.
\\It is if you intend upon 3-D printing and self-assembling AI nanobots. /Ehm, again? Military of Chile(afaik) gave to em all essentials needed, and even helped with workforce and start... for a little PR. ;-P Crucial point was... at least as it was showed in the movie -- to attract first follower, very first team member -- engineer that helped with adjusting scratchy back f the envelope Thor's design into production state blueprints. ;-P Other problems was: no wind, sharks and storms, team members loosing some of their screws in process, and etc... Natural and ordinary problems AFAIK. Good for a documentary stuff. ;-P Well... our start is well-documented. So future biographers whould need just to dive into archives of your bolg threads... to find some pearls, for their auditory. ;-P So, maybe it's time to start to watch for what you say... to not be ashamed before future generations. ;-)
I'm a crank and will always come across as a crank... so I admit it to posterity. ;P
\\When was Trotsky exiled again? '29? WHY you think that is important??? Anyhow???? That is one infinitely little and unsignificant detail. Like... "See... this flea, fel from under tail sweep of that elephant... let's examine it MORE... that can be VERY important" :-)))))))))))))
I disagree. Trotsky was the "globalist aspiration" (workers of the WORLD unite) within Communism (Communist IDEOLOGY). Stalin was satisfied with the USSR and having some buffer states. He was a ultimately a Nationalist. Even Xi is a "nationalist". His is "capitalism with Chinese values". Putin has become a nationalist as well. The USA and Europe crushed his hopes of joining the 'globalist" club (held from 1990's-2014) He's all "Russian" now.
\\No I don't. I do know the history of America, though. And I've said before, NOT the most reliable ally. /O. K. I'll say it directly. IF. You'd give you some hassle to learn some history of Ukraine... you'd know, that ALL history of Ukraine... is pretty much about betrayal of unreliable allies. BUT. In our case -- you are forced to be reliable. Because, that is in YOUR, ?USA best interests. ;-P Well, you can try to disprove it.
Again, I disagree. The era of "liberal globalism" is over. We're all "nationalists" again. The WEF and its' corporate allies will not succeed in globalising capitalism under the auspices of the UN. And the latest trick of selling off national public lands and assets under the "Natural Asset Company" scheme in exchange for "national debt" will fail. That kind of 'oficialismo' will not work in the US. King Tammany already gave us the right to hunt and fish in all public lands, forever. The king does not own Sherwood Forest in America, and neither will a "National Asset Company".
\\I simply point to the Pacific Ocean and repeat my Latin. "Molon labe..." and then whisper, "Do you know where those 200+ submarine-based Trident missiles are?" /And how much that "submarine-based Trident missiles" helped you with recent Baloon Attack? How they can, even theoreticly help with TikTok Attack??? And so on, so forth. ;-P
As the balloon attack has shown, we can and will defend our airspace. If necessary, we can also defend the vacuum above it. And we can launch a denial of service attack against TikTOK whenever we like. Most of the internet's infrastructure is already ours.
Another word. Your reliance on that "submarine-based Trident missiles" is akin to France reliance on Magino Line of Fortresses. You must be KNOW history of ww2 enough to grasp what I'm talking about, am I right?
Indeed. Petain's folly. Same with the Siegried line. Static defenses. But you know the sayings. Athens had the long walls (to Pireus). Sparta's walls were her men. The British had walls of oak (ships). America's walls are of aluminum and in "Space". We own the "high ground" (space) and the "below ground" (under water). In the "Game of Throwns" we have most (not all) of the dragons.
\\They also have a death wish to match their coming "one-child policy" inspired democraphic collapse? There're soon to be the Greek equivalent of Sparta when the Macedonians invaded the Pelloponese. No kids. /Little problem here. There ALREADY freaking 1.5 billions... and if they'll be able to attract youth from all over the world... Millions of fresh young barbaric youth... from Africa, from Latin America...
Then what will become of their "Chinese values"? They'll be no better than "us". :P
\\We have a saying too, "People who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas." Better bring some powder. /Have/Had a pet?
\\You hinted that my comments were better aimed at Dervy (partisan). McCain and Graham are Republicans.
Yep. Like I care. NMP. I even cannot grasp what that dichotomy Rep/Dem mean... well, that is not question.
\\I'm a crank and will always come across as a crank... so I admit it to posterity. ;P
What a crankery in one age... can be normalcy in another. ;-P Like people who talking to themself. ;-)
\\I disagree. Trotsky was the "globalist aspiration" (workers of the WORLD unite) within Communism (Communist IDEOLOGY).
That is... telling too much to me. More then you'd like to anticipate, I presume. First of all -- that you don't know facts. THEY ALL have had "globalist aspiration". The same as Comintern -- was structure with globalist aspirations from the get go. That's why Lenin and communists of Russia came out of it... and created OWN spoiler structure. Because. Communists DO NOT share foo... power, of course. ;-P
\\Stalin was satisfied with the USSR and having some buffer states.
Bull... crap.
Just the same as Communists from different countries DO NOT like to share power in the World. Communists INSIDE countries... DO NOT like to share power INSIDE country too.
That's all.
Bullshit about "buffer countries", "different strategies toward World revolution" and etc bullcrap you know from who know what trashyard(s) of thought -- have nothing in common with Reality and real world practices of Communism. Period.
Communists -- it's ULTIMATELY a mere opportunists. And Communism as ideology -- that is not ideology AT ALL. The same as "sea lions" is not lions. ;-P
\\He was a ultimately a Nationalist.
Of which exactly nationality and nation? ;-P
\\Even Xi is a "nationalist".
He is autocratic leader aspiring to became totalitarian one.
\\His is "capitalism with Chinese values".
Naah.
\\Putin has become a nationalist as well.
:-)))))))))))))
\\The USA and Europe crushed his hopes of joining the 'globalist" club (held from 1990's-2014) He's all "Russian" now.
That's just a "maskirovka". False facade he played for gullible westerners.
As any crook -- he just say to his pray that what that pray like to hear.
You have no experience talking with crooks too, it seems. And where is that snake oil merchants... when they are so needed. Well, go read some O'Henry as some light remedy. ;-)
\\Again, I disagree. The era of "liberal globalism" is over. We're all "nationalists" again.
You can have it as your political stance. I will not discuss it with you. Try to brawl with Derpy about it.
\\As the balloon attack has shown, we can and will defend our airspace.
Against 1 million of em? 1 billion of em?
\\ If necessary, we can also defend the vacuum above it.
And you said that SDI was wrong. ;-P
\\ And we can launch a denial of service attack against TikTOK whenever we like. Most of the internet's infrastructure is already ours.
A-a-a-nd? How it'll influence my WiFi hotspot? Or base station of 5G made by Huavei???
You really are ready to be leapfrogged in a technological sense. All is needed -- some killer app devised by some smarty young chinese boy. Well... that already happend.
\\America's walls are of aluminum and in "Space". We own the "high ground" (space) and the "below ground" (under water). In the "Game of Throwns" we have most (not all) of the dragons.
"Generals always preparing for past battles"(tm)
\\Then what will become of their "Chinese values"? They'll be no better than "us". :P
Well... you can try to talk about it with Chinese bomb. Or "smart" drone it would be delivered with. But... ups, they'll talk in Mandarin. ;-P
\\I disagree. Trotsky was the "globalist aspiration" (workers of the WORLD unite) within Communism (Communist IDEOLOGY). /That is... telling too much to me. More then you'd like to anticipate, I presume. First of all -- that you don't know facts. THEY ALL have had "globalist aspiration". The same as Comintern -- was structure with globalist aspirations from the get go. That's why Lenin and communists of Russia came out of it... and created OWN spoiler structure. Because. Communists DO NOT share foo... power, of course. ;-P
I didn't say Lenin, I said Stalin. Stalin was a nationalist. The "COMINTERN" aspects of communism were Trotsky's specialty.
\\Stalin was satisfied with the USSR and having some buffer states. /Bull... crap. Just the same as Communists from different countries DO NOT like to share power in the World. Communists INSIDE countries... DO NOT like to share power INSIDE country too. That's all.
Then why not depose Tito in '48? And why did Tito support communist revolution in Greece, but not Stalin? Stalin didn't give a sh*t about the "internaccionale". He only participated in it to suck up to Lenin and gain power.
/Bullshit about "buffer countries", "different strategies toward World revolution" and etc bullcrap you know from who know what trashyard(s) of thought -- have nothing in common with Reality and real world practices of Communism. Period. Communists -- it's ULTIMATELY a mere opportunists. And Communism as ideology -- that is not ideology AT ALL. The same as "sea lions" is not lions. ;-P
Communism is most certainly an ideology. One with it's own crazy way of speaking, and etiquette (like leader applauding himself, as if always just "one of the people").
\\He was a ultimately a Nationalist. Of which exactly nationality and nation? ;-P
The USSR as originally formed under Lenin.
\\Even Xi is a "nationalist". He is autocratic leader aspiring to became totalitarian one.
274 comments:
1 – 200 of 274 Newer› Newest»Do they propose a vision of new tech?
No, just a vision of what that tech isn't. ChatGPT.
ChatGPT is more a one-way interface/interpretter between the unintelligibility of an AI and the human race... provided ChatGTP was trained on both the AI's curated culture and ours.
...a combined "second-order once removed" artificial communicator.
When most people are talking of artificial intelligence, they're really talking about artificial communication. Intelligence and communication are two separate things. An "algorithm" can never "become intelligence"... it always represents a human intelligence translated into an algorithm that machines can process, but never "understand" and become "sentient" thereby.
...at its' most dangerous, it can become a form of Malware, but nothing more... nothing with an inherent/immanent "intelligence".
Even if it's adaptive, and can modify it's own algorithm, it's still not "intelligence" to the extent that the adaptations are also algorithms, added to the original like a DNA string. Is DNA "intelligent"? Or is it a stored algorithm for the cellular life forms it controls?
Consciousness isn't in the DNA/code. Consciousness and its' "intelligence", it's posited "self-identification" through the "mirror stage" and seeing itself as a singular (vice collective) entity is a falsification of reality.
We are Borg.
...becomes "I am Borg".
The term AI really refers to artificial communication which is then mis-perceived by intelligence as "having intelligence" and subsequently labelled AI (instead of AC).
Borg is like "me"... singularly intelligent.
Artificial communication employs a "list-making" strategy. When you "Google" something it gives you a "list". A list of possibly desireable results. The intelligence must select "which" of these possible list items best applies.
Lists are useful for organizing and re-organizing data in new and novel ways.... which is what ChatGTP does. It's just a more/higher processed Google list.
At NASA we have Level 0 data, Level 1, Level; 2, Level 3. etc. AT each level the abstraction from the raw science data (Level 0) into useful data products increases.
Chat GTP Looks for patterns and structures in listed data search results which then allows for further/ higher level algorithmic abstractions being applied to the produced lists eventually becoming "predictive" in nature based upon the probabilities calculated/derived from observing the higher level patterns. A kind of "divination" from probabilistic "signs".... from an aggregate of sources to create an "average" result re-applied to produce singular/ individual one (ie DJIA vs Apple Stock), which then become "performative". Oedipus gets his fate from the delphic oracle, and then "makes it happen".. it (the delphic prediction) "changes the future".
ie - An algorithm monitoring your data inputs and searches proposes a product to buy in the form of an "Ad". You then sunconsciously "consider" the product's utility as you continue browsing (if you've never seen it before), and may later buy the product, thereby altering the future... all from this subliminal suggestion.
Esposito believe that the path forward is to stop trying to simulate human intelligence. Just like whith the airplane, the real advancements in aeronautics happened when we stopped trying to imitate birds.
How does the mind participate in communication? (Lumen)
Lumen believes that Minds cannot communicate and they do not communicate, their operation is thinking and feeling and other mental things (their MO) and this is all Minds do. Communication and Mind are separate, operationally closed systems. How does the mind "influence" communication (w/o participating in it) Mind "manages" communication, but does not participate in it.
So algorithms are involved in communication, but aren't involved in it? The algorithm is involved in communication w/o participating in it. Structural coupling with environment. In order for communication to happen, there must in general be at least two devoted consciousness participating
...two devoted consciousness participating into that. That's why speaks participating baptized in this form. This means we can go on thinking about ourselves, and not to participate in uh in communication at all, or we can devote our thoughts to the content of the communication. For example, me and you now, you can think about yourself... what you want to do tonight, if you are hungry, if you are tired, if you have a bad mood or a good mood, or you can listen to what i'm saying and focus your thoughts, that sort of connect your thought with what i'm saying, by which of course you don't accept, have any access to my thoughts. i simply do something that through communication which system theory says "irritates", if you want, your thoughts in order to produce something, which, well if it works out, produce some information, with your information different from mine. And so that's how communication goes on. So um, the idea that in the case of of consciousness, structural coupling becomes more strict because it's not just an environmental background, it's an actual operation of the psychic system that's to be devoted to the actual operation of the social system. That's why they coincide in this event... my psychic event is coupled to a communicative event, and yours too, and they want to. Everybody's listening so it's a stronger requirement. And that makes the concept artificial communication in a sense tricky, because i propose it, because i think empirically what's going on in in the interaction with algorithms is so close to communication that it's a we have to try to find a way to extend that to expand or to amend or to change the concept of communication also to include what's going on because there's something that cannot be described in any other way than through reference to communication, or i can, i cannot describe it any other way.
The "new tech" is profilicity.
The old techs it supercedes are:
1) Sincerity
2) Authenticity
These are the (3) "Techs" of identity, per Prof. Han-Georg Moeller
Profilicity = "Genuine Pretending".
Well... try to be "not sincere" with a computer... while programming it.
That way you'd need a "symbolic imagery" to placate your trauma, of course. ;-P
\\Esposito believe that the path forward is to stop trying to simulate human intelligence. Just like whith the airplane, the real advancements in aeronautics happened when we stopped trying to imitate birds.
Meaningless babbling... while that who pointing at uselessness of flapping his hands to make flight, DID NOT proposed HIS vision of how we can. ;-P
\\So algorithms are involved in communication, but aren't involved in it? The algorithm is involved in communication w/o participating in it. Structural coupling with environment. In order for communication to happen, there must in general be at least two devoted consciousness participating
Blah-blah-blah...
I never knew that wise words of Lem was so true...
\\all from this subliminal suggestion.
Yep. Marcketologists would like it...
\\Consciousness isn't in the DNA/code. Consciousness and its' "intelligence", it's posited "self-identification" through the "mirror stage" and seeing itself as a singular (vice collective) entity is a falsification of reality.
Mixing of categories.
First you said about physical level -- physical body of a human.
And than, started talking from our "inner I".
Obvious mistake.
As our languages do not equiped to do it any other way -- understanding og that antinomy -- is whole point of Golem XIV screed AFAIK. ;-P
\\...a combined "second-order once removed" artificial communicator.
What "second-order"?
The curated database from which ChatGTP draws it's material and composes it's response doesn't originate with any "intelligence" within ChatGTP. So whatever response it generates isn't "primary source" material. it's at best second order collection of recombined primary/ seondary/ tertiar/ etc. materials.
Example... Plato writes a dialogue, then a historian uses a part of that dialogue in a textbook on philosophy. Plato's material is "primary source". If I quote the textbook version, it's a "secondary source". This is what Roland Barthes, et al, called "The Death of the Author".
When I read, I prefer using primary sourced materials. It has a more complete context than excepts quoted elsewhere and looses less in its' "communication" from Plato's brain to mine..
Just like you might read Lem in the original, I must go through translators... and the original meaning gets lost.
Is the Google algorithm that translates the material an "intelligence"? or just an algorithm used for communication facilitation?
I've read the Iliad by several different translators. It's a different book with each one. Alexander Pope used to try and render his translations in Iambic pentameter/ verse. Again, a spin on the text that distorts it.
Even a printed version hides all the author's edited (by an editor) corrections
\\This is what Roland Barthes, et al, called "The Death of the Author".
Hardly that is important, AFAIK.
\\Just like you might read Lem in the original, I must go through translators... and the original meaning gets lost.
If so... then it was uniportant. ;-P
\\Is the Google algorithm that translates the material an "intelligence"? or just an algorithm used for communication facilitation?
Same old question -- is language intelligent by itself? ;-)
Or... same "chinese room" argument.
I myself have working hypothesis that that words/language -- that's just a labels.
\\It's a different book with each one.
Like something bad. ;-)
\\This is what Roland Barthes, et al, called "The Death of the Author".
Hardly that is important, AFAIK.
Are sources of information important?
\\Just like you might read Lem in the original, I must go through translators... and the original meaning gets lost.
/If so... then it was uniportant. ;-P
So if a 70 IQ translator translates the work of a 150 IQ author, anything "lost in translation" was unimportant?
\\Is the Google algorithm that translates the material an "intelligence"? or just an algorithm used for communication facilitation?
/Same old question -- is language intelligent by itself? ;-)
Or... same "chinese room" argument.
I myself have working hypothesis that that words/language -- that's just a labels.
The Chinese room experiment is an experiment in artificial communication, not "artificial intelligence". The intelligence was in the person who put together the instruction sets (algorithm) for the person inside the Chinese room experiment. The words/language was just the labels (as you say). The intelligence lay in the "ordering" of them [as captured by the algorithm (ChatGTP), but only present/inherent in the mind of the algorithm's "author" (the human development team for ChatGTP)].
\\It's a different book with each one.
/Like something bad. ;-)
Some books are good, others are bad. I like reading the "good" ones. The "classics" that have withstood the tests (and tastes) of "time".
Reflecting upon and Recording, experimenting with...Difference, Repetition, Result... Difference, Repetition, Result... That is the "tech" of a predictive Intelligence. For all intelligence, ultimately, is "recollection".
Plato, "Meno"
SOCRATES: They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.
MENO: What was it? and who were they?
SOCRATES: Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied how they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there have been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like Pindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say—mark, now, and see whether their words are true—they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness. 'For in the ninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has received the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the light of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings and mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in after ages.' The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the sluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In that confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of virtue.
MENO: Yes, Socrates; but what do you mean by saying that we do not learn, and that what we call learning is only a process of recollection? Can you teach me how this is?
SOCRATES: I told you, Meno, just now that you were a rogue, and now you ask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no teaching, but only recollection; and thus you imagine that you will involve me in a contradiction.
https://youtu.be/Qp2T9zSVf88
https://youtu.be/Gn5HPWLerDU
It can be algorithmically "programmed" into a sequence of muscle movements, it can be programmed into a sequence of computer keystrokes, it can be programmed into a brain's cerebellum to coordinate the muscle movements necessary for pedaling and riding a bicycle. But "creating" those ordered neuronal firing pattern sequences only come from a long and studied practice of order, difference, and repetition... trial and error... then "myelination" of axons (through repeated use) to make those sequences "instinctual".
erratum "applied order, difference, repetition".
Sure, you can transfer the developed pattern algorithm onto a different computer and it will perform competently UNTIL it meets a "black swan event", something the pattern's originator failed to anticipate. And at that point it will fail, and the process of difference, repetition, and result must begin again. We stand upon the shoulders of the giants who developed the original algorithm pattern.... yet begin anew, often grossly unaware of the materials used to devise the original giants' pattern, for the variables of "difference" previously attempted and discarded are lost in the translation of the algorithm onto a new computer.
Transferring the pattern to another computer is not intelligence, THAT is communication. Intelligence is what happens after the transferred and communicated pattern/ algorithm fails.
...if it changes nothing, it will fail again (provided the black swan event became a permanent and growing fixture of its' environment)... and will go extinct. If it changes the wrong things in adapting to the new circumstances, it will fail and go extinct. Only the few who make the "right/successful" changes/ adaptations will survive, and live to transfer their pattern/algorithm to the "next generation".
Communication can be a form of "reproduction" when transferring an algorithm from one computer to another (like a DNA code sequence)
...but not all attempts at communication or reproduction are entirely successful.
The phrase qui pro quo, or quiproquo (from medieval Latin: literally qui instead of quo), is common in languages such as Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and French, where it means a misunderstanding.
Adaptive is what "intelligence" is. Whether artificial or natural. And adaptations which conserve/ preserve the greatest number of options available for future adaptations, are probably the "most" intelligent (unless it also lead more easily to confusion and failure, as what seems to be increasingly
true for the case of man's late-post-modernism).
Adaptation... aka- refinement.
...exceptional refinement...
...in the Doric mode
...yet always incomplete...
So what is Better, in terms of adaptation and refinement. My guess is "anti-fragility" given the low-mean intelligence of the human race.
The IQ normal-distribution curve reflects that too smart and too dumb are both "bad" as far as intelligence goes.
There's a "right amount" appropriate to surviving a specific environment.
The "mean"... not the "extreme".
One can be "too good/ clever" for "one's own good".
...one minute, and then after a black swan/ or extinction threatening event, poof, a new "mean" intelligence for survival may be required.
"Nature's a nasty b*tch," as Q might say.
I wonder how "anti-fragile" the internet makes "humanity"
Imagine if tomorrow it was gone.
...and the "tech" all stopped working... phones, computers. An "EMP" event.
\\...one minute, and then after a black swan/ or extinction threatening event, poof, a new "mean" intelligence for survival may be required.
And answer is... diversity. ;-)
\\The IQ normal-distribution curve
And what IQ mean? And what normal-distribution mean? ;-)
\\Adaptive is what "intelligence" is.
Yap.
\\Intelligence is what happens after the transferred and communicated pattern/ algorithm fails.
Little problem here. Brain not needed for that. ;-P
Well, I'm just a losy prol and technologist... wannabe.
I just know how to pile break onto a break... to make that piramid.
And I see it... that there is only TWO ways of doing things. Top down and bottom up.
Like... when pharaoh wants that piramid -- he asks mason, and that trying to devise a way.
But well... from where comes very idea of that piramid -- if not from a mason... well, at first he was not called that way, piled one break on another... just idly, of while playing, but it showed its perspective, and that's pileing of breaks tech started. ;-)
My problem, AFAIS... is that my idea *neither* top down nor bottom up.
But something in the middle.
And as that -- question -- how to push it into Reality. ;-P
Was there examples of it, even???
Like... That Einstain's Letter. ;-)
\\Some books are good, others are bad. I like reading the "good" ones. The "classics" that have withstood the tests (and tastes) of "time".
And how do acquire taste, that way? ;-)
\\The Chinese room experiment is an experiment in artificial communication, not "artificial intelligence".
Correct? Maybe.
But... fruitless.
Another word -- can it give you idea of how o make it? How to make something new, at all???
Doubt it.
\\So if a 70 IQ translator translates the work of a 150 IQ author, anything "lost in translation" was unimportant?
You know that saying of Feynman(?): "if you cannot explain your theory to a 6 year old"... you are lossy theorticain, so to say. ;-P
\\Are sources of information important?
Imagine... POTUS suddenly barfed -- what very valuable information you can devise from such an "exclamation" of a such "very important source".
That is thing Derpy do not understand. All that "rules of thumbs" is just heuristics... NOT laws.
And as such, need to be discerned, intelligently -- what to take,and what to throw aside...
"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application.
Plato, in his attempt to define a "part" of virtue, "courage" (Laches Dialogue) defines the whole of virtue as follows:
Plato, "Laches"
SOCRATES: I will tell you. He and I have a notion that there is not one knowledge or science of the past, another of the present, a third of what is likely to be best and what will be best in the future; but that of all three there is one science only: for example, there is one science of medicine which is concerned with the inspection of health equally in all times, present, past, and future; and one science of husbandry in like manner, which is concerned with the productions of the earth in all times. As to the art of the general, you yourselves will be my witnesses that he has an excellent foreknowledge of the future, and that he claims to be the master and not the servant of the soothsayer, because he knows better what is happening or is likely to happen in war: and accordingly the law places the soothsayer under the general, and not the general under the soothsayer. Am I not correct in saying so, Laches?
LACHES: Quite correct.
SOCRATES: And do you, Nicias, also acknowledge that the same science has understanding of the same things, whether future, present, or past?
NICIAS: Yes, indeed Socrates; that is my opinion.
SOCRATES: And courage, my friend, is, as you say, a knowledge of the fearful and of the hopeful?
NICIAS: Yes.
SOCRATES: And the fearful, and the hopeful, are admitted to be future goods and future evils?
NICIAS: True.
SOCRATES: And the same science has to do with the same things in the future or at any time?
NICIAS: That is true.
SOCRATES: Then courage is not the science which is concerned with the fearful and hopeful, for they are future only; courage, like the other sciences, is concerned not only with good and evil of the future, but of the present and past, and of any time?
NICIAS: That, as I suppose, is true.
SOCRATES: Then the answer which you have given, Nicias, includes only a third part of courage; but our question extended to the whole nature of courage: and according to your view, that is, according to your present view, courage is not only the knowledge of the hopeful and the fearful, but seems to include nearly every good and evil without reference to time. What do you say to that alteration in your statement?
NICIAS: I agree, Socrates.
SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.
SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, according to this new definition of yours, instead of being a part of virtue only, will be all virtue?
NICIAS: It would seem so.
SOCRATES: But we were saying that courage is one of the parts of virtue?
NICIAS: Yes, that was what we were saying.
SOCRATES: And that is in contradiction with our present view?
NICIAS: That appears to be the case.
SOCRATES: Then, Nicias, we have not discovered what courage is.
NICIAS: We have not.
In other words, another so-called part of virtue (besides the courage:temperance opposites) is "wisdom". In the Catholic cardinal virtues, this is called "prudence". Science (the new universal religion) calls this "intelligence". Each "part" of virtue is "opposed" by its' opposite. And the "opposite/ opposed" virtue to "wisdom" is "justice"... (like showing "mercy").
So virtue's (4) cardinal elements can be described as follows:
courage:temperance::wisdom/justice
Now substitute "intelligence" for "wisdom".
erratum - courage:temperance::wisdom:justice
So the question becomes, what is intelligencee(s) virtuous opposed counterpart if it constitutes the twins of wisdom:justice. Communication?
..for ultimately, "modernity" or "the enlightenment" was merely the "secularization" of religion. Taking the "G_d" out of it.
Intelligence: When to "lie" instead of telling the "truth"... to "speak" (communicate) or "not speak" intelligently...
...about things past, present, or future.
Virtue, also, can't be taught. It. can only be "learned". It's a lot like "wisdom".
Do you know the road to Larisaa? (Plato,"Meno"). Maybe I'll paint you my portrait of Daedelus one day.
Its a lot like Bruegel's painting of Daedelus' son.
\\Intelligence: When to "lie" instead of telling the "truth"... to "speak" (communicate) or "not speak" intelligently...
I already stated it clear... I'm not interested (that much) into whataboutism around-around it... but in real deal thing. ;-P
\\..for ultimately, "modernity" or "the enlightenment" was merely the "secularization" of religion. Taking the "G_d" out of it.
Aha... that idea that our predecessors was dumb, and didn't know it that very idea of "god"... is bogus in its core. ;-P
Even though their deeds scream 'bout it...
\\So the question becomes, what is intelligencee(s) virtuous opposed counterpart if it constitutes the twins of wisdom:justice. Communication?
I'm not equipped for that question to mean something to me. Sorry.
See. I'm saying it frankly here. Even though it can ruin mood, maybe.
But isn't truthfulness is a virtue too??? But is it revered... by most. ;-P Too much, like only as for lip-service purposes. ;-)
You wanna definition of Intelligence from me? In such a phylosophical way???
Then... its Truth. ;-) Embodyment of Truth itself. ;-)
\\Science (the new universal religion) calls this "intelligence".
Still... I would like your agreement here. To discern.
Real Science... and mere scientism -- which is religion, true.
I will not even try to placate it... that it is only partly, only in some wrong places... whatever.
\\"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application.
Only superficial resemblance. AFAIU.
\\SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness?
Well... you give this excerpt to me second(?) time. AFAIR.
And previous time I gave you answer -- isn't that word to word what Lem/GolemXVI said?
So.. what you wanna squizze out of me?
While I declared openly myself as a pragmatist. By need (as technologist wannabe).
Therefore... if I can rever ANYTHING as that idealistic thing as virtue or holiness, or whatever... that'll be pragamaticism itself. ;-)
\\Intelligence: When to "lie" instead of telling the "truth"... to "speak" (communicate) or "not speak" intelligently...
/I already stated it clear... I'm not interested (that much) into whataboutism around-around it... but in real deal thing. ;-P
But that IS the real deal thing. It's conditional and can only be seen in "hindsight". It depends upon "success".
\\So the question becomes, what is intelligencee(s) virtuous opposed counterpart if it constitutes the twins of wisdom:justice. Communication?
/I'm not equipped for that question to mean something to me. Sorry.
See. I'm saying it frankly here. Even though it can ruin mood, maybe.
But isn't truthfulness is a virtue too??? But is it revered... by most. ;-P Too much, like only as for lip-service purposes. ;-)
You wanna definition of Intelligence from me? In such a phylosophical way???
Then... its Truth. ;-) Embodyment of Truth itself. ;-)
Ever encounter the "Truth-tellers dilemna?" Let me see if I can find Kant's ethical argument for always telling the truth as a "categorical imperative"
\\"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application.
/Only superficial resemblance. AFAIU.
No, I still think its' exactly the same argument.
\\SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness?
/Well... you give this excerpt to me second(?) time. AFAIR.
And previous time I gave you answer -- isn't that word to word what Lem/GolemXVI said?
So.. what you wanna squizze out of me?
While I declared openly myself as a pragmatist. By need (as technologist wannabe).
Therefore... if I can rever ANYTHING as that idealistic thing as virtue or holiness, or whatever... that'll be pragamaticism itself. ;-)
No, you need to squiggle with yourself, determine what your conscience tells you about the efficacy of knowing the truth vs always telling the truth in the name of "pragmatism"???
btw - On the "trolley problem" discussed in the link above... would you jump yourself from the bridge? Just wondering as to the extent of your pragmatism.
...and would it make a difference if you knew the people down-track?
Society is composed of communications, and ONLY communications. These occur between individuals and social systems (Luhmann?)
from Luhman videos...
Social systems are of three types... autopoetic (reproduces itself like the economy), Interactions (time limited f-t-f with doctor/dentists), organizations (performed hierarchies like university)
Society has separated into separate specialist spheres of communication... law, economy, politics, art, religion, health, education, etc. (evolved from religion) (multiple realities, one for each sphere, problem systems requiring solutions.
Social systems are not real, they are actualized in comms between people. They're persistent, but NOT real.
Society constrains people as a set of rules, but is constructed out of multiple realities (legal reality, economic reality, etc.)
Each differentiation is a functionally-based subsystem has a distinct "reality" and pov. (you demand that concepts like truth and reason, that shaped the self-understanding of the people and their social order, to be newly functionally defined) We need a new social theory of truth (a code of rules which transfers reductions of experience from one to others?)
Each functionally divided social subsystem has its' own truths, its own realities.
And as Isaiah Berlin once remarked..."the unavoidability of conflicting ends" or, alternatively, the "incommensurability" of values. He once called this "the only truth which I have ever found out for myself... Some of the Great Goods cannot live together.... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".
\\But that IS the real deal thing. It's conditional and can only be seen in "hindsight". It depends upon "success".
I mean I want to ride it... instead of being under its wheels. ;-P
\\Ever encounter the "Truth-tellers dilemna?" Let me see if I can find Kant's ethical argument for always telling the truth as a "categorical imperative"
That is problem with old phylosophers.
Newest researches do show oftenly -- that they are not right. (in a way Newtonian Theory is not right in compare with Einstainian ;-))
\\\\"Intelligence" is a term much akin to "virtue". It can only be applied in hindsight, based upon its' successful algorithm development and application.
/Only superficial resemblance. AFAIU.
\\No, I still think its' exactly the same argument.
As in math. There is "necessary". And "sufficient" conditions.
That is only necessary.
And quit trivial one. AFAICare.
\\Society is composed of communications, and ONLY communications. These occur between individuals and social systems (Luhmann?)
Well... if one'd used it as axiom...
\\No, you need to squiggle with yourself, determine what your conscience tells you about the efficacy of knowing the truth vs always telling the truth in the name of "pragmatism"???
Sorry.
I don't see any problem here.
Tellin the truth is pragmatic... especially in a long and complex talks.
Or, when you doing some lengthy,complex,intellectual job.
Like programming. ;-P
Especially programming.
Because writing texts... it will be conditioned on a sufficiently smart reader -- to catch your lie/mistake/error, and to reveal it.
But your code... it will fall just the moment you'd try to compile it. ;-P
\\btw - On the "trolley problem" discussed in the link above... would you jump yourself from the bridge? Just wondering as to the extent of your pragmatism.
I feel you use here different from my definition of pragmatism. ;-)
\\In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".
Well.
Certainly.
The moment you have choose something... you losing all other choices. Per se.
More truisms? (yawn)
You're concept of "pragmatism" always gets it both ways. Why not just have a theory of "luck" and say you want to always be lucky?
I'm sure you can always "ride" Lady Luck.
Capriciousness isn't much of a philosophy.
But having a rule, and knowing when to break it... that isn't capriciousness. That's "intelligence".
...and "luck" has got nothin' to do with it.
Knowing the precise moment to grab hold of Kairos knot
:P
:)
If THAT isn't enough of a portrait of Daedelus, I don't know what would be. :(
...of illustrating Kairos moment.
Who do you think was the "more intelligent" brother? Prometheus (Forethought) or Epimetheus (Afterthought)?
Forethought. The difference between intelligence and mere luck-dependent chicanery (walkin' on a wave's chicane)
Never forget the last two verses! :P
We skipped the light fandango
Turned cartwheels cross the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick
But the crowd called out for more
The room was humming harder
As the ceiling flew away
When we called out for another drink
The waiter brought a tray
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly,
Turned a whiter shade of pale
She said, there is no reason
And the truth is plain to see.
But I wandered through my playing cards
And would not let her be
One of sixteen vestal virgins
Who were leaving for the coast
And although my eyes were open
They might have just as wellve been closed
She said, Im home on shore leave,
Though in truth we were at sea
So I took her by the looking glass
And forced her to agree
Saying, you must be the mermaid
Who took neptune for a ride.
But she smiled at me so sadly
That my anger straightway died
If music be the food of love
Then laughter is its queen
And likewise if behind is in front
Then dirt in truth is clean
My mouth by then like cardboard
Seemed to slip straight through my head
So we crash-dived straightway quickly
And attacked the ocean bed
...get "dirty" baby!
Why so many examples? Nails/Tacks for securing your "portrait of Daedalus" (lest they all "run away" ala Plato, "Meno")
from the Jowett introduction of Plato's "Meno"
Socrates returns to the consideration of the question 'whether virtue is teachable,' which was denied on the ground that there are no teachers of it: (for the Sophists are bad teachers, and the rest of the world do not profess to teach). But there is another point which we failed to observe, and in which Gorgias has never instructed Meno, nor Prodicus Socrates. This is the nature of right opinion. For virtue may be under the guidance of right opinion as well as of knowledge; and right opinion is for practical purposes as good as knowledge, but is incapable of being taught, and is also liable, like the images of Daedalus, to 'walk off,' because not bound by the tie of the cause. This is the sort of instinct which is possessed by statesmen, who are not wise or knowing persons, but only inspired or divine. The higher virtue, which is identical with knowledge, is an ideal only. If the statesman had this knowledge, and could teach what he knew, he would be like Tiresias in the world below,—'he alone has wisdom, but the rest flit like shadows.'
Right opinion. The man who knows the Road to Larisa (also described in Meno)
SOCRATES: O Meno, there was a time when the Thessalians were famous among the other Hellenes only for their riches and their riding; but now, if I am not mistaken, they are equally famous for their wisdom, especially at Larisa, which is the native city of your friend Aristippus. And this is Gorgias' doing; for when he came there, the flower of the Aleuadae, among them your admirer Aristippus, and the other chiefs of the Thessalians, fell in love with his wisdom. And he has taught you the habit of answering questions in a grand and bold style, which becomes those who know, and is the style in which he himself answers all comers; and any Hellene who likes may ask him anything. How different is our lot! my dear Meno. Here at Athens there is a dearth of the commodity, and all wisdom seems to have emigrated from us to you. I am certain that if you were to ask any Athenian whether virtue was natural or acquired, he would laugh in your face, and say: 'Stranger, you have far too good an opinion of me, if you think that I can answer your question. For I literally do not know what virtue is, and much less whether it is acquired by teaching or not.' And I myself, Meno, living as I do in this region of poverty, am as poor as the rest of the world; and I confess with shame that I know literally nothing about virtue; and when I do not know the 'quid' of anything how can I know the 'quale'? How, if I knew nothing at all of Meno, could I tell if he was fair, or the opposite of fair; rich and noble, or the reverse of rich and noble? Do you think that I could?
more from "Meno"
SOCRATES: I will explain. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or anywhere else, and went to the place and led others thither, would he not be a right and good guide?
MENO: Certainly.
SOCRATES: And a person who had a right opinion about the way, but had never been and did not know, might be a good guide also, might he not?
MENO: Certainly.
SOCRATES: And while he has true opinion about that which the other knows, he will be just as good a guide if he thinks the truth, as he who knows the truth?
MENO: Exactly.
SOCRATES: Then true opinion is as good a guide to correct action as knowledge; and that was the point which we omitted in our speculation about the nature of virtue, when we said that knowledge only is the guide of right action; whereas there is also right opinion.
MENO: True.
SOCRATES: Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge?
MENO: The difference, Socrates, is only that he who has knowledge will always be right; but he who has right opinion will sometimes be right, and sometimes not.
SOCRATES: What do you mean? Can he be wrong who has right opinion, so long as he has right opinion?
MENO: I admit the cogency of your argument, and therefore, Socrates, I wonder that knowledge should be preferred to right opinion—or why they should ever differ.
SOCRATES: And shall I explain this wonder to you?
MENO: Do tell me.
SOCRATES: You would not wonder if you had ever observed the images of Daedalus (Compare Euthyphro); but perhaps you have not got them in your country?
MENO: What have they to do with the question?
SOCRATES: Because they require to be fastened in order to keep them, and if they are not fastened they will play truant and run away.
MENO: Well, what of that?
SOCRATES: I mean to say that they are not very valuable possessions if they are at liberty, for they will walk off like runaway slaves; but when fastened, they are of great value, for they are really beautiful works of art. Now this is an illustration of the nature of true opinions: while they abide with us they are beautiful and fruitful, but they run away out of the human soul, and do not remain long, and therefore they are not of much value until they are fastened by the tie of the cause; and this fastening of them, friend Meno, is recollection, as you and I have agreed to call it. But when they are bound, in the first place, they have the nature of knowledge; and, in the second place, they are abiding. And this is why knowledge is more honourable and excellent than true opinion, because fastened by a chain.
MENO: What you are saying, Socrates, seems to be very like the truth.
SOCRATES: I too speak rather in ignorance; I only conjecture. And yet that knowledge differs from true opinion is no matter of conjecture with me. There are not many things which I profess to know, but this is most certainly one of them.
MENO: Yes, Socrates; and you are quite right in saying so.
...and now, much as Jowett concludes his summary...
The question which Plato has raised respecting the origin and nature of ideas belongs to the infancy of philosophy; in modern times it would no longer be asked. Their origin is only their history, so far as we know it; there can be no other. We may trace them in language, in philosophy, in mythology, in poetry, but we cannot argue a priori about them. We may attempt to shake them off, but they are always returning, and in every sphere of science and human action are tending to go beyond facts. They are thought to be innate, because they have been familiar to us all our lives, and we can no longer dismiss them from our mind. Many of them express relations of terms to which nothing exactly or nothing at all in rerum natura corresponds. We are not such free agents in the use of them as we sometimes imagine. Fixed ideas have taken the most complete possession of some thinkers who have been most determined to renounce them, and have been vehemently affirmed when they could be least explained and were incapable of proof. The world has often been led away by a word to which no distinct meaning could be attached. Abstractions such as 'authority,' 'equality,' 'utility,' 'liberty,' 'pleasure,' 'experience,' 'consciousness,' 'chance,' 'substance,' 'matter,' 'atom,' and a heap of other metaphysical and theological terms, are the source of quite as much error and illusion and have as little relation to actual facts as the ideas of Plato. Few students of theology or philosophy have sufficiently reflected how quickly the bloom of a philosophy passes away; or how hard it is for one age to understand the writings of another; or how nice a judgment is required of those who are seeking to express the philosophy of one age in the terms of another. The 'eternal truths' of which metaphysicians speak have hardly ever lasted more than a generation. In our own day schools or systems of philosophy which have once been famous have died before the founders of them. We are still, as in Plato's age, groping about for a new method more comprehensive than any of those which now prevail; and also more permanent. And we seem to see at a distance the promise of such a method, which can hardly be any other than the method of idealized experience, having roots which strike far down into the history of philosophy. It is a method which does not divorce the present from the past, or the part from the whole, or the abstract from the concrete, or theory from fact, or the divine from the human, or one science from another, but labours to connect them. Along such a road we have proceeded a few steps, sufficient, perhaps, to make us reflect on the want of method which prevails in our own day. In another age, all the branches of knowledge, whether relating to God or man or nature, will become the knowledge of 'the revelation of a single science' (Symp.), and all things, like the stars in heaven, will shed their light upon one another.
I like to fasten my portraits of Daedalus with NAILS, to keep them from running away. Nails from popular culture work the best. But if I can't find one, I always go back to the original "source" and "mine" it.
But hey, since Nature's such a dirty b*tch, I like to roll in "dirty truths" about her.
Knowledge of when to reach for Kairos knot isn't "knowledge". It's "right opinion".
A gift stolen from the G_ds. Like "fire".
Just don't get caught.
...or Hephaestus will put a nail in you and fasten you to "his" selected spot.
from Wiki:
Kratos and Bia, personifications of brute power and callous violence respectively, are engaged in fettering the silent Prometheus to a mountainside in Scythia, and are assisted in the task by the begrudging blacksmith of the gods, Hephaestus.[12][13] Zeus, an off-stage character in this play, is portrayed as a tyrannical leader.
A missed "afterthought"...?
...no, the link was there in the emoticon (turns dark after clicking). :(
When your "intelligence" guesses "right", it's called "intelligence". When it guesses "wrong", we call it "stupidity". The label gets applied in Hindsight, since the back of Kairos' head is always clean shaven and his fore-knot of hair can only be grasped from the front as he runs by.
I suppose that makes him mostly "promethean" since time/chronos only runs one way.
Quick, somebody engage the Omega 13 and grab Kairos "next time"!
:P
Should a make an intuitive "guess", or a deductive one derived through a long chain of prior "reasoning"? (Nietzsche's slow and methodical tightrope walker or the motley cow's spry and "leaping" jester?) Left hemisphere of brain "deduction" or right hemisphere's "induction" /intuition?
The modern tendency... and it's ever-absent possibility.
Game Over, Man!
The Hunting of the Snark
BY LEWIS CARROLL
Fit the First
The Landing
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
...or maybe just "right opinion". :(
\\You're concept of "pragmatism" always gets it both ways. Why not just have a theory of "luck" and say you want to always be lucky?
How??? Just HOW, can you know it? ;-P
While I am not formulated it.
I didn't give much thought to it EVEN. :-))))
PS Are you trying to flood me out??? ;-)
...or maybe you just need a little ancient AI?
It can't be any worse than a tarot card.
Flood you out! This is more antediluvian... :P
\\What I tell you three times is true."
\\...or maybe just "right opinion". :(
So? You grown unhappy, with venerating Lindy's Effect???
\\Should a make an intuitive "guess", or a deductive one derived through a long chain of prior "reasoning"? (Nietzsche's slow and methodical tightrope walker or the motley cow's spry and "leaping" jester?) Left hemisphere of brain "deduction" or right hemisphere's "induction" /intuition?
As pragmatist... ;-P I'd say it depends... ;-) of your goal.
\\When your "intelligence" guesses "right", it's called "intelligence". When it guesses "wrong", we call it "stupidity". The label gets applied in Hindsight, since the back of Kairos' head is always clean shaven and his fore-knot of hair can only be grasped from the front as he runs by.
Is it?
I will not argue that such definition possible. But... is it what you really want it be???
\\SOCRATES: Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge?
Go ask developers of expert systems. Or modern fashionable AI/NNs.
Or... some programmer. Or just mechanic, trying to ward off gremlins from some complex system.
Or... some scientist. ;-)
About all other... long words.
If you lost -- try to trace back... to a Source. ;-P
But well, at first... one must admit that one is lost... and that is -- most tedius part of work. ;-P
\\It can't be any worse than a tarot card.
As they say -- hrown a coin is useful. Because the moment it flyes -- you'd knw what you true desires is. ;-)
\\What I tell you three times is true."
\\...or maybe just "right opinion". :(
So? You grown unhappy, with venerating Lindy's Effect???
You can still say that when half my "examples" are over 2,000 years old? I only offer "modern nails" for PT Barnum's modern suckers.
\\Should a make an intuitive "guess", or a deductive one derived through a long chain of prior "reasoning"? (Nietzsche's slow and methodical tightrope walker or the motley cow's spry and "leaping" jester?) Left hemisphere of brain "deduction" or right hemisphere's "induction" /intuition?
/As pragmatist... ;-P I'd say it depends... ;-) of your goal.
My goal is a "right" (not necessarily true) answer.
\\When your "intelligence" guesses "right", it's called "intelligence". When it guesses "wrong", we call it "stupidity". The label gets applied in Hindsight, since the back of Kairos' head is always clean shaven and his fore-knot of hair can only be grasped from the front as he runs by.
/Is it?
/I will not argue that such definition possible. But... is it what you really want it be???
What does "want" got to do with it? Are you a Seer? Are you the at Sibyll/ Priestess of Delphi? The Oak of Dodona? The Gypsy's crystal ball? Or her "sucker"?
\\SOCRATES: Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge?
/Go ask developers of expert systems. Or modern fashionable AI/NNs.
Or... some programmer. Or just mechanic, trying to ward off gremlins from some complex system.
Or... some scientist. ;-)
How much money have they earned from suckers?...e-r-r-r-r, investors?
About all other... long words.
If you lost -- try to trace back... to a Source. ;-P
/But well, at first... one must admit that one is lost... and that is -- most tedius part of work. ;-P
Ah, More Plato from "Meno"... hence the need for "torpidity"... ;)
MENO: O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits' end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you; and though I have been delivered of an infinite variety of speeches about virtue before now, and to many persons—and very good ones they were, as I thought—at this moment I cannot even say what virtue is. And I think that you are very wise in not voyaging and going away from home, for if you did in other places as you do in Athens, you would be cast into prison as a magician.
SOCRATES: You are a rogue, Meno, and had all but caught me.
MENO: What do you mean, Socrates?
SOCRATES: I can tell why you made a simile about me.
MENO: Why?
SOCRATES: In order that I might make another simile about you. For I know that all pretty young gentlemen like to have pretty similes made about them—as well they may—but I shall not return the compliment. As to my being a torpedo, if the torpedo is torpid as well as the cause of torpidity in others, then indeed I am a torpedo, but not otherwise; for I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly perplexed myself. And now I know not what virtue is, and you seem to be in the same case, although you did once perhaps know before you touched me. However, I have no objection to join with you in the enquiry.
/...the moment it flyes -- you'd knw what you true desires is. ;-)
I acknowledge my jouissance (the 'J')... which then "captures" "my reality" (the reality of my desires) for me. ;P
...but the 'J' of "the other" most likely is not the same as mine. Just as the "collective 'J" of the economic or legal "social systems" my have very different "realities" with which to contend with the very same problem? So who's reality is "true"? Mine? The "legal system's guilty/innocent truth?" The economic system's "economic truth (it's too expensive!)?
Who's "truth" is the one and only ABSOLUTE truth?
\\You can still say that when half my "examples" are over 2,000 years old? I only offer "modern nails" for PT Barnum's modern suckers.
Obviously, you know that fact that Universe itself 15 billions years old? ;-P
\\My goal is a "right" (not necessarily true) answer.
That is incorrectly formulated goal. IMHO.
\\/Is it?
/I will not argue that such definition possible. But... is it what you really want it be???
\\What does "want" got to do with it? Are you a Seer? Are you the at Sibyll/ Priestess of Delphi? The Oak of Dodona? The Gypsy's crystal ball? Or her "sucker"?
Parable about elephant and bunch of blind men here. Surely, you knw it.
\\How much money have they earned from suckers?...e-r-r-r-r, investors?
Ehm???
\\which then "captures" "my reality" (the reality of my desires) for me. ;P
Well... of course. Question of how to overcome youself, is not your question. And not your goal.
Well, whatever.
The truth of Science's "peer reviewers"? The truth of the Tik-Tok star's "likes"?
The truth of a judge's gavel?
The truth of a legislator's "law"?
\\Who's "truth" is the one and only ABSOLUTE truth?
And who's asking? ;-P
\\So who's reality is "true"? Mine? The "legal system's guilty/innocent truth?" The economic system's "economic truth (it's too expensive!)?
State your goal, and you will pass... well, maybe, if there is suitable tech for that goal. ;-P
Remember akchemists -- was they able to find Phylosophical Stome? Why not?
The truth in the economist's "price"? The truth in a movie's "box office revenues"?
Well. I'll be frank.
You do not want to find answer(s?).
You just want ti spend your time in pleasant (non)seeking.
PS Legend of a Seeker, quite pleasant series to watch, ALAS.
\\The truth in the economist's "price"? The truth in a movie's "box office revenues"?
Why you asking pragmatist 'bout it? While you know that answer will be: For what purpose? From whose POV? and ETC.
No, there are no "Philosopher's Stones"... artificially intelligent or otherwise. Kairos runs too fast, even for the computer to spot the "proper moment"/ the "opportune time" and provide the correct answer to the questioner in time... before Kairos has passed.
Yes, it may "help" improve accuracy in many situations. But it will never be the "prophet" that modern men seek.
...like so many "climate models".
...what results do the modeller's "desire"? More funding? How much is too much?
...just for an "economists" reality to be considered.
Yes, I want greater accuracy, better models. But not at the cost of civilization and society itself.
Jealously guarding its' social prerogatives... censoring "disinformation" that challenge them. A "tech" solution.
"Just bury the dissenters under the algorithms..."
"Burn the libraries" and prevent social change.
The algorithm is Zeus' new Kratos and Bia come to chain Prometheus.
What should we do, Dr. Zeus?
\\No, there are no "Philosopher's Stones"... artificially intelligent or otherwise.
Hah? So there is no Natural Inteligence too? ;-P
Well. Whatever. You defintion -- it's for you to live with em.
\\But it will never be the "prophet" that modern men seek.
Call me troglodite. ;-P
\\But not at the cost of civilization and society itself.
"All will perish" (tm)
You asked from me example of Avsolute Truth.
Here. You have it. Happy?
That comes with mortality. ;(.
For what is mankind's "desire"?
Plato "Symposium"...
(Diotoma) 'Because to the mortal creature, generation is a sort of eternity and immortality,' she replied; 'and if, as has been already admitted, love is of the everlasting possession of the good, all men will necessarily desire immortality together with good: Wherefore love is of immortality.'
All this she taught me at various times when she spoke of love. And I remember her once saying to me, 'What is the cause, Socrates, of love, and the attendant desire? See you not how all animals, birds, as well as beasts, in their desire of procreation, are in agony when they take the infection of love, which begins with the desire of union; whereto is added the care of offspring, on whose behalf the weakest are ready to battle against the strongest even to the uttermost, and to die for them, and will let themselves be tormented with hunger or suffer anything in order to maintain their young. Man may be supposed to act thus from reason; but why should animals have these passionate feelings? Can you tell me why?' Again I replied that I did not know. She said to me: 'And do you expect ever to become a master in the art of love, if you do not know this?' 'But I have told you already, Diotima, that my ignorance is the reason why I come to you; for I am conscious that I want a teacher; tell me then the cause of this and of the other mysteries of love.' 'Marvel not,' she said, 'if you believe that love is of the immortal, as we have several times acknowledged; for here again, and on the same principle too, the mortal nature is seeking as far as is possible to be everlasting and immortal: and this is only to be attained by generation, because generation always leaves behind a new existence in the place of the old. Nay even in the life of the same individual there is succession and not absolute unity: a man is called the same, and yet in the short interval which elapses between youth and age, and in which every animal is said to have life and identity, he is undergoing a perpetual process of loss and reparation—hair, flesh, bones, blood, and the whole body are always changing. Which is true not only of the body, but also of the soul, whose habits, tempers, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears, never remain the same in any one of us, but are always coming and going; and equally true of knowledge, and what is still more surprising to us mortals, not only do the sciences in general spring up and decay, so that in respect of them we are never the same; but each of them individually experiences a like change. For what is implied in the word "recollection," but the departure of knowledge, which is ever being forgotten, and is renewed and preserved by recollection, and appears to be the same although in reality new, according to that law of succession by which all mortal things are preserved, not absolutely the same, but by substitution, the old worn-out mortality leaving another new and similar existence behind—unlike the divine, which is always the same and not another? And in this way, Socrates, the mortal body, or mortal anything, partakes of immortality; but the immortal in another way. Marvel not then at the love which all men have of their offspring; for that universal love and interest is for the sake of immortality.'
(cont.)
I was astonished at her words, and said: 'Is this really true, O thou wise Diotima?' And she answered with all the authority of an accomplished sophist: 'Of that, Socrates, you may be assured;—think only of the ambition of men, and you will wonder at the senselessness of their ways, unless you consider how they are stirred by the love of an immortality of fame. They are ready to run all risks greater far than they would have run for their children, and to spend money and undergo any sort of toil, and even to die, for the sake of leaving behind them a name which shall be eternal. Do you imagine that Alcestis would have died to save Admetus, or Achilles to avenge Patroclus, or your own Codrus in order to preserve the kingdom for his sons, if they had not imagined that the memory of their virtues, which still survives among us, would be immortal? Nay,' she said, 'I am persuaded that all men do all things, and the better they are the more they do them, in hope of the glorious fame of immortal virtue; for they desire the immortal.
'Those who are pregnant in the body only, betake themselves to women and beget children—this is the character of their love; their offspring, as they hope, will preserve their memory and giving them the blessedness and immortality which they desire in the future. But souls which are pregnant—for there certainly are men who are more creative in their souls than in their bodies—conceive that which is proper for the soul to conceive or contain. And what are these conceptions?—wisdom and virtue in general. And such creators are poets and all artists who are deserving of the name inventor. But the greatest and fairest sort of wisdom by far is that which is concerned with the ordering of states and families, and which is called temperance and justice. And he who in youth has the seed of these implanted in him and is himself inspired, when he comes to maturity desires to beget and generate. He wanders about seeking beauty that he may beget offspring—for in deformity he will beget nothing—and naturally embraces the beautiful rather than the deformed body; above all when he finds a fair and noble and well-nurtured soul, he embraces the two in one person, and to such an one he is full of speech about virtue and the nature and pursuits of a good man; and he tries to educate him; and at the touch of the beautiful which is ever present to his memory, even when absent, he brings forth that which he had conceived long before, and in company with him tends that which he brings forth; and they are married by a far nearer tie and have a closer friendship than those who beget mortal children, for the children who are their common offspring are fairer and more immortal. Who, when he thinks of Homer and Hesiod and other great poets, would not rather have their children than ordinary human ones? Who would not emulate them in the creation of children such as theirs, which have preserved their memory and given them everlasting glory? Or who would not have such children as Lycurgus left behind him to be the saviours, not only of Lacedaemon, but of Hellas, as one may say? There is Solon, too, who is the revered father of Athenian laws; and many others there are in many other places, both among Hellenes and barbarians, who have given to the world many noble works, and have been the parents of virtue of every kind; and many temples have been raised in their honour for the sake of children such as theirs; which were never raised in honour of any one, for the sake of his mortal children.
You are pregnant, Q. And Socrates is not here to serve as your "midwife". And I am a poor stand-in. :(
\\For what is mankind's "desire"?
And you have viable tech for that? ;-)
Generation from opposites. The "nature" of dialectic.
Immortality, the Fountain of Youth, the "Holy Grail"? No, I don't have it. It can only be found by a fool...
Tech means proper description of: resoirces needed/omvolved, algorithms, colateral demadge possible... and many-many other things.
That's why phyposophy -- it's not tech. And not science even. ;-P
Yout Captain Obvious.
Foolishness... that's the tech. Find the Spear of Destiny, Perceival. Or fight the Green Knight!" (Nature) and "beat him".
\\Immortality, the Fountain of Youth, the "Holy Grail"? No, I don't have it. It can only be found by a fool...
Never the less... alchemists became chemists... and found MANY new and interesting techs. ;-)
That is -- pragmatic POV. An exa,ple of one.
\\\Foolishness...
Errare humanum est. ;-)
Only then can you heal the Fisher King :P.
Only that which caused the Fisher King's wound can heal it.
Homeopaty? Shady business. :-)
Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle.
Will Durant
----
When a nation goes down, or a society perishes, one condition may always be found; they forgot where they came from. They lost sight of what had brought them along.- Carl Sandburg
---
Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives.
So concluded the historian Arnold Toynbee in his 12-volume magnum opus A Study of History. It was an exploration of the rise and fall of 28 different civilisations.
---
In America, that "principle" is freedom.
Jowett summary of Plato's "Republic"
There remains still the finest and fairest of all men and all States—tyranny and the tyrant. Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. Both arise from excess; the one from excess of wealth, the other from excess of freedom. ‘The great natural good of life,’ says the democrat, ‘is freedom.’ And this exclusive love of freedom and regardlessness of everything else, is the cause of the change from democracy to tyranny. The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals. Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women. Nay, the very animals in a democratic State have a freedom which is unknown in other places. The she-dogs are as good as their she-mistresses, and horses and asses march along with dignity and run their noses against anybody who comes in their way. ‘That has often been my experience.’ At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master. Such is the glorious beginning of things out of which tyranny springs. ‘Glorious, indeed; but what is to follow?’ The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; for there is a law of contraries; the excess of freedom passes into the excess of slavery, and the greater the freedom the greater the slavery.
continued
You will remember that in the oligarchy were found two classes—rogues and paupers, whom we compared to drones with and without stings. These two classes are to the State what phlegm and bile are to the human body; and the State-physician, or legislator, must get rid of them, just as the bee-master keeps the drones out of the hive. Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard. And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people. When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob. Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf. Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf—that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination. Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant: Let us enquire into the nature of his happiness.
btw - How do you like my "Lindy approved" 2,500 year old "tech"?
I'd say it was pretty anti-fragile. The scribes kept copying the scrolls... so that even after the Library of Alexandria burned, The Moslem's kep copying the scrolls, and took the to Spain... and they later made their way to Florence... which led to a "classical re-birth". The Renaissance. thanks in no small part to Lorenzo the Magnificent.
How do you like the old tech of "mythology".
\\How do you like the old tech of "mythology".
That is not tech. Or, as Lem say, that is not OUR human tech.
\\In America, that "principle" is freedom.
Means? You want to forfeit that principle?
Well, you can pledge your loyalty to Putin, or even directly to Xi.
Or, grow your own, homebrew one. ;-P
NMP.
Now, I can supparise.
You want The Answer(s?)?
But you will not have me.
Because.
All WE can have -- it's to plant a seed, and watch how it grow, care about it, or neglect it... but result will depend on from many-many other factors one cannot control.
Because of lack of intellect for that.
Or... that one can try to became... smarter. ;-P
Well. Essentially, we humans are not like animals. We more like trees.
Depend on place and time and circumstances -- what branches we'll grow.
And which branches will be cut/broken by a wild winds (Kairos, you say, heh)
Shakespeare, "Hamlet" (Act IV, Sc. iv)
How all occasions do inform against me
And spur my dull revenge. What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unused. Now whether it be
Bestial oblivion or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on th’ event
(A thought which, quartered, hath but one part
wisdom
And ever three parts coward), I do not know
Why yet I live to say “This thing’s to do,”
Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means
To do ’t.
...and once I have those four, all I need do is await Kairos... the "opportune time" and success is all but guaranteed.
Alexander (to Macedonians), "On, to Asia!"
For Marx and Marxism, that "proper time" for the Revolution never came. So Lenin seized a "different" moment, and seized Russia. Carpe diem!
For the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, America seized "nothing". Instead, it continued to play Cold War Chess, slowly moving NATO countries closer and closer to its' former foe. Kairos ran past, un-noticed.
We failed to "break our pattern" and the old rules. We kept on stupidly following the old Cold War ones. We failed to notice or take advantage of the changed circumstances.
Arming Ukraine is the "old pattern". Proxy wars of "containment" from strategies developed in the 1950s.
\\Arming Ukraine is the "old pattern". Proxy wars of "containment" from strategies developed in the 1950s.
Go read about microbes. Really. ;-P
ALL war strategies invented by them... very long ago. :-))))
\\...and once I have those four, all I need do is await Kairos... the "opportune time" and success is all but guaranteed.
And preparedness. You forgot about preparedness. ;-P
Obviously... because you are not a scout, isn't it? ;-)
\\Of thinking too precisely on th’ event
(A thought which, quartered, hath but one part
wisdom
And ever three parts coward), I do not know
Why yet I live to say “This thing’s to do,”
Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means
To do ’t.
A-a-a-a-and? ;-)
Eagle Scout? No. To have "means" is to be "prepared".
I was once a "Life" Scout, Sr. Patrol Leader/ Jr. Asst Scoutmaster" in the Boy Scouts of America, and earned the rank of "Caballero" (Star in the American Scouting System) in the Scouts de Venezuela.
Siempre Listo! (ALWAYS Prepared!)
I dropped out of Boy Scouts in High School to play American football. But I never played in a single game. I dropped out of that as well. When I got to the Academy (USMMA) I stopped "dropping out" and learned to "persist". Now you have to kick me out if you want to get rid of me. ;P
Such are the lessons of life. The "easy way" is no longer "my" way.
No way is easy in this Universe. ;-P
If you are not photon. ;-P
\\I dropped out of Boy Scouts in High School to play American football.
So, you are "dork"... sorry if I using that word incorrectly, still.
\\Now you have to kick me out if you want to get rid of me. ;P
google.com?q=Uncathable+Joe ;-P
\\Siempre Listo! (ALWAYS Prepared!)
Yeah.
Question is... for what?
Known knowns?
Known unknowns?
Or maybe some shady murky fuzzy elusive ethereal... unknown unknowns?
Ask the Scouts de Venezuela. It was their motto. "Be Prepared" is the American spin on it.
Prepared for what? They don't say.
For me, it meant having a whet stone for sharpening my knife.
:P
You know the one I'm talking about, the one in Kairos right hand.
"Time when men was real men... and programmed drivers for their devices themself"... with a Kairos knife. ;-P
PS Do my comments comprehensive enough here? I like being "poetic", but it could be cryptic, though. :-)
Oh... this cultural ref wasn't seen? :-(
:P
Sorry if my words. Any of em. Was somehow uncourteous. :-(
There was no such intention from my part.
But because of cultural differences I am easily can step on such "landmind".
Because of frealingly not knowing what is allowed and what is not...
Please, no need to apologize, EVER. Say what's on your mind! If I misunderstand, that's my problem.
No, when I was a child, almost every "good" television show was a Western... Have Gun will Travel, The Rifleman, Gunsmoke, The Big Valley, Bonanza. Then, they all disappeared ('68) and the cultural cr*p started. It's taken 40's year to come full circle back to Western's.
That is integral part of language. And in my character. And well, I see meta-level of discussion as very important... if not ONLY important. ;-)
\\No, when I was a child, almost every "good" television show was a Western... Have Gun will Travel, The Rifleman, Gunsmoke, The Big Valley, Bonanza. Then, they all disappeared ('68) and the cultural cr*p started. It's taken 40's year to come full circle back to Western's.
Cannot emphatise with that cultural experience. Sorry.
If only you'd say that spagetti-western. Clint Eastwood and Co -- that is adeuate summary of it (of which I doubt)...
And, as I was saying before. My "Bonanza" was some canadian flick. From 90th? Where they placed tht Bonanza on border of USA and Canada, and therefore there was both: Sherif and Canadian Ranger.
Also quite good and giving a good vibe and some cultural understanding... but still.
No, no RCMP's in my version...
:P
???
Yeah, that's what I think when people claim the Putin's some kind of threat to the US...???
As you once stated there.
There is several pre-conditions to discern if person are possible criminal.
1) If he have means... Putin have Nukes, and lots of em.
2) If he have motives... oh, yeah... does he NOT have em, even in his own words.
3) If he have profit... we-e-e-ell... who knows, isn't it?
That is all going round and round, around that damning question.
Well... HE... have a lot of problems... because of YOUR VERY EXISTANCE.
We are a bit of a wild card, the fly in his ointment.
1) We have means
2) We have motives (at least some globablists and government workers do)
3) Is there profit? I, for one, don't think so.
...and so we go round... :(
Yeah... but there is one wild cherry on that cake.
Putin CAN decide it single-handedly.
You cannot. Your whole Deep State need to take such decision.And that is... no time near to happen.
PLUS. There is certain Xi... that closing down to that ability to "decide everything single-handedly" too.
But well... that is not the main problem. Not an elephant in that room.
Elephant is... technologies.
Just imagine -- what all bright minds of Russia and China can come up with... if there'd be ONLY ONE sphere to apply that minds, ahh?
Are you, USA, ready for that?
While you brightest mind keep playing pacifist's card.
Like that same Elon, who declare "no robotic weapon".
What was name of that who started DARPA?
Is there bright enough minds of that same caliber?
Do they have access to and influence on POTUS for it to take off?
Another word -- how many of Cold War technological race do you know/remember?
\\No, no RCMP's in my version...
Well. I have perfect excuse. ;-P
How I, as foreigner. Can know all abbreveatures.
\\Q said...
\\"Time when men was real men... and programmed drivers for their devices themself"... with a Kairos knife. ;-P
\\
\\PS Do my comments comprehensive enough here?
Well... that was famous citate of modern icon -- Linus Torvalds
And given with that -- allusion is apparent -- each times have own ideas about "basic training". ;-P
Your time that was about knifes... today about codes...
well, err, today it would be about ChatGPT. ;-P
\\No way is easy in this Universe. ;-P
\\If you are not photon. ;-P
That was ref to concept of geodesic lines and principle of lesser action. ;-)
\\Arming Ukraine is the "old pattern". Proxy wars of "containment" from strategies developed in the 1950s.
Natural thing.
If modern tech, devices gone wrong -- fallback to a prev tech happenning.
That's why it's better to keep that fallback working. ;-)
So?
Can USA fall back to it's "SDI initiative" mode?
And where I can find contacts and seek for attention of ones who govern over it? ;-)
(kidding... but only one half of it)
/Yeah... but there is one wild cherry on that cake.
Putin CAN decide it single-handedly.
You cannot. Your whole Deep State need to take such decision.And that is... no time near to happen.
That may be true for first strikes, but look at the Ukraine fiasco and we can see how "Institutional Powers" can use their momentum to do things just as stupid (ie NATO expansion and 2014 coup). Biden is just a "rubber stamp" for whatever the "experts du jour" decide.
/PLUS. There is certain Xi... that closing down to that ability to "decide everything single-handedly" too.
But well... that is not the main problem. Not an elephant in that room.
Elephant is... technologies.
Just imagine -- what all bright minds of Russia and China can come up with... if there'd be ONLY ONE sphere to apply that minds, ahh?
Are you, USA, ready for that?
Actually, Putin and Xi are limited. They need willing minions (scientists) to develop their tech's. In America we have an entire country filled with naive "willing minions". That makes us MUCH more dangerous. It's why we developed "the bomb" first. Our scientists "had no doubts" but that the weapon would be "used for good".
/While you brightest mind keep playing pacifist's card.
Like that same Elon, who declare "no robotic weapon".
Yes, we have a fear of "skynet" (Terminator movie). Call it a need to always be "in control"... with a reliance upon human emotions and empathy being the greatest fail-safe (just as they are responsible for the "willfullness" of our scientific minions).
/What was name of that who started DARPA?
Is there bright enough minds of that same caliber?
Do they have access to and influence on POTUS for it to take off?
Nikita Kruschev? DARPA was created in response to Sputnik. It spun off NASA as a civilian/ peacetime component. Neil McElroy was no brilliant thinker. This was all developed out of the post-WWII grab and importation of NAZI scientists and the establishment of centralized intelligence and defense operations outgrowths of the OSS and US Defense Industrial Complex. And the President's scientific advisory council now PCAST isn't the real "power behind the throne". DOD/DOE/CIA own all those bodies... all the National Labs and NGO's (ie- oxymoronic USIP "Institute for Peace").
/Another word -- how many of Cold War technological race do you know/remember?
My whole childhood and career up til now has been related to it. My father and mother were both involved in it. My first NASA mission was a derivative of the original Explorer I program. I spent much of my time at Martin Marietta developing and testing Vertical Launch System (MK41 VLS) derivatives (ASROC/Tomahawk/SM-2+) and Sonar Systems (AN/SLR-24 and beamformer for Surface Ship torpedo defense). I worked on UAV proposals, NATO AAW for Surface Ship proposals, and many classified programs I can't talk about. And before that, I wrote a lot of proposal for T-AGOS and T-AGS sonar surveillance and mapping ships... having won the T-AGS one for Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point before leaving and going on to Martin Marietta.
\\No, no RCMP's in my version...
/Well. I have perfect excuse. ;-P
How I, as foreigner. Can know all abbreveatures.
Me too. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
\\"Time when men was real men... and programmed drivers for their devices themself"... with a Kairos knife. ;-P
\\
\\PS Do my comments comprehensive enough here?
/Well... that was famous citate of modern icon -- Linus Torvalds
And given with that -- allusion is apparent -- each times have own ideas about "basic training". ;-P
Your time that was about knifes... today about codes...
well, err, today it would be about ChatGPT. ;-P
I suppose that's true for the inhabitants of today's hyper-reality. I'm only a visitor. I hope to be leaving it soon enough (retiring). :)
\\No way is easy in this Universe. ;-P
\\If you are not photon. ;-P
/That was ref to concept of geodesic lines and principle of lesser action. ;-)
Which Lagrangian point do you orbit? ;)
\\Arming Ukraine is the "old pattern". Proxy wars of "containment" from strategies developed in the 1950s.
/Natural thing.
If modern tech, devices gone wrong -- fallback to a prev tech happenning.
That's why it's better to keep that fallback working. ;-)
So?
Can USA fall back to it's "SDI initiative" mode?
No, I wouldn't advise a reliance upon SDI. I'd advise trying "peace" for a change.
And where I can find contacts and seek for attention of ones who govern over it? ;-)
(kidding... but only one half of it)
The new SAM.gov? I've never used it, but I used to browse the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) all the time.
\\That may be true for first strikes, but look at the Ukraine fiasco and we can see how "Institutional Powers" can use their momentum to do things just as stupid (ie NATO expansion and 2014 coup). Biden is just a "rubber stamp" for whatever the "experts du jour" decide.
Why no comment about reaction on 9/11?
Or that non-problem, because Rep potus did it?
Isn't it look like bias.
About all other -- go check your sources -- but only if you do not likr to be on hook of Putin's Propaganda.
But if you like... I can suggest you to turn it to eleven, and consume only "most honest, most true" media of RFia. ;-P
And well... there'd be no first strikes.
ww3 is war for minds of people.
Your already conquered. ;-P
\\Actually, Putin and Xi are limited. They need willing minions (scientists) to develop their tech's. In America we have an entire country filled with naive "willing minions". That makes us MUCH more dangerous. It's why we developed "the bomb" first.
Elementary knowledge of History says opposite.
Bright minds who fled from Europe made that bomb for you.
Yourself... you was not bright enough even to make own Tank.
So Wolter Cristie was forced to sell his design to USSR -- and that became base for BEST tank of ww2.
There is Russian saying: "There is nobody who are prophet in his own country".
And well... China buying out that bright minds of Europe... today. ;-P
\\Nikita Kruschev? DARPA was created in response to Sputnik.
So... I see, you are waiting for a stimulus(in an initial sense of word, yap). ;-P
Like Pearl Harbor. Or 9/11.
\\My whole childhood and career up til now has been related to it.
Then... I should been started not from Golem XVI of Lem.
But from other his work -- where he propheticly describes use of the Moon as safe testing grounds... to develop most advanced intellectual weaponry possible.
Much preceding all that NNs, GPTs and alas which are such obvious today.
But well, as he formulated in one other text: "One need to be wise themself... to listen to wise advices". :-(
Or go to the Intelligence Community directly...
https://www.iarpa.gov/
Or Biden's new "health" equivalent...
https://arpa-h.gov/
\\Me too. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
Yes. I dechifered it. That's why reacted.
\\Which Lagrangian point do you orbit? ;)
Of Sun and Pluto. ;-P
Norbit, pleased to meet you. ;-)
\\No, I wouldn't advise a reliance upon SDI. I'd advise trying "peace" for a change.
You really have no experience of a thug cornering you on a secluded street, asking for your wallet, isn't it? :-)))
So you still think in such a case "peace talks" would help you, yes? :-)))
\\The new SAM.gov? I've never used it, but I used to browse the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) all the time.
Thank you... but I already tryed to talk with your Digital Burocracy. :-)))
\\That may be true for first strikes, but look at the Ukraine fiasco and we can see how "Institutional Powers" can use their momentum to do things just as stupid (ie NATO expansion and 2014 coup). Biden is just a "rubber stamp" for whatever the "experts du jour" decide.
/Why no comment about reaction on 9/11?
Or that non-problem, because Rep potus did it?
Isn't it look like bias.
Are you kidding? I was against Afghanistan invasion. I voted for Ralph Nader. Bush was an idiot, he did EXACTLY what Osama bin Laden wanted him to do... come and fight, train his army on his ground. That's why I was FOR the Iraqi debacle, because I thought that some more "clever" strategic thinkers were finally "getting it". They weren't. I was wrong. Or Iran/Iraq would be a single country under Moqtada al Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani today, with Najaf restored as the holiest city and Qom's clerics excommunicated.
About all other -- go check your sources -- but only if you do not likr to be on hook of Putin's Propaganda.
But if you like... I can suggest you to turn it to eleven, and consume only "most honest, most true" media of RFia. ;-P
lol! And where would THAT be? Don't tell me... Ukraine. ;P
And well... there'd be no first strikes.
ww3 is war for minds of people.
Your already conquered. ;-P
...at least I won't be a member of the Net Zero Blue Economy.
\\Actually, Putin and Xi are limited. They need willing minions (scientists) to develop their tech's. In America we have an entire country filled with naive "willing minions". That makes us MUCH more dangerous. It's why we developed "the bomb" first.
/Elementary knowledge of History says opposite.
Bright minds who fled from Europe made that bomb for you.
Yes, willing minions who never would have revealed their ideas to Hitler as slave laborers in secret underground factories.
Yourself... you was not bright enough even to make own Tank.
So Wolter Cristie was forced to sell his design to USSR -- and that became base for BEST tank of ww2.
There is Russian saying: "There is nobody who are prophet in his own country".
And well... China buying out that bright minds of Europe... today. ;-P
...tell that to Igor Sikorsky. ;)
\\Nikita Kruschev? DARPA was created in response to Sputnik.
/So... I see, you are waiting for a stimulus(in an initial sense of word, yap). ;-P
Like Pearl Harbor. Or 9/11.
I've said before, Bureaucrats don't take "risks" unless they're forced to. There's no "profit" in it.
\\My whole childhood and career up til now has been related to it.
/Then... I should been started not from Golem XVI of Lem.
But from other his work -- where he propheticly describes use of the Moon as safe testing grounds... to develop most advanced intellectual weaponry possible.
Much preceding all that NNs, GPTs and alas which are such obvious today.
But well, as he formulated in one other text: "One need to be wise themself... to listen to wise advices". :-(
One of the first "books" I ever read was Tom Swift and his Rocket Ship... which led me to The Hardy Boys... :)
\\No, I wouldn't advise a reliance upon SDI. I'd advise trying "peace" for a change.
/You really have no experience of a thug cornering you on a secluded street, asking for your wallet, isn't it? :-)))
So you still think in such a case "peace talks" would help you, yes? :-)))
Ukraine isn't my wallet. It's yours. :)
\\The new SAM.gov? I've never used it, but I used to browse the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) all the time.
/Thank you... but I already tryed to talk with your Digital Burocracy. :-)))
Talk is cheap. Win a contract. Deliver a product. Repeat. It's pretty simple.
\\Are you kidding? I was against Afghanistan invasion.
I apologize. How could I know?
Still... and what about Iraq? They needed not to be punished?
\\lol! And where would THAT be? Don't tell me... Ukraine. ;P
Ha-ha... that way you'd need to learn to eat your own dog food. ;-P
Because English-speaking sources from Ukraine pretty much unexistant.
And to find Ukrainian propaganda -- if you'd find one, please throw me a link. That is rarety I trying to find myself. ;-P
\\...at least I won't be a member of the Net Zero Blue Economy.
Und wat zat?
Well, whatever.
\\Yes, willing minions who never would have revealed their ideas to Hitler as slave laborers in secret underground factories.
Do you know history of creation of that bomb?
There is quite good series. ;-)
\\...tell that to Igor Sikorsky. ;)
Like I should care???
While I already said it -- Russian saying.
Or what... I have written it just to fill some empty space, ah?
\\I've said before, Bureaucrats don't take "risks" unless they're forced to. There's no "profit" in it.
But they like to monetise "extra-measures" funds. ;-P
\\One of the first "books" I ever read was Tom Swift and his Rocket Ship... which led me to The Hardy Boys... :)
Emm?
And one of my first was about edgy soviet submarine "Pioneer"... which was "flying" through oceans, eliminating nasty imperialists and helping innocent aborigenes from Rapa-Nui island. ;-P
So, what?
\\Ukraine isn't my wallet. It's yours. :)
Errare humanum est.
Putin... as Hitler before him wants ALL World.
And that is NOT Ukraine that on his way -- USA on his way.
USA CANNOT avoid it. That is in nature of things.
You cannot play it like that cops in Uvalde.
Or... you can try... and you will have "and war, and shame"
IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT... YET
What did Winston Churchill mean when he said, “You chose ... - Quora
www.quora.com › What-did-Winston-Churchill-mean-when-he-said-You-c...
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." This was Winston Churchill's statement after Neville ...
\\Talk is cheap. Win a contract. Deliver a product. Repeat. It's pretty simple.
Aha... just imagine that that would be in official answer to that Einstain's letter. ;-P
Well... it was something between that lines in case of Cristie...
and he even made working prototype.
It seems that Kairos... need to come closer to you, and made something dirty with that his knife... to open your (USA smartypants from IC and MIC) mind to possibilities.
Nothing personal. That is just figural and metaphorical. Of course.
I just trying to say ot in most direct and to the point way...
\\Are you kidding? I was against Afghanistan invasion.
/I apologize. How could I know?
Still... and what about Iraq? They needed not to be punished?
No, this is all mostly an intramural game at this point... Sunni vs. Shi'a and Arabs (sunnia/Shi'a) vs. Israel/US (near Satan [Jews]/far Satan [Christians]). The Ummah must be unified before the inter-league battle with the "far Satan".
\\lol! And where would THAT be? Don't tell me... Ukraine. ;P
/Ha-ha... that way you'd need to learn to eat your own dog food. ;-P
/Because English-speaking sources from Ukraine pretty much unexistant.
And to find Ukrainian propaganda -- if you'd find one, please throw me a link. That is rarety I trying to find myself. ;-P
It's called the "New York Times" and "Washington Post".
\\...at least I won't be a member of the Net Zero Blue Economy.
/Und wat zat?
Well, whatever.
Exactly. THAT is the problem. You have NO idea who you're climbing into bed with EXCEPT that they want to destroy Russia.
\\Yes, willing minions who never would have revealed their ideas to Hitler as slave laborers in secret underground factories.
/Do you know history of creation of that bomb?
There is quite good series. ;-)
I once held a CNWDI clearance... not that I used it. I also helped develop a proposal to run DOE's Savannah River NL for $1 a year and remediate Pit-9 @ INEL, so yes, I know a little bit of superficial info about the Manhattan Project.
\\I've said before, Bureaucrats don't take "risks" unless they're forced to. There's no "profit" in it.
/But they like to monetise "extra-measures" funds. ;-P
Not to "outsiders". They like to keep all their funding within their club, and you and I aren't members. You're an outsider, and I'm just a soon to be retired "minion".
\\One of the first "books" I ever read was Tom Swift and his Rocket Ship... which led me to The Hardy Boys... :)
/Emm?
And one of my first was about edgy soviet submarine "Pioneer"... which was "flying" through oceans, eliminating nasty imperialists and helping innocent aborigenes from Rapa-Nui island. ;-P
So, what?
Hey, at least it wasn't Thor Heyerdahl on the Kon-Tiki (yes, I read THAT, too).
\\Ukraine isn't my wallet. It's yours. :)
/Errare humanum est.
Putin... as Hitler before him wants ALL World.
And that is NOT Ukraine that on his way -- USA on his way.
I doubt Putin's much of a Trotsyite. Even Stalin couldn't stomach the globalist pr*ck.
/USA CANNOT avoid it. That is in nature of things.
You cannot play it like that cops in Uvalde.
Or... you can try... and you will have "and war, and shame"
IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT... YET
Watch us.
/What did Winston Churchill mean when he said, “You chose ... - Quora
www.quora.com › What-did-Winston-Churchill-mean-when-he-said-You-c...
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." This was Winston Churchill's statement after Neville ...
Putin isn't Trotsky/Lenin. He's "Tito". You know him as the man who sold space exploration to NASA.
\\Talk is cheap. Win a contract. Deliver a product. Repeat. It's pretty simple.
/Aha... just imagine that that would be in official answer to that Einstain's letter. ;-P
...and if Einstein had no Nobel, but his later came from a Swiss patent clerk? He wouldn't have gotten a response... his letter would have landed in a "circular file" instead of on the Presiden't desk.
/Well... it was something between that lines in case of Cristie...
and he even made working prototype.
It seems that Kairos... need to come closer to you, and made something dirty with that his knife... to open your (USA smartypants from IC and MIC) mind to possibilities.
Nothing personal. That is just figural and metaphorical. Of course.
I just trying to say ot in most direct and to the point way...
No offense taken. Yours is every prophet's dilemna. From Cassandra to Tiresias, nobody believes them or takes them seriously.
\\It's called the "New York Times" and "Washington Post".
Huh... I didn't knew that Ukrainian oligarchs are so mighty. ;-P
\\You have NO idea who you're climbing into bed with EXCEPT that they want to destroy Russia.
Do I look that stoopid fer ya? Really??? :-)))
\\I know a little bit of superficial info about the Manhattan Project.
I saluting to your sense of humor.
But well, that is that case, where open info... or even legends, myths... are more important and informative. ;-)
\\Hey, at least it wasn't Thor Heyerdahl on the Kon-Tiki (yes, I read THAT, too).
Not my hero. But... watched movie. Quite good.
And to the point of my struggles... or not? What do you think??? ;-)
\\I doubt Putin's much of a Trotsyite. Even Stalin couldn't stomach the globalist pr*ck.
Again.
That is Nature of things at play.
Why Stalin found himself stuck in brawl with Hitler???
While he freakingly DIDN'T WANTED it. Not in that way. Not in that time.
Why he then trapped himself in instant stalmate with USA???
You was freaking allies with him.
Uncle Joe and uncle Sam was best buddies. Until...
\\Watch us.
Hmmm...
Isn't that NMP?
\\Putin isn't Trotsky/Lenin.
And Xi?
Why you keep ignoring Xi???
Or. That is in the nature of things, again... ALL people just that biased inside there minds -- to ignire elephant in their freaking room??? :-)))))
\\...and if Einstein had no Nobel, but his later came from a Swiss patent clerk? He wouldn't have gotten a response... his letter would have landed in a "circular file" instead of on the Presiden't desk.
Well... History NEVER repeats that perfectly and conviniently. ;-P
\\Yours is every prophet's dilemna. From Cassandra to Tiresias, nobody believes them or takes them seriously.
Do you think that is ONLY dilemma standing before my face???? :-))))
And not whole crowd of em... mobbing at my door. Like that creditors around unfaithful debtor.
But... is there any other way possible? Something you gain, somthing you loose.
\\It's called the "New York Times" and "Washington Post".
/Huh... I didn't knew that Ukrainian oligarchs are so mighty. ;-P
They bought a Vice President's son (Biden), the son of the Speaker of the House (Pelosi), and the son a powerful Seantor and former Presidential Candidate (Kerry).
\\You have NO idea who you're climbing into bed with EXCEPT that they want to destroy Russia.
Do I look that stoopid fer ya? Really??? :-)))
How long have you been playing inside baseball?
\\Hey, at least it wasn't Thor Heyerdahl on the Kon-Tiki (yes, I read THAT, too).
/Not my hero. But... watched movie. Quite good.
And to the point of my struggles... or not? What do you think??? ;-)
I think that you need to still go find some more bouyant logs.
\\I doubt Putin's much of a Trotsyite. Even Stalin couldn't stomach the globalist pr*ck.
/Again.
That is Nature of things at play.
Why Stalin found himself stuck in brawl with Hitler???
While he freakingly DIDN'T WANTED it. Not in that way. Not in that time.
Why he then trapped himself in instant stalmate with USA???
You was freaking allies with him.
Uncle Joe and uncle Sam was best buddies. Until...
Stalin was pragmatic. The "internaccionale" was a bit overly ambitious, even for him.
\\Watch us.
Hmmm...
Isn't that NMP?
You wish. I wish. We all wish. But this isn't going to end well for Ukraine.
\\Putin isn't Trotsky/Lenin.
/And Xi?
Why you keep ignoring Xi???
Or. That is in the nature of things, again... ALL people just that biased inside there minds -- to ignire elephant in their freaking room??? :-)))))
Xi has other problems. Serious problems. He's trying to sleep with all the girls, and they all know it. And now he's staring at the back side of Kairo's shaved head, trying to figure out how to make the best of it.
\\...and if Einstein had no Nobel, but his later came from a Swiss patent clerk? He wouldn't have gotten a response... his letter would have landed in a "circular file" instead of on the Presiden't desk.
/Well... History NEVER repeats that perfectly and conviniently. ;-P
My advice? Pitch Zelensky and hope he throws you a "Hail Mary" and DARPA an introduction.
\\Yours is every prophet's dilemna. From Cassandra to Tiresias, nobody believes them or takes them seriously.
/Do you think that is ONLY dilemma standing before my face???? :-))))
And not whole crowd of em... mobbing at my door. Like that creditors around unfaithful debtor.
But... is there any other way possible? Something you gain, somthing you loose.
Nature's a nasty b*tch, that's for sure.
\\They bought a Vice President's son (Biden), the son of the Speaker of the House (Pelosi), and the son a powerful Seantor and former Presidential Candidate (Kerry).
I like Hollywood stories. Especially if with action and many ka-booms and car crashes.
But this one... not good. Even for C-rate movie. Bleh.
Go haunt Derpy with it. As it NMP. You'd not be able to acqure any suspense from me. With such a losy plot.
\\How long have you been playing inside baseball?
Bible Gateway Ecclesiastes 1 :: NIV
web.mit.edu › Bible › NIV › NIV_Bible › ECC+1
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
\\I think that you need to still go find some more bouyant logs.
Don't know how in book.
But movie showed it pretty damn excellent -- that that is not raw material that was a problem(s).
\\Stalin was pragmatic. The "internaccionale" was a bit overly ambitious, even for him.
Of course. After your "troops" was bleeded out by 50-somthing millions. And your "allie" just showed new shiny bomb he posess.
And well. Didn't you mean Comintern?
Pragmatic... my ass. :-)))))))))
\\You wish. I wish. We all wish. But this isn't going to end well for Ukraine.
I will say it again. And you will ignore it again. You are freakingly DO NOT KNOW history of Ukraine.
\\Xi has other problems. Serious problems.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.
A-a-a-and?
How dictators of all of the times, in all of the world... tend to resolve all their problems???
What way? With with what... am I used enough 'w's to give a hint? ;-)
Well. That is BEYOND obvious. TODAY.
Go filter your news feed.
What they declared. Lately. About AMOUNT of NUKES they want to have???
Obviously.
They DO IT, because they want to use em... to make Peace and Prosperity, Spread Fluffiness and Cuteness and Make Friends Around Whole World, yes??? :-))) And yes, SARCASM!!!!!
\\My advice? Pitch Zelensky and hope he throws you a "Hail Mary" and DARPA an introduction.
Well. If you grown bored of me, of this topic... just say it.
As... another Russain saying: "People infested with fleas... tend to think only about bath". ;-P
\\Nature's a nasty b*tch, that's for sure.
But that is not your problrm too?
As tht b*tch, Nature, have NO power over USA, yes? ;-)
\\They bought a Vice President's son (Biden), the son of the Speaker of the House (Pelosi), and the son a powerful Seantor and former Presidential Candidate (Kerry).
/I like Hollywood stories. Especially if with action and many ka-booms and car crashes.
But this one... not good. Even for C-rate movie. Bleh.
Go haunt Derpy with it. As it NMP. You'd not be able to acqure any suspense from me. With such a losy plot.
I already showed you Senator's McCain and Graham yucking it up with Ukrainian troops. Do I need to name the entire US power structure?
\\I think that you need to still go find some more bouyant logs.
/Don't know how in book.
But movie showed it pretty damn excellent -- that that is not raw material that was a problem(s).
It is if you intend upon 3-D printing and self-assembling AI nanobots.
\\Stalin was pragmatic. The "internaccionale" was a bit overly ambitious, even for him.
/Of course. After your "troops" was bleeded out by 50-somthing millions. And your "allie" just showed new shiny bomb he posess.
And well. Didn't you mean Comintern?
Pragmatic... my ass. :-)))))))))
When was Trotsky exiled again? '29? That was even before Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch.
\\You wish. I wish. We all wish. But this isn't going to end well for Ukraine.
I will say it again. And you will ignore it again. You are freakingly DO NOT KNOW history of Ukraine.
No I don't. I do know the history of America, though. And I've said before, NOT the most reliable ally.
\\Xi has other problems. Serious problems.
/E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.
A-a-a-and?
How dictators of all of the times, in all of the world... tend to resolve all their problems???
What way? With with what... am I used enough 'w's to give a hint? ;-)
I simply point to the Pacific Ocean and repeat my Latin. "Molon labe..." and then whisper, "Do you know where those 200+ submarine-based Trident missiles are?"
Well. That is BEYOND obvious. TODAY.
Go filter your news feed.
What they declared. Lately. About AMOUNT of NUKES they want to have???
Obviously.
They DO IT, because they want to use em... to make Peace and Prosperity, Spread Fluffiness and Cuteness and Make Friends Around Whole World, yes??? :-))) And yes, SARCASM!!!!!
They also have a death wish to match their coming "one-child policy" inspired democraphic collapse? There're soon to be the Greek equivalent of Sparta when the Macedonians invaded the Pelloponese. No kids.
\\My advice? Pitch Zelensky and hope he throws you a "Hail Mary" and DARPA an introduction.
/Well. If you grown bored of me, of this topic... just say it.
As... another Russain saying: "People infested with fleas... tend to think only about bath". ;-P
We have a saying too, "People who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas." Better bring some powder.
\\Nature's a nasty b*tch, that's for sure.
But that is not your problrm too?
As tht b*tch, Nature, have NO power over USA, yes? ;-)
She's a b*tch wherever she goes. ;P
\\I already showed you Senator's McCain and Graham yucking it up with Ukrainian troops.
Ehm???
\\It is if you intend upon 3-D printing and self-assembling AI nanobots.
Ehm, again?
Military of Chile(afaik) gave to em all essentials needed, and even helped with workforce and start... for a little PR. ;-P
Crucial point was... at least as it was showed in the movie -- to attract first follower, very first team member -- engineer that helped with adjusting scratchy back f the envelope Thor's design into production state blueprints. ;-P
Other problems was:
no wind,
sharks and storms,
team members loosing some of their screws in process,
and etc...
Natural and ordinary problems AFAIK. Good for a documentary stuff. ;-P
Well... our start is well-documented. So future biographers whould need just to dive into archives of your bolg threads... to find some pearls, for their auditory. ;-P
So, maybe it's time to start to watch for what you say... to not be ashamed before future generations. ;-)
\\When was Trotsky exiled again? '29?
WHY you think that is important??? Anyhow????
That is one infinitely little and unsignificant detail.
Like... "See... this flea, fel from under tail sweep of that elephant... let's examine it MORE... that can be VERY important" :-)))))))))))))
\\No I don't. I do know the history of America, though. And I've said before, NOT the most reliable ally.
O. K. I'll say it directly.
IF. You'd give you some hassle to learn some history of Ukraine...
you'd know, that ALL history of Ukraine... is pretty much about betrayal of unreliable allies.
BUT.
In our case -- you are forced to be reliable. Because, that is in YOUR, ?USA best interests. ;-P
Well, you can try to disprove it.
\\I simply point to the Pacific Ocean and repeat my Latin. "Molon labe..." and then whisper, "Do you know where those 200+ submarine-based Trident missiles are?"
And how much that "submarine-based Trident missiles" helped you with recent Baloon Attack? How they can, even theoreticly help with TikTok Attack???
And so on, so forth. ;-P
Another word. Your reliance on that "submarine-based Trident missiles" is akin to France reliance on Magino Line of Fortresses.
You must be KNOW history of ww2 enough to grasp what I'm talking about, am I right?
\\They also have a death wish to match their coming "one-child policy" inspired democraphic collapse? There're soon to be the Greek equivalent of Sparta when the Macedonians invaded the Pelloponese. No kids.
Little problem here.
There ALREADY freaking 1.5 billions... and if they'll be able to attract youth from all over the world...
Millions of fresh young barbaric youth... from Africa, from Latin America...
\\We have a saying too, "People who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas." Better bring some powder.
Have/Had a pet?
\\I already showed you Senator's McCain and Graham yucking it up with Ukrainian troops.
/Ehm???
You hinted that my comments were better aimed at Dervy (partisan). McCain and Graham are Republicans.
\\It is if you intend upon 3-D printing and self-assembling AI nanobots.
/Ehm, again?
Military of Chile(afaik) gave to em all essentials needed, and even helped with workforce and start... for a little PR. ;-P
Crucial point was... at least as it was showed in the movie -- to attract first follower, very first team member -- engineer that helped with adjusting scratchy back f the envelope Thor's design into production state blueprints. ;-P
Other problems was:
no wind,
sharks and storms,
team members loosing some of their screws in process,
and etc...
Natural and ordinary problems AFAIK. Good for a documentary stuff. ;-P
Well... our start is well-documented. So future biographers whould need just to dive into archives of your bolg threads... to find some pearls, for their auditory. ;-P
So, maybe it's time to start to watch for what you say... to not be ashamed before future generations. ;-)
I'm a crank and will always come across as a crank... so I admit it to posterity. ;P
\\When was Trotsky exiled again? '29?
WHY you think that is important??? Anyhow????
That is one infinitely little and unsignificant detail.
Like... "See... this flea, fel from under tail sweep of that elephant... let's examine it MORE... that can be VERY important" :-)))))))))))))
I disagree. Trotsky was the "globalist aspiration" (workers of the WORLD unite) within Communism (Communist IDEOLOGY). Stalin was satisfied with the USSR and having some buffer states. He was a ultimately a Nationalist. Even Xi is a "nationalist". His is "capitalism with Chinese values". Putin has become a nationalist as well. The USA and Europe crushed his hopes of joining the 'globalist" club (held from 1990's-2014) He's all "Russian" now.
\\No I don't. I do know the history of America, though. And I've said before, NOT the most reliable ally.
/O. K. I'll say it directly.
IF. You'd give you some hassle to learn some history of Ukraine...
you'd know, that ALL history of Ukraine... is pretty much about betrayal of unreliable allies.
BUT.
In our case -- you are forced to be reliable. Because, that is in YOUR, ?USA best interests. ;-P
Well, you can try to disprove it.
Again, I disagree. The era of "liberal globalism" is over. We're all "nationalists" again. The WEF and its' corporate allies will not succeed in globalising capitalism under the auspices of the UN. And the latest trick of selling off national public lands and assets under the "Natural Asset Company" scheme in exchange for "national debt" will fail. That kind of 'oficialismo' will not work in the US. King Tammany already gave us the right to hunt and fish in all public lands, forever. The king does not own Sherwood Forest in America, and neither will a "National Asset Company".
\\I simply point to the Pacific Ocean and repeat my Latin. "Molon labe..." and then whisper, "Do you know where those 200+ submarine-based Trident missiles are?"
/And how much that "submarine-based Trident missiles" helped you with recent Baloon Attack? How they can, even theoreticly help with TikTok Attack???
And so on, so forth. ;-P
As the balloon attack has shown, we can and will defend our airspace. If necessary, we can also defend the vacuum above it. And we can launch a denial of service attack against TikTOK whenever we like. Most of the internet's infrastructure is already ours.
Another word. Your reliance on that "submarine-based Trident missiles" is akin to France reliance on Magino Line of Fortresses.
You must be KNOW history of ww2 enough to grasp what I'm talking about, am I right?
Indeed. Petain's folly. Same with the Siegried line. Static defenses. But you know the sayings. Athens had the long walls (to Pireus). Sparta's walls were her men. The British had walls of oak (ships). America's walls are of aluminum and in "Space". We own the "high ground" (space) and the "below ground" (under water). In the "Game of Throwns" we have most (not all) of the dragons.
\\They also have a death wish to match their coming "one-child policy" inspired democraphic collapse? There're soon to be the Greek equivalent of Sparta when the Macedonians invaded the Pelloponese. No kids.
/Little problem here.
There ALREADY freaking 1.5 billions... and if they'll be able to attract youth from all over the world...
Millions of fresh young barbaric youth... from Africa, from Latin America...
Then what will become of their "Chinese values"? They'll be no better than "us". :P
\\We have a saying too, "People who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas." Better bring some powder.
/Have/Had a pet?
Two dogs and two cats. :)
\\You hinted that my comments were better aimed at Dervy (partisan). McCain and Graham are Republicans.
Yep.
Like I care.
NMP.
I even cannot grasp what that dichotomy Rep/Dem mean...
well, that is not question.
\\I'm a crank and will always come across as a crank... so I admit it to posterity. ;P
What a crankery in one age... can be normalcy in another. ;-P
Like people who talking to themself. ;-)
\\I disagree. Trotsky was the "globalist aspiration" (workers of the WORLD unite) within Communism (Communist IDEOLOGY).
That is... telling too much to me. More then you'd like to anticipate, I presume.
First of all -- that you don't know facts. THEY ALL have had "globalist aspiration". The same as Comintern -- was structure with globalist aspirations from the get go. That's why Lenin and communists of Russia came out of it... and created OWN spoiler structure.
Because.
Communists DO NOT share foo... power, of course. ;-P
\\Stalin was satisfied with the USSR and having some buffer states.
Bull... crap.
Just the same as Communists from different countries DO NOT like to share power in the World.
Communists INSIDE countries... DO NOT like to share power INSIDE country too.
That's all.
Bullshit about "buffer countries", "different strategies toward World revolution" and etc bullcrap you know from who know what trashyard(s) of thought -- have nothing in common with Reality and real world practices of Communism. Period.
Communists -- it's ULTIMATELY a mere opportunists.
And Communism as ideology -- that is not ideology AT ALL. The same as "sea lions" is not lions. ;-P
\\He was a ultimately a Nationalist.
Of which exactly nationality and nation? ;-P
\\Even Xi is a "nationalist".
He is autocratic leader aspiring to became totalitarian one.
\\His is "capitalism with Chinese values".
Naah.
\\Putin has become a nationalist as well.
:-)))))))))))))
\\The USA and Europe crushed his hopes of joining the 'globalist" club (held from 1990's-2014) He's all "Russian" now.
That's just a "maskirovka". False facade he played for gullible westerners.
As any crook -- he just say to his pray that what that pray like to hear.
You have no experience talking with crooks too, it seems.
And where is that snake oil merchants... when they are so needed.
Well, go read some O'Henry as some light remedy. ;-)
\\\\Well, you can try to disprove it.
\\Again, I disagree. The era of "liberal globalism" is over. We're all "nationalists" again.
You can have it as your political stance.
I will not discuss it with you.
Try to brawl with Derpy about it.
\\As the balloon attack has shown, we can and will defend our airspace.
Against 1 million of em? 1 billion of em?
\\ If necessary, we can also defend the vacuum above it.
And you said that SDI was wrong. ;-P
\\ And we can launch a denial of service attack against TikTOK whenever we like. Most of the internet's infrastructure is already ours.
A-a-a-nd?
How it'll influence my WiFi hotspot?
Or base station of 5G made by Huavei???
You really are ready to be leapfrogged in a technological sense.
All is needed -- some killer app devised by some smarty young chinese boy.
Well... that already happend.
\\America's walls are of aluminum and in "Space". We own the "high ground" (space) and the "below ground" (under water). In the "Game of Throwns" we have most (not all) of the dragons.
"Generals always preparing for past battles"(tm)
\\Then what will become of their "Chinese values"? They'll be no better than "us". :P
Well... you can try to talk about it with Chinese bomb. Or "smart" drone it would be delivered with.
But... ups, they'll talk in Mandarin. ;-P
\\I disagree. Trotsky was the "globalist aspiration" (workers of the WORLD unite) within Communism (Communist IDEOLOGY).
/That is... telling too much to me. More then you'd like to anticipate, I presume.
First of all -- that you don't know facts. THEY ALL have had "globalist aspiration". The same as Comintern -- was structure with globalist aspirations from the get go. That's why Lenin and communists of Russia came out of it... and created OWN spoiler structure.
Because.
Communists DO NOT share foo... power, of course. ;-P
I didn't say Lenin, I said Stalin. Stalin was a nationalist. The "COMINTERN" aspects of communism were Trotsky's specialty.
\\Stalin was satisfied with the USSR and having some buffer states.
/Bull... crap.
Just the same as Communists from different countries DO NOT like to share power in the World.
Communists INSIDE countries... DO NOT like to share power INSIDE country too.
That's all.
Then why not depose Tito in '48? And why did Tito support communist revolution in Greece, but not Stalin? Stalin didn't give a sh*t about the "internaccionale". He only participated in it to suck up to Lenin and gain power.
/Bullshit about "buffer countries", "different strategies toward World revolution" and etc bullcrap you know from who know what trashyard(s) of thought -- have nothing in common with Reality and real world practices of Communism. Period.
Communists -- it's ULTIMATELY a mere opportunists.
And Communism as ideology -- that is not ideology AT ALL. The same as "sea lions" is not lions. ;-P
Communism is most certainly an ideology. One with it's own crazy way of speaking, and etiquette (like leader applauding himself, as if always just "one of the people").
\\He was a ultimately a Nationalist.
Of which exactly nationality and nation? ;-P
The USSR as originally formed under Lenin.
\\Even Xi is a "nationalist".
He is autocratic leader aspiring to became totalitarian one.
Communism is a totalitarian ideology.
\\His is "capitalism with Chinese values".
Naah.
The what are The Three Represents?
\\Putin has become a nationalist as well.
:-)))))))))))))
You'll notice how he didn't initially "crush Ukraine" as he will now.
Post a Comment