“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
Sunday, February 5, 2023
Niklas Luhmann - A Theory of Everything Sociological
recapt firat 11 minutes...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?)
On the one hand, it is important that the social movements draw attention to issues which otherwise would not, or not as fast and so drastically be presnted. And for this they need a certain amount of exaggeration, there is a certain distinctness, a certain narrow-gauged topic of their interest (nuclear power and nothing else, or peace and nothing else) that they need to have followers. On the other hand you have to see that from there, they are not able to govern the society and they cannot expect that the society only cares for their topic now. There must be a way of mediating the targets of such movement through the press, through political parties, into a more balanced social discussion.
After Chernoble, was there a way not to be morally outraged. Is it not understandable, indeed required to be morally outraged?
But too fast simple solutions are appearing. What is dangerous, you need to avoid. ie- You just need to find the guilty and bring them to justice. In the swampy terrain of the ecological problem, the moral should demonstrate the saving way. But are its fundamentals reliable at all?
So if you introduce the moral into a communicative relationship, then you judge not only good and bad stay off, but you make a difference, a distinction. That is good and this is bad. So you always have to ask, "When is it appropriate to make such a distinction? When is it appropriate to sort people into the good and the bad, the sheep and the goats? And my view is, that in modern society, it is increasingly rare that situatins are really promoted, developed, or can be handled if you moralize. That means that we have to extract a lot of questions, and many distinctions, out of the thematic field of the moral, and that is related to the structure of modern society with its' guiding distinctions in law, in politics, in sports, health care and so on. These distinctions, like healthy/sick, government/reigned, or government/opposition, cannot always be pressed into a moral scheme, so that the moralizing is only an auxiliary (rhetorical) technique, which is at the same time a feverish immune response of the society for problems that cannot be solved otherwise. And as a physician knows, fever is not undangerous.
Given that most probleams are "future risk" and not "present danger" problems (probability of x or y happening in future) you have to wonder what ethic or moral communication can contribute to solve such problems. The role of experts. About limit values and reasonability decide the experts, the people concerned are not initially asked. The powerlessness of the citizens seeks vainly in the moral outrage, a valve.
There is no possibility to communicate effectively about cases where great damages are improbable and the corresponding actions are useful, even if not very much, but it brings ongoing advantages, nuclear power or some chemical stuff. Obviously there are no ethical rules. And other problems in ethics are hardly addressed, in the academics ethics anyway, and unresolved. The contrariness of good intentions and bad consequences or selfish intentions and good consequences exceed the canon of traditional ethics. Therisk problem is another case. And finally, the quarrelsome of the moral. [Moral/transcendane vs moralism/ immanent (excluding self)] Ethics should learn to advise against the moral.
Every system in the world is always divided between the system and environment.
So long as communication continues, so does society.
Money is the tech that "communicates (forms society)" within the economic subsystem.
Question is... is your research and/or theoretising based on some goal? Or that is mere phenomenology? And/or hobby?
Cause... if that is hobby -- it will suffer from all that problems (natural)phylosophy and later science suffered and still suffer... process of random walking through unknown labirinth.
But... if that is real seeking of a Truth, Knowledge.
You'd sooner or later (better sooner) would come to the same conclusion. That such a process can be, and should be... bruteforced with help of techs. ;-)
Mine's pure Hobby... an attempt to mull over problems and see if I can come to any conclusions about them.
In the above, I'm trying to understand Niklas Luhnmann, and how he applies systems theory. His does seem to be a rather unique perspective. Different "truths" for different communications subsystems...
\\Sounds like you need to follow Nike's advice... "Just Do It!"
And what em I doing, ahh?
I came out of my comfort zone, where I could happy-go-lucky do some programming for food and some free thinking/tinkering and phylosophy studies as a hobby...
And now trying to grasp uneasy wisdom of cross culture communication, real world economy and business managment, and who knows what else...
Because... not because that is anyting I'd like, I feel interesing and enchanting... but because that is what that damn Idea... seems like demand of me to do.
Was you wanting my bare skin honesty? I doubt it. But... here, you have it. Antway.
\\That's just it. You're NOT Jack. Jack "bought" the beans. You're selling them. Jack's you client.
Really? :-) Oh, that post-modernistic preaks. Produced that many spin-offs that I could not trace an original plot. Sorry. (tongue in cheek)
\\...so you'll need to work on your "pitch".
You are right.
Well, while I like and tell it all as techy nerd.
But well, it can be reframed.
When Jule Verne... or Tolkien, showed their first scribs to a publisher? Was they like that "first make full script, bunch of printed copies, make some sells on the market... and only THEN, I'll be pleased to review your idea/book", ahh?
Well, that was about books... which could be produced with mere pen and paper.
Hmmm...
But well, there is other examples too. Like movie-making.
When Gene Roddenberry came with his script... but isn't bunch of other faces was essential, ones without which it would not be as we know it? Or Jeorge Lucas... what would be his Star Wars without that no-name backstage technics-magicians?
Hetzel's fame comes mostly for his editions of the Voyages extraordinaires ("Extraordinary Journeys") by Jules Verne. The stories were originally published in biweekly chapters as a series in his Magasin. Once all chapters of a story were printed there, the story would appear in book form. Typically this happened towards the end of the year so the books could be purchased as Christmas presents for older children. Originally, there were three editions: one economical, without illustrations; another one in small format, with a few illustrations; and a third one in a bigger in-octavo format and richly illustrated. It is the last edition that is now very popular among book collectors.[citation needed]
Hetzel discovered Jules Verne, but scholars still debate to what extent Hetzel "made" Verne, or if it was Verne who "made" Hetzel's publishing career. Each benefited from the other, and their relationship went beyond that of author and publisher.[citation needed]
Hetzel rejected Verne's 1863 manuscript for Paris in the Twentieth Century because he thought it presented a vision of the future that was far too negative and unbelievable for contemporary audiences, though to many present-day scholars the story was remarkably accurate in its predictions. Verne locked the manuscript away and no longer wrote futuristic, dystopian stories. Paris in the Twentieth Century was first published in France in 1994.[citation needed]
Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular, but by sheer accident a book called The Hobbit, which he had written some years before for his own children, came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen & Unwin, who persuaded Tolkien to submit it for publication.[85] When it was published a year later, the book attracted adult readers as well as children, and it became popular enough for the publishers to ask Tolkien to produce a sequel.
While it SO DAMN simple!!! What can be easier to understand???!!
1. Make some drawing/model in CAM system.
2. Direct it to 3D-printer/mill to make robot.
3. Let it crawl in the outer world, collect performance data.
Lather, rinse, repeat... how hard that could be?
But... yeah. I am not that blatantly narrowminded(?). :-))) I understand ins and outs of it. That "simple" steps need some pretty damn high qualifed people, to accomplish.
Also. I understand that I lacking experitise in many other spheres. Like... I never was in managerial roles. I do not know how it -- to give an order, for other to make it...
Or. I do know nothing about High Politics. How to appease ones big, powerful, with big money... I even do not know how to talk with em. And saw no manual on the Internet.
And many-many more lacunas and deficiencies... name for them, legion, I presume. :-(((
That way... patenting, is the least of my problems. As far as I think I know enough about it -- what can be patented, how it must be formulated, what procedure of getting it, even what possible legal problems there could be...
I've seen proposals for doing exactly that. Factory ships to build swarm robots en-route and then allowing them explore with different sensor and comm packages. It's a cool concept.
\\I've seen proposals for doing exactly that. Factory ships to build swarm robots en-route and then allowing them explore with different sensor and comm packages. It's a cool concept.
Yap.
Question is... do they have secret souse. And lots of it. ;-)
Well, not that secret... just an understanding of how technologies do develop.
But... how much people know it? do care about it? Among that endless crowd of politician and economist, lawyers and businessmans, entertainment and public servants, janitors and lumberjacks.
Another word -- of that millions of people -- WHO really DO care about such things, and know something even to understand your words???
That makes it too hard, incomprehensive. How to explain it.
For Einstain it was easy -- Super-Duper Bomb.
For Musk even easier -- Super-Duper Starship.
But how to explain... an Evolution.
That is not thing -- you can point your finger at.
And not a process -- you can say "it will be bigger, faster, niftier".
All you can say... while remaining succint and truthful -- "it will be different".
Basicly -- that nearly EVERY thing we do, WILL BE different. PLUS, there'd be miriads of new things, unknown, unbelievable (not for Lem... but he already dead, and his ears not available to listen for such stories)
Well, there is good model of it we already known -- it's in our own body, it's around us. Called biological life. And Bio-Sphere.
But how much people around who would not strt snooze after such words?
Well, they don't know, or care, because they've been told that by economics that the ticket to success is the division of labour and specialization, and therefore each specialty grows narrower and narrower as time goes on.
So no, knowledge about a very narrow and specialized aspect of biology would not "generally" interest the average person not pursuing a specialty in that field. I am not a biologist. I leave that, and all things 'medical" to my wife (an RN).
Well... we can discuss why that "cool concept": "Factory ships to build swarm robots en-route and then allowing them explore with different sensor and comm packages." Seems like unworkable.
What stops it.
Robotic factories -- that is NOT NEW thing, really. As term "robot" itself.
We have robotic lines that make cars and etc... But, though we call em "flexible" -- they are NOT flexible at all.
First. Because we still need LOTS of separate and unique components to be inserted in it.
Second. Because path from CAM drawing/model to a production line re-calibration/re-programming is not that streamlined and trivial.
\\I never said that the idea was practical, only cool. "SIlent Running" was the better concept.
Well... if in the infancy of electronics. First transistors. Or even tubes. would say that there'd be possible to make devices out of millions... billions of em. ;-) Hardly ANYBODY would see it as practical. That time. You are multi-temporal, you can tell me more about it. ;-)
Idea in a nutshell -- to replicate biological Evolution.
Based on that, that elementery element of it -- is a cell.
How unconcievable/unrealistic could it be? We themself consist of cells. Of different types and functions. So, obviously, that is realistic and fruitful idea.
Well... there is "obvious solutions". Like with editing DNA and making artifical animals. Which reeks of vivisection. And well... we still far-far-away. From ability to do anything like that.
Or... there is same idea of Drexler.
And maybe many other such ideas.
So... yeah. That well is poisoned. And it's hard to explain to the people that that is... not only possible, but have far reaching perspectives. :-(((
That is an interesting concept, and yes, the challenge would be in making it work... as it is with building the DNA scripts w/CRISPR that would be implanted into the stem cells. I agree that Drexler probably has the better chance of making it work.
Drexler's problem -- he stated it himself, in his EoC. For it to take off -- he need fullfledged AI -- to control miriada of that miniscule robots -- there is NO other way. Well, his bet was on that -- that in the process of development of his atomic-size gimmicks... he will find a workaround, SOMEHOW :-)))
Well, as it seen -- that was empty bet from the very beginning.
DNA and all... that is just too obviously. Stupid. If made of biological tissue animals could help us with something -- we'd already use em. Animals we have in millions of varaety on the Earth.
Still, that is interesting and important sphere. Ability to fix our own body.
My idea. Based on understanding of many (not all, yeah, unknown unknowns still out there... and known unknowns too big for a separate one scull to hold) of such limitations.
Through understanding of technologies. As our human ones. Traditional, we honed through all history. As modern ones. Computers, programming, DNA and all such things. As well as biological ones -- through understanding of Evolution and Lem's far-sight reach of thought.
Achiles Heel of my idea -- social inaptitude. I am not someone who are famous, or rich, or able to give encouraging speaches... :-)))
I just SEE how it can work.
Simulated in a CAD/CAM/CAE system -- with special extention for more bio-like "devices". That is nothing too special -- there lots of such extention that either already present on the market, or can be customised, programmed from get go.
Printed on a 3D-printer -- also tweaked a bitm to be able to print something looking and working as biological tissue. That is not that special too -- we already have 3D-printing with Live Cells, to make organs for transplantation, and many other variants. So, that is again -- only customisation needed, not (re)invention or some Hard Science Breakthrough
Then... that construct/device/robot -- must be tested in environment. Not alone, but in bunch with other robots -- so they could *learn* how to do something more profund, than just some funny wiggling. As most of academia produced was able to do so far. Well??? Is it special? Not much too. We long as know how to do complex things from making simpler ones to work as one system, or as a team -- as most of such systems so far still made of us, humans
PS See... that is not problem for me, to babble about my idea... endlessly. But. I still DO NOT know how to do that comprehensivly, and encouraging people to do something. :-(
Remember? I am technologist (wannabe :-)) I would not start talk about it... if I would not see how it could be done.
Well... we have such kind of tech already -- electronics. Microchips production to be exact.
Know how it was started? With some dirty manual manipulations in a lab: how to make semiconductor of proper type, how to solder to it wires. To make first transistor.
But then... someone clever proposed CRAZY idea -- how to make several, then many, then miriads of transistors... with a visibly improper way -- way of how people was making photograhies on a films. ;-)
Small Idea -- Incredible Results.
All the difference -- Today we are much more prepared for a such "thought experiments". Or, well, that is my sole bet. That we are. ;-/
That idea of making *robots*... consisting of *cells*... with 3D-printing. Could be seen not only as possible, but... very perspective one. ;-)
That's why it's so hard to explain in few words. ;-)
1) Materials
Well... I cannot say that I can tell it now. How could I? Know in before which maerial(s) will be most effective. Without experiments performed. But. That is not that big and important question -- 3D-printing is not that new tech anymore, and now we know -- practicly ANY material can be used. As I said above -- live cells even!!!
2) Power Sources
Same. For the first tryes -- they can be external. With triangulating which better to use later. That is what engineers do all the time, isn't it? ;-)
3) Cell Specialization
Moving. Sensors. Body stuffing/"fat". Skin.
4) STEM cells equivalents
Interesting direction for futher R&D for sure. But not that needed from start. Really, start can be quite simple. Well... do I need to demonstrate? Too easy -- just search YouTube for "3D-printed robots". There dozens. Or maybe hundreds already. Since I checjed last time.
Well... problem is NOT -- can we, or can we not make some robots any more.
But.
CAN we... really, can we build more complex and all-encompassing tech? where separate designs would not be trial and errors of different amateurs. Theyu will not make anything profund, anything useful. Because of lack of resources and other such problems.
But whole new engineering discipline, can we? ;-) Are we smart enough? Are we ready?
5) Programming
I deem it as self-evidant -- that that MUST develop in parallel with all other activities.
\\? Lots of TECH problems, IMO.
Not only technological. Marketing and managment problems -- how to find a place for such robots, so enterprise to become self-sustainable. How to organise work of such diverse teams.
Write a concept paper and publish to solicit interest? Put together a Requirements Development Team from interested parties? Put together and Review a portfolio of candidate technologies? Conduct Market Research?
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 still... most important thing omited -- that that is state of mind. Holistic understanding of that system as a whole. As well as super-system and inner sub-systems relations. ;-)
At the same time, decisions made at the beginning of a project whose consequences are not clearly understood can have enormous implications later in the life of a system, and it is the task of the modern systems engineer to explore these issues and make critical decisions. No method guarantees today's decisions will still be valid when a system goes into service years or decades after first conceived.
To make generailzed methodology -- it's problem ONLY when someone trying to base it on baseless generalising (like phylosophers do).
When it based on some real world experience -- it happens by itself. Your experience would lead you, and will show you -- what is needed and important, and what is not.
Best example to demonstrate that idea I know -- Linus Torwalds Linux project -- in comparation with Tanenbaum's Minix. ;-)
\\Well we're at TRL0. How do we get to TRL1?
Sorry for my answer(s). It looks elusive, maightbe. Because you cought me off guard. Unprepared. To answer to that questions. While your point is perfectly sound.
Well. What next step I see as needed... no, inevitable.
To organize a team. Well, group of people for the very least. Who'd understand that goal and that trivias we discussing.
So... now my road -- is to find at least ONE more person, who would understand what I talking about and would see a merit of it.
Because. Yes, I could try to tackle it myself (unrealistic, too many details for one brain). Or, organize some small team out of students or something... well, I do not see much success in it -- I have access only to resources of some third-rated local university... far-far not MIT grade. :-/
And... EVEN if I'd found a way how to accomplish it -- very next question would be -- need to present it and adverise overbroad... in USA first of all. To which I not prepared.
So.
Well, you see, I am utterly frank here. Even if to my own demise and shame. :-))) Bragging about "knowing prominent tech of future"... but showing incompetence and hesitance to move on. :-(((
I agree, you need a team... and to get a team you'll need to attract a team. You need to attend conferences and present papers describing your project... and at least some minor detailed aspect of it. Do you belong to any professional associations? I used to belong to ANSE and the USNI,, but haven't for 30 years. They both held conferences and published papers, but they were related to topics of interest to US Navy officers and Naval Engineers. I suppose it would be similar to organizing a seminar for a group of interested college/ university students.
That appears to be the path you need to take. And to be blunt, I'm not on that path. I'm on a different one. It is one of retiring to enjoy life. Sorry. :(((
There's all kinds of blogs, forums, social networks out there. For innovators and investors, and businessmans.
And I tryed some.
But found that I either do not understand something, or use wrong approach, or my missives not good enough, or etc...
From our talks I really confirmed it -- that, though I was able to make my English better, more fluent and all. But my understanding of USA culture and psychology -- severly lacking.
So... now it's my stumbling stone. Or a hint, that I must change my strategy again. Dunno in what direction, still. :-(
And. Don't be sorry. Our chit-chats is of great help for me, even if I am not able to propose something perfectly fitting your preferences. For that, I, must apologies. (handshake)
\\You're English is quite good and knowledge of culture as good as that of any American.
Well, it's written one. And result of watching Hollywood, for dacades already. %-) But I have had no practice with speaking for a very long time. And that is... can be a problem. :-(
\\As for the internet as a business "medium"... I'm not a fan.
My tryes was not successful too. And after that I was banned on Linkedin... because of "digital burocracy" reasons -- they just introduced new way to report "abuses"... and I stepped on that landmine. After which they started demanding my Real World ID. I was not able to provide(not for USAians). And that is while I was among early adopters and had an account for 10 years already. :-/ Well, obviously, loyalty means nothing, to a MS-worms who bought it out. Then advertised it to make bigger auditory. Then started to "sweep em out" when that gave natural result -- instead of Socail Network for Techy People meets Business, made it ordinary shit-swamp. So... now you know why I'm going as anonimous.
\\It takes money to make money. I'm sure that is true of the internet as well.
Barrier to enter still much lower then in other types of business. No need to buy land, build a wirehouse and etc. ;-) And many of resources are quite cheap, and even for free. But yeah... scaling it up, can be a pain in your ass. :-)))
Queation is -- original idea for such a service. Because doublers -- do not work. There is no space for second Twitter. Or just second FB/Meta.
Your problem with English is similar to mine with Spanish. I understand most of it, fine, written and oral (unless it's a less refined spoken version ie Mexican workers) but I haven't spoken it/conversed in it for 50 years... although you're much better than I because you do converse in written form. I haven't even done that.
And there is room for a 2nd, but you must capture the 1st Facebook/MySpace or MOSAIC/Netscape/Firefox/Explorer market to Apple vs PC
Maybe you should start with a self-assembling computer system (brain). One cell + One cell + One cell... =" 20 GBytes RAM"... learning the whole way.... but adding space/ capacity to learn more with each new cell/ or not forgetting with each replacement cell (self-checks and backs-up like a SysAdm regardless of cells acquired)
\\And there is room for a 2nd, but you must capture the 1st Facebook/MySpace or MOSAIC/Netscape/Firefox/Explorer market to Apple vs PC
Well... they say that there is Second Twitter... but nobody knows it's name. :-)))
Thing is... there need to be "secret souse" in each such service. Something very distinctive. "Same of the kind" do not work. Just look at Bing -- they have lots of money, and they really try. But... too late, everybody know what "to google" is. And not inclined to learn to use "to bing". Simultaneously, especially.
That is nature of memetic viruses. ;-P
\\Maybe you should start with a self-assembling computer system (brain).
Am I not thinking about technical solution? Some shortcut/workaround/pot with gold at the end of a rainbow? ;-) Am I? Instead of mangling with meatbrains with their meat-problems. But... thing is, for any such thing you need SUPERIOR brains from get go. To bootstrap it.
Remember... as Golem XVI was talking about it -- about safety nets he developed before achieving next stage.
And there is a problem...
You need meatbrains -- to keep in check what that computer brains doing. Because... they do not have common sense of their own. And happily ready to waste cycles and elextricity, while stucking in infinite loop.
You know Turing's Problem -- there is NO algorithm to prevent such dead ends. :-(((
Yes, we prefer to be "moral". Life is cheap for evolution, but precious to those of us who "live". How many trillions of life forms had to die so that we could have oil today?
True Moral is built-in into structure of Universe.
Our tryes to presribe to it how to work -- just demonstration of our misery.
\\Life is cheap for evolution, but precious to those of us who "live".
Naah... don't look like it. Especially when I looking at russian chmobicks. ;-P
\\How many trillions of life forms had to die so that we could have oil today?
Still... complete theory of it not built, yet. Or, do you know something?
\\How many billions of cells has you body enslaved so that you can "breath"?
They are siblings of the first two. What a counts... among relatives? ;-) Well, there is lots of other ones too... but they are freeloaders. Some useful, some not. But (might) have no right to vote. Still, all is Democratic... as you can see for yourself. ;-P
87 comments:
recapt firat 11 minutes...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?)
part II 15:27+
On the one hand, it is important that the social movements draw attention to issues which otherwise would not, or not as fast and so drastically be presnted. And for this they need a certain amount of exaggeration, there is a certain distinctness, a certain narrow-gauged topic of their interest (nuclear power and nothing else, or peace and nothing else) that they need to have followers. On the other hand you have to see that from there, they are not able to govern the society and they cannot expect that the society only cares for their topic now. There must be a way of mediating the targets of such movement through the press, through political parties, into a more balanced social discussion.
After Chernoble, was there a way not to be morally outraged. Is it not understandable, indeed required to be morally outraged?
But too fast simple solutions are appearing. What is dangerous, you need to avoid. ie- You just need to find the guilty and bring them to justice. In the swampy terrain of the ecological problem, the moral should demonstrate the saving way. But are its fundamentals reliable at all?
So if you introduce the moral into a communicative relationship, then you judge not only good and bad stay off, but you make a difference, a distinction. That is good and this is bad. So you always have to ask, "When is it appropriate to make such a distinction? When is it appropriate to sort people into the good and the bad, the sheep and the goats? And my view is, that in modern society, it is increasingly rare that situatins are really promoted, developed, or can be handled if you moralize. That means that we have to extract a lot of questions, and many distinctions, out of the thematic field of the moral, and that is related to the structure of modern society with its' guiding distinctions in law, in politics, in sports, health care and so on. These distinctions, like healthy/sick, government/reigned, or government/opposition, cannot always be pressed into a moral scheme, so that the moralizing is only an auxiliary (rhetorical) technique, which is at the same time a feverish immune response of the society for problems that cannot be solved otherwise. And as a physician knows, fever is not undangerous.
Given that most probleams are "future risk" and not "present danger" problems (probability of x or y happening in future) you have to wonder what ethic or moral communication can contribute to solve such problems. The role of experts. About limit values and reasonability decide the experts, the people concerned are not initially asked. The powerlessness of the citizens seeks vainly in the moral outrage, a valve.
There is no possibility to communicate effectively about cases where great damages are improbable and the corresponding actions are useful, even if not very much, but it brings ongoing advantages, nuclear power or some chemical stuff. Obviously there are no ethical rules. And other problems in ethics are hardly addressed, in the academics ethics anyway, and unresolved. The contrariness of good intentions and bad consequences or selfish intentions and good consequences exceed the canon of traditional ethics. Therisk problem is another case. And finally, the quarrelsome of the moral. [Moral/transcendane vs moralism/ immanent (excluding self)] Ethics should learn to advise against the moral.
Every system in the world is always divided between the system and environment.
So long as communication continues, so does society.
Money is the tech that "communicates (forms society)" within the economic subsystem.
More theory, less morality.
Question is... is your research and/or theoretising based on some goal?
Or that is mere phenomenology? And/or hobby?
Cause... if that is hobby -- it will suffer from all that problems (natural)phylosophy and later science suffered and still suffer... process of random walking through unknown labirinth.
But... if that is real seeking of a Truth, Knowledge.
You'd sooner or later (better sooner) would come to the same conclusion. That such a process can be, and should be... bruteforced with help of techs. ;-)
And... Lem, Lem, Lem...
Mine's pure Hobby... an attempt to mull over problems and see if I can come to any conclusions about them.
In the above, I'm trying to understand Niklas Luhnmann, and how he applies systems theory. His does seem to be a rather unique perspective. Different "truths" for different communications subsystems...
Ehm... isn't that obvious?
Perhaps, but I don't tend to think of it that way, generally, and it's a new way of thinking for me.
Addictive... isn't it? ;-) And, you know my drugdealer, already. (shy)
But.
You know, that there is EVEN MORE nifty, attractive and addictive... new ways to MAKE things. ;-)
Sounds like you need to follow Nike's advice... "Just Do It!"
You'll never fly to the "upper reaches" of the Parthenon, otherwise.
\\Sounds like you need to follow Nike's advice... "Just Do It!"
And what em I doing, ahh?
I came out of my comfort zone, where I could happy-go-lucky do some programming for food and some free thinking/tinkering and phylosophy studies as a hobby...
And now trying to grasp uneasy wisdom of cross culture communication, real world economy and business managment, and who knows what else...
Because... not because that is anyting I'd like, I feel interesing and enchanting... but because that is what that damn Idea... seems like demand of me to do.
Was you wanting my bare skin honesty?
I doubt it.
But... here, you have it. Antway.
Do you know that story?
About Jack... and Magic Beans. ;-)
That's it. You can call me Jack. ;-)
As short summary.
That's just it. You're NOT Jack. Jack "bought" the beans. You're selling them. Jack's you client.
...so you'll need to work on your "pitch".
...and "sales" are way outside of my comfort zone, too.
...especially when I've seen of the product to be sold is the glossy advertisement for a miracle cure.
...and if it's pure intellectual property...then all I can recommend is that you patent and copyright it.
...and then go talk to Elon.
\\That's just it. You're NOT Jack. Jack "bought" the beans. You're selling them. Jack's you client.
Really? :-)
Oh, that post-modernistic preaks. Produced that many spin-offs that I could not trace an original plot. Sorry. (tongue in cheek)
\\...so you'll need to work on your "pitch".
You are right.
Well, while I like and tell it all as techy nerd.
But well, it can be reframed.
When Jule Verne... or Tolkien, showed their first scribs to a publisher? Was they like that "first make full script, bunch of printed copies, make some sells on the market... and only THEN, I'll be pleased to review your idea/book", ahh?
Well, that was about books... which could be produced with mere pen and paper.
Hmmm...
But well, there is other examples too. Like movie-making.
When Gene Roddenberry came with his script... but isn't bunch of other faces was essential, ones without which it would not be as we know it?
Or Jeorge Lucas... what would be his Star Wars without that no-name backstage technics-magicians?
;-)
What Verne and Tolkien not Lindy enough???
Verne would have been popular w/o Hetzel?
Hetzel's fame comes mostly for his editions of the Voyages extraordinaires ("Extraordinary Journeys") by Jules Verne. The stories were originally published in biweekly chapters as a series in his Magasin. Once all chapters of a story were printed there, the story would appear in book form. Typically this happened towards the end of the year so the books could be purchased as Christmas presents for older children. Originally, there were three editions: one economical, without illustrations; another one in small format, with a few illustrations; and a third one in a bigger in-octavo format and richly illustrated. It is the last edition that is now very popular among book collectors.[citation needed]
Hetzel discovered Jules Verne, but scholars still debate to what extent Hetzel "made" Verne, or if it was Verne who "made" Hetzel's publishing career. Each benefited from the other, and their relationship went beyond that of author and publisher.[citation needed]
Hetzel rejected Verne's 1863 manuscript for Paris in the Twentieth Century because he thought it presented a vision of the future that was far too negative and unbelievable for contemporary audiences, though to many present-day scholars the story was remarkably accurate in its predictions. Verne locked the manuscript away and no longer wrote futuristic, dystopian stories. Paris in the Twentieth Century was first published in France in 1994.[citation needed]
You need to find a Hetzel, JulesQ.
As for Tolkien...
Tolkien never expected his stories to become popular, but by sheer accident a book called The Hobbit, which he had written some years before for his own children, came in 1936 to the attention of Susan Dagnall, an employee of the London publishing firm George Allen & Unwin, who persuaded Tolkien to submit it for publication.[85] When it was published a year later, the book attracted adult readers as well as children, and it became popular enough for the publishers to ask Tolkien to produce a sequel.
...or be like Tolkien and rely upon serendipity.
\\Verne would have been popular w/o Hetzel?
THAT'S IT! BULLS EYE.
Forgive me my excitment.
That's just too rare for my half-baked thought yo be understood so perfectly. :-)
But also...
\\Each benefited from the other, and their relationship went beyond that of author and publisher.[citation needed]
\\and it became popular enough for the publishers to ask Tolkien to produce a sequel.
And WHAT he made... as a sequel. ;-)
I really don't get it. As just a techy nerd.
While it SO DAMN simple!!! What can be easier to understand???!!
1. Make some drawing/model in CAM system.
2. Direct it to 3D-printer/mill to make robot.
3. Let it crawl in the outer world, collect performance data.
Lather, rinse, repeat... how hard that could be?
But... yeah. I am not that blatantly narrowminded(?). :-)))
I understand ins and outs of it. That "simple" steps need some pretty damn high qualifed people, to accomplish.
Also.
I understand that I lacking experitise in many other spheres.
Like... I never was in managerial roles. I do not know how it -- to give an order, for other to make it...
Or.
I do know nothing about High Politics.
How to appease ones big, powerful, with big money...
I even do not know how to talk with em. And saw no manual on the Internet.
And many-many more lacunas and deficiencies... name for them, legion, I presume. :-(((
That way... patenting, is the least of my problems. As far as I think I know enough about it -- what can be patented, how it must be formulated, what procedure of getting it, even what possible legal problems there could be...
I've seen proposals for doing exactly that. Factory ships to build swarm robots en-route and then allowing them explore with different sensor and comm packages. It's a cool concept.
Now :-D if you want.
\\I've seen proposals for doing exactly that. Factory ships to build swarm robots en-route and then allowing them explore with different sensor and comm packages. It's a cool concept.
Yap.
Question is... do they have secret souse. And lots of it. ;-)
Prev comments vise versa mustbe, of course. :-))
Nope, no secret sauce that I'm aware of.
Of course. Because it's secret. ;-P
Well, not that secret... just an understanding of how technologies do develop.
But... how much people know it? do care about it?
Among that endless crowd of politician and economist, lawyers and businessmans, entertainment and public servants, janitors and lumberjacks.
Another word -- of that millions of people -- WHO really DO care about such things, and know something even to understand your words???
That makes it too hard, incomprehensive.
How to explain it.
For Einstain it was easy -- Super-Duper Bomb.
For Musk even easier -- Super-Duper Starship.
But how to explain... an Evolution.
That is not thing -- you can point your finger at.
And not a process -- you can say "it will be bigger, faster, niftier".
All you can say... while remaining succint and truthful -- "it will be different".
Basicly -- that nearly EVERY thing we do, WILL BE different. PLUS, there'd be miriads of new things, unknown, unbelievable (not for Lem... but he already dead, and his ears not available to listen for such stories)
Well, there is good model of it we already known -- it's in our own body, it's around us.
Called biological life. And Bio-Sphere.
But how much people around who would not strt snooze after such words?
:-)))
Well, they don't know, or care, because they've been told that by economics that the ticket to success is the division of labour and specialization, and therefore each specialty grows narrower and narrower as time goes on.
So no, knowledge about a very narrow and specialized aspect of biology would not "generally" interest the average person not pursuing a specialty in that field. I am not a biologist. I leave that, and all things 'medical" to my wife (an RN).
So even in my own household, we have a "division of labour".
\\Well, they don't know, or care, because they've been told that by economics that the ticket to success is the division of labour and specialization
Well... and how is that wrong???
\\So no, knowledge about a very narrow and specialized aspect of biology
But Evolution... that is not "very narrow and specialized aspect".
Well... it is like nitrogenum. Do you know that air we breath. Atmosphere of the Earth.
That is 80% nitrogenum.
Gas without color and taste. ;-P
Well... problem is apparent, isn't it?
I need to find correct words.
To describe my idea.
Perhaps you should hire JRR Tolkien. He could make it an interesting story about death (@2:11).
Well... we can discuss why that "cool concept": "Factory ships to build swarm robots en-route and then allowing them explore with different sensor and comm packages."
Seems like unworkable.
What stops it.
Robotic factories -- that is NOT NEW thing, really. As term "robot" itself.
We have robotic lines that make cars and etc... But, though we call em "flexible" -- they are NOT flexible at all.
First. Because we still need LOTS of separate and unique components to be inserted in it.
Second. Because path from CAM drawing/model to a production line re-calibration/re-programming is not that streamlined and trivial.
There's Monday in your hemisphere, already? :-)
I never said that the idea was practical, only cool. "SIlent Running" was the better concept.
But that won't stop very specialized operations being performed remotely.
\\I never said that the idea was practical, only cool. "SIlent Running" was the better concept.
Well... if in the infancy of electronics. First transistors. Or even tubes.
would say that there'd be possible to make devices out of millions... billions of em. ;-)
Hardly ANYBODY would see it as practical. That time.
You are multi-temporal, you can tell me more about it. ;-)
I miss vacuum tubes... :(
I can send you a dozen. ;-P
Good. Old. Soviet. :-)))
:P
Well. I found (suitable) way of watching your Youtube links.
Well. This one funny. But... still... NMP. ;-P
Well.
Idea in a nutshell -- to replicate biological Evolution.
Based on that, that elementery element of it -- is a cell.
How unconcievable/unrealistic could it be?
We themself consist of cells. Of different types and functions.
So, obviously, that is realistic and fruitful idea.
Well... there is "obvious solutions".
Like with editing DNA and making artifical animals.
Which reeks of vivisection. And well... we still far-far-away.
From ability to do anything like that.
Or... there is same idea of Drexler.
And maybe many other such ideas.
So... yeah. That well is poisoned.
And it's hard to explain to the people that that is... not only possible, but have far reaching perspectives. :-(((
That is an interesting concept, and yes, the challenge would be in making it work... as it is with building the DNA scripts w/CRISPR that would be implanted into the stem cells. I agree that Drexler probably has the better chance of making it work.
You're right, it is a different way of thinking.
Drexler's problem -- he stated it himself, in his EoC.
For it to take off -- he need fullfledged AI -- to control miriada of that miniscule robots -- there is NO other way.
Well, his bet was on that -- that in the process of development of his atomic-size gimmicks... he will find a workaround, SOMEHOW :-)))
Well, as it seen -- that was empty bet from the very beginning.
DNA and all... that is just too obviously. Stupid.
If made of biological tissue animals could help us with something -- we'd already use em. Animals we have in millions of varaety on the Earth.
Still, that is interesting and important sphere. Ability to fix our own body.
My idea.
Based on understanding of many (not all, yeah, unknown unknowns still out there... and known unknowns too big for a separate one scull to hold) of such limitations.
Through understanding of technologies.
As our human ones. Traditional, we honed through all history.
As modern ones. Computers, programming, DNA and all such things.
As well as biological ones -- through understanding of Evolution and Lem's far-sight reach of thought.
Achiles Heel of my idea -- social inaptitude.
I am not someone who are famous, or rich, or able to give encouraging speaches... :-)))
I just SEE how it can work.
Simulated in a CAD/CAM/CAE system -- with special extention for more bio-like "devices".
That is nothing too special -- there lots of such extention that either already present on the market, or can be customised, programmed from get go.
Printed on a 3D-printer -- also tweaked a bitm to be able to print something looking and working as biological tissue.
That is not that special too -- we already have 3D-printing with Live Cells, to make organs for transplantation, and many other variants. So, that is again -- only customisation needed, not (re)invention or some Hard Science Breakthrough
Then... that construct/device/robot -- must be tested in environment. Not alone, but in bunch with other robots -- so they could *learn* how to do something more profund, than just some funny wiggling. As most of academia produced was able to do so far.
Well??? Is it special? Not much too. We long as know how to do complex things from making simpler ones to work as one system, or as a team -- as most of such systems so far still made of us, humans
PS See... that is not problem for me, to babble about my idea... endlessly.
But.
I still DO NOT know how to do that comprehensivly, and encouraging people to do something. :-(
It's certainly a holy grail worthy idea. The problem is to find the fool that can make it work? Are you that Perceval/Parsifal?
Don't take the above the wrong way.
Ventner certainly was for the Human Genome Project.
Remember? I am technologist (wannabe :-))
I would not start talk about it... if I would not see how it could be done.
Well... we have such kind of tech already -- electronics.
Microchips production to be exact.
Know how it was started? With some dirty manual manipulations in a lab: how to make semiconductor of proper type, how to solder to it wires. To make first transistor.
But then... someone clever proposed CRAZY idea -- how to make several, then many, then miriads of transistors...
with a visibly improper way -- way of how people was making photograhies on a films. ;-)
Small Idea -- Incredible Results.
All the difference -- Today we are much more prepared for a such "thought experiments".
Or, well, that is my sole bet. That we are. ;-/
That idea of making *robots*... consisting of *cells*... with 3D-printing.
Could be seen not only as possible, but... very perspective one. ;-)
Materials? Power Sources? Cell Specialization? STEM cells equivalents? Programming? Lots of TECH problems, IMO.
YES!
That's why it's so hard to explain in few words. ;-)
1) Materials
Well... I cannot say that I can tell it now. How could I?
Know in before which maerial(s) will be most effective.
Without experiments performed.
But.
That is not that big and important question -- 3D-printing is not that new tech anymore, and now we know -- practicly ANY material can be used.
As I said above -- live cells even!!!
2) Power Sources
Same. For the first tryes -- they can be external.
With triangulating which better to use later.
That is what engineers do all the time, isn't it? ;-)
3) Cell Specialization
Moving. Sensors. Body stuffing/"fat". Skin.
4) STEM cells equivalents
Interesting direction for futher R&D for sure. But not that needed from start.
Really, start can be quite simple.
Well... do I need to demonstrate? Too easy -- just search YouTube for "3D-printed robots". There dozens. Or maybe hundreds already. Since I checjed last time.
Well... problem is NOT -- can we, or can we not make some robots any more.
But.
CAN we... really, can we build more complex and all-encompassing tech?
where separate designs would not be trial and errors of different amateurs.
Theyu will not make anything profund, anything useful.
Because of lack of resources and other such problems.
But whole new engineering discipline, can we? ;-)
Are we smart enough? Are we ready?
5) Programming
I deem it as self-evidant -- that that MUST develop in parallel with all other activities.
\\? Lots of TECH problems, IMO.
Not only technological.
Marketing and managment problems -- how to find a place for such robots, so enterprise to become self-sustainable.
How to organise work of such diverse teams.
And many-many other problems... yes. :-/
Well we're at TRL0. How do we get to TRL1?
Write a concept paper and publish to solicit interest? Put together a Requirements Development Team from interested parties? Put together and Review a portfolio of candidate technologies? Conduct Market Research?
What is simplest viable product can be built?
Or what flashy academia gimmick?
Or what techological Proof of Concept?
Or... is it really what we need here?
Same as with String Theory -- too many possibilities. ;-)
You're FOBO/FOMO.
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".
Fail, fail again, fail again, better. ;P
How many failure does it take to design/ make a safe rocker?
Better to fail 1,000,000,000x in the simulations than once on the test stand. ;)
Know what MBSE is?
What I meanted. I see I need to explain myself better.
All is about THE GOAL.
Is it to "sell" it to NASA (Elon? ;-)) to help with their otherwordly pursuits?
Or give new toys to MIC?
Or maybe make killerapp for a next unicorn startup?
That all are very different roads, different factors. Different aproachs. Or, am I wrong?
And... all of that factors are outside of me. Things I do not control.
And are rather far from my miserly abilities.
I myself... just a dandelion seed. Riding a wind. In a blind attempt to find fine ground to sprout. :-/
\\How many failure does it take to design/ make a safe rocker?
Excellent typo. ;-)
Well. That's it -- it do not need to be that costly.
No ka-booms.
No poisonous radiation.
No gray goo. ;-P
Just peacefully crawling little things... but they will grow. ;-)
Same as Evolution did... but, much faster.
\\Know what MBSE is?
And do you know what Theory of Invention is? ;-)
\\You're FOBO/FOMO.
\\8. You don’t believe in following your passion.
Clearly not about what I'm trying to do here, isn't it? ;-P
But. Yeah. I'm overly self-conscious. That's true.
Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary field of engineering and engineering management that focuses on how to design, integrate, and manage complex systems over their life cycles. At its core, systems engineering utilizes systems thinking principles to organize this body of knowledge. The individual outcome of such efforts, an engineered system, can be defined as a combination of components that work in synergy to collectively perform a useful function.
But still... most important thing omited -- that that is state of mind. Holistic understanding of that system as a whole. As well as super-system and inner sub-systems relations. ;-)
At the same time, decisions made at the beginning of a project whose consequences are not clearly understood can have enormous implications later in the life of a system, and it is the task of the modern systems engineer to explore these issues and make critical decisions. No method guarantees today's decisions will still be valid when a system goes into service years or decades after first conceived.
Must be closest to what I mean Not structure, but a process... structured to meat a(the?) goal.
That's another 'holy grail' idea. All the engineering and management models integrated into a single system... mechanical/electrical/optical...
Maybe you shpuld tackle that ione first.
This one... not a problem at all. ;-)
To make generailzed methodology -- it's problem ONLY when someone trying to base it on baseless generalising (like phylosophers do).
When it based on some real world experience -- it happens by itself. Your experience would lead you, and will show you -- what is needed and important, and what is not.
Best example to demonstrate that idea I know -- Linus Torwalds Linux project -- in comparation with Tanenbaum's Minix. ;-)
\\Well we're at TRL0. How do we get to TRL1?
Sorry for my answer(s).
It looks elusive, maightbe. Because you cought me off guard. Unprepared. To answer to that questions.
While your point is perfectly sound.
Well.
What next step I see as needed... no, inevitable.
To organize a team. Well, group of people for the very least.
Who'd understand that goal and that trivias we discussing.
So... now my road -- is to find at least ONE more person, who would understand what I talking about and would see a merit of it.
Because.
Yes, I could try to tackle it myself (unrealistic, too many details for one brain).
Or, organize some small team out of students or something...
well, I do not see much success in it -- I have access only to resources of some third-rated local university... far-far not MIT grade. :-/
And... EVEN if I'd found a way how to accomplish it -- very next question would be -- need to present it and adverise overbroad... in USA first of all.
To which I not prepared.
So.
Well, you see, I am utterly frank here. Even if to my own demise and shame. :-)))
Bragging about "knowing prominent tech of future"... but showing incompetence and hesitance to move on. :-(((
I agree, you need a team... and to get a team you'll need to attract a team. You need to attend conferences and present papers describing your project... and at least some minor detailed aspect of it. Do you belong to any professional associations? I used to belong to ANSE and the USNI,, but haven't for 30 years. They both held conferences and published papers, but they were related to topics of interest to US Navy officers and Naval Engineers. I suppose it would be similar to organizing a seminar for a group of interested college/ university students.
That appears to be the path you need to take. And to be blunt, I'm not on that path. I'm on a different one. It is one of retiring to enjoy life. Sorry. :(((
It's different today.
There's all kinds of blogs, forums, social networks out there.
For innovators and investors, and businessmans.
And I tryed some.
But found that I either do not understand something, or use wrong approach, or my missives not good enough, or etc...
From our talks I really confirmed it -- that, though I was able to make my English better, more fluent and all.
But my understanding of USA culture and psychology -- severly lacking.
So... now it's my stumbling stone.
Or a hint, that I must change my strategy again.
Dunno in what direction, still. :-(
And. Don't be sorry. Our chit-chats is of great help for me, even if I am not able to propose something perfectly fitting your preferences. For that, I, must apologies.
(handshake)
You're English is quite good and knowledge of culture as good as that of any American.
As for the internet as a business "medium"... I'm not a fan. I've never been able to use it effectively myself. I don't have the desire or will to do what is needed to "promote" myself or my ideas, as would an Internet Influencer... pay for fake spambot followers, etc.
It takes money to make money. I'm sure that is true of the internet as well.
Yet one plain of thought there is.
One where crazy inventor and technologist(wannabe) in me brawls with scientist.
Golden Question of Evolution -- how do it create complexity?
For example "Battle of Currents" between Edison and Tesla.
Edison clearly was gradualist, who came through path of trails and errors... and lost.
While Tesla, who knows through what ways came to rational and breakthrough ideas... and was flashy enough, so his ideas found some tracktion...
It looks like rational ideas can win through irrational means.
But... and that is question Lem stated too -- can we achieve rational results with rational means (only?).
Or. How all that inner mechanics of Evolution works???
\\You're English is quite good and knowledge of culture as good as that of any American.
Well, it's written one. And result of watching Hollywood, for dacades already. %-)
But I have had no practice with speaking for a very long time.
And that is... can be a problem. :-(
\\As for the internet as a business "medium"... I'm not a fan.
My tryes was not successful too.
And after that I was banned on Linkedin... because of "digital burocracy" reasons -- they just introduced new way to report "abuses"... and I stepped on that landmine.
After which they started demanding my Real World ID. I was not able to provide(not for USAians).
And that is while I was among early adopters and had an account for 10 years already. :-/
Well, obviously, loyalty means nothing, to a MS-worms who bought it out. Then advertised it to make bigger auditory. Then started to "sweep em out" when that gave natural result -- instead of Socail Network for Techy People meets Business, made it ordinary shit-swamp.
So... now you know why I'm going as anonimous.
\\It takes money to make money. I'm sure that is true of the internet as well.
Barrier to enter still much lower then in other types of business.
No need to buy land, build a wirehouse and etc. ;-)
And many of resources are quite cheap, and even for free.
But yeah... scaling it up, can be a pain in your ass. :-)))
Queation is -- original idea for such a service.
Because doublers -- do not work.
There is no space for second Twitter. Or just second FB/Meta.
Your problem with English is similar to mine with Spanish. I understand most of it, fine, written and oral (unless it's a less refined spoken version ie Mexican workers) but I haven't spoken it/conversed in it for 50 years... although you're much better than I because you do converse in written form. I haven't even done that.
And there is room for a 2nd, but you must capture the 1st Facebook/MySpace or MOSAIC/Netscape/Firefox/Explorer market to Apple vs PC
Maybe you should start with a self-assembling computer system (brain). One cell + One cell + One cell... =" 20 GBytes RAM"... learning the whole way.... but adding space/ capacity to learn more with each new cell/ or not forgetting with each replacement cell (self-checks and backs-up like a SysAdm regardless of cells acquired)
\\And there is room for a 2nd, but you must capture the 1st Facebook/MySpace or MOSAIC/Netscape/Firefox/Explorer market to Apple vs PC
Well... they say that there is Second Twitter... but nobody knows it's name. :-)))
Thing is... there need to be "secret souse" in each such service.
Something very distinctive.
"Same of the kind" do not work.
Just look at Bing -- they have lots of money, and they really try.
But... too late, everybody know what "to google" is. And not inclined to learn to use "to bing".
Simultaneously, especially.
That is nature of memetic viruses. ;-P
\\Maybe you should start with a self-assembling computer system (brain).
Am I not thinking about technical solution?
Some shortcut/workaround/pot with gold at the end of a rainbow? ;-)
Am I?
Instead of mangling with meatbrains with their meat-problems.
But... thing is, for any such thing you need SUPERIOR brains from get go.
To bootstrap it.
Remember... as Golem XVI was talking about it -- about safety nets he developed before achieving next stage.
And there is a problem...
You need meatbrains -- to keep in check what that computer brains doing.
Because... they do not have common sense of their own.
And happily ready to waste cycles and elextricity, while stucking in infinite loop.
You know Turing's Problem -- there is NO algorithm to prevent such dead ends. :-(((
If we have common sense, then certainly there's an algorithm for it.
Yes. And it's name -- Evolution.
But, we do not like, do not want to be mere pebbles under bonecrashing wheels of that Jaggernaut, isn't it? ;-)
Yes, we prefer to be "moral". Life is cheap for evolution, but precious to those of us who "live". How many trillions of life forms had to die so that we could have oil today?
How many billions of cells has you body enslaved so that you can "breath"?
\\Yes, we prefer to be "moral".
Naah... we like to moralise. ;-P
True Moral is built-in into structure of Universe.
Our tryes to presribe to it how to work -- just demonstration of our misery.
\\Life is cheap for evolution, but precious to those of us who "live".
Naah... don't look like it. Especially when I looking at russian chmobicks. ;-P
\\How many trillions of life forms had to die so that we could have oil today?
Still... complete theory of it not built, yet.
Or, do you know something?
\\How many billions of cells has you body enslaved so that you can "breath"?
They are siblings of the first two. What a counts... among relatives? ;-)
Well, there is lots of other ones too... but they are freeloaders. Some useful, some not. But (might) have no right to vote.
Still, all is Democratic... as you can see for yourself. ;-P
:P
Post a Comment