“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
Friday, September 8, 2023
Are Neurons/ Axons Just Slimey Intelligence?
Success is "intelligence" and failure, "stupidity." We try and "remember" success, and "forget" failure. Or is it visa versa? Else, how could we EVER attempt something "new/ novel"? Develop "myelinated" intelligence?
How could it be otherwise, it isn't equipped with sensors or ESP. I just read Lem's "Lymphater's Formula"...where omniscience is achieved through ESP. This infers that "intelligence" lies in communication to learn the a priori that all "other's" have learned.
I tryed to come up with answer to very early. Instigated by Lem.
You know, that nowaday Science uses Claude Shannon's formula, isn't it?
And though its total briliance, in respect to DNA for example it is totally clueless.
As it talks about "messages" and "means of deleivery" of that messages.
But... WHO was SENDER of that message??? In the case of DNA inside our bodies? ;-) Or inside any bacteria? Any primordial lifeform?
That's how I came to that "structural knowledge" notion. In respect to "measured knowladge"... as we know in our Sciences so far.
Well, we have genetics. And Information Technologies.
But so far... I didn't see (well, I never tryed to find, but I think I would hear about it... if there'd be) a phylosopher, which would explore and tryed to answer to such questions.
Nope, I don't check that mailbox. I do check this one occasionally (freesoul1957@hotmail.com)
I have many sock puppets and each has its' own e-mail (needed to establish blog for sock puppet). I used to fight in many "blog wars" and needed many fighters to add chaos and confusion, or gather intelligence from opposition blogs.
No, actually it's more of a mind bullet kinda thing like you've got going on. Instill paranoia, never let them know "who" they're talking to. If they think I'm an intelligence agency or political infiltrator, all the better. Especially if you play "both sides". have "sympathetic" sock puppets as well as "hostile" ones.
If they rely on metadata, spoof the metadata (ala use anonymouse or proxy server for allied socks). I don't trust metadata. I trust my judgement. Which is to NEVER completely "trust" anything but my own judgement.
I think it was Archiilochus of Naxos who advised that one could best determine who another person was by his "song". The "song" usually remains consistent across identities. So I used to try and sing different songs.
Εἰμὶ δ' ἐγὼ θεράπων μὲν Ἐνυαλίοιο ἄνακτος, καὶ Μουσέων ἐρατὸν δῶρον ἐπιστάμενος. I am the servant of Lord Enyalios [Ares, god of war], and skilled in the lovely gift of the Muses.[28]
If the xmtr's goal is taken up by the rcvr and missing element successfully applied, it is intelligent. If it fails, but then can learn to achieve the goal, it is still intelligent. If it fails, it's stupid, unless it re-transmits the message to a new receiver that is more capable and can achieve the original senders goal. The goal of DNA is "immortality'.
Evolution is the introduction of noise by random variation that either increases or decreases the ability of the receiver to respond successfully to the message and achieve the goal of immortality.
ps - As Zizek said, "This simple persistence against all odds is ultimately the stuff true heroes are made of. We learn about such cases only sometimes and only years later."
Antigone daughter of Oedipus, her name in Greek might mean "in place of a mother," from anti "opposite, in place of" (see anti-) + gonē "womb, childbirth, generation," from root of gignesthai "to be born" related to genos "race, birth, descent" (from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups).
Entries linking to Antigone anti- word-forming element of Greek origin meaning "against, opposed to, opposite of, instead," shortened to ant- before vowels and -h-, from Old French anti- and directly from Latin anti-, from Greek anti (prep.) "over, against, opposite; instead, in the place of; as good as; at the price of; for the sake of; compared with; in opposition to; in return; counter-," from PIE *anti "against," also "in front of, before" (from root *ant- "front, forehead," with derivatives meaning "in front of, before"), which became anti- in Italian (hence antipasto) and French.
It is cognate with Sanskrit anti "over, against," and Old English and- (the first element in answer). A common compounding element in Greek, in some combinations it became anth- for euphonic reasons. It appears in some words in Middle English but was not commonly used in English word formations until modern times. In a few English words (anticipate, antique) it represents Latin ante.
In noun compounds where it has the sense of "opposed to, opposite" (Antichrist, anti-communist) the accent remains on the anti-; in adjectives where it retains its old prepositional sense "against, opposed to," the accent remains on the other element (anti-Christian, anti-slavery).
*gene- *genə-, also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit janati "begets, bears," janah "offspring, child, person," janman- "birth, origin," jatah "born;" Avestan zizanenti "they bear;" Greek gignesthai "to become, happen," genos "race, kind," gonos "birth, offspring, stock;" Latin gignere "to beget," gnasci "to be born," genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," genius "procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality," ingenium "inborn character," possibly germen "shoot, bud, embryo, germ;" Lithuanian gentis "kinsmen;" Gothic kuni "race;" Old English cennan "beget, create," gecynd "kind, nature, race;" Old High German kind "child;" Old Irish ro-genar "I was born;" Welsh geni "to be born;" Armenian cnanim "I bear, I am born."
In the case of DNA, reproduction for the sake of immortality is the goal. DNA is the message, sperm is messenger/xmtr. Egg is receiver which HAS what the sender lacks, an egg with the "other half of the message" including all its retained viral "noise"... and a "womb" to protect/feed the egg/sperm combination and achieve the goal... produce live offspring.
There is strength, means, will (of couple having sex), and cause (produce offspring).
Today we have many more "means" for achieving this goal (ie - in vitro fertilization, egg freezing, sperm freezing, etc.) and wills (spontaneous sex, deliberate egg implantation into surrogates, etc.) all "tech".
Solaris follows the same pattern as "The Truth". Intelligent stars, planets, etc... with a god-like communicative ability. His story about "Lemphater's? formula" also postulated 2 possible mathematical outcomes, with one being much more complicated than the other. Lem's philosophy/theology. It's how he builds his "worlds" to be populated by his characters.
Maybe Shannon's formula was only an incomplete system block diagram. I added the strength, means, cause, will from Hamlet for two of the boxes and posited the "cause" of the communication... a "lack" (ala Lacanian objet petit 'a) by either sender or receiver and as "purpose" of the communication.
I'm allowed to synthesize philosophies, aren't I? Like "A beautiful mind"... when Adam Smith's economic formula was "incomplete"?
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. Examples gross as Earth exhort me: Witness this army of such mass and charge, Led by a delicate and tender prince, Whose spirit with divine ambition puffed Makes mouths at the invisible event, Exposing what is mortal and unsure To all that fortune, death, and danger dare, Even for an eggshell. Rightly to be great Is not to stir without great argument, But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
\\...or you can postulate that your tech is the means for fullfilling this "lack".
Means?
Well, Lem's definition of what tech is -- a way to state goal, and then to solve it.
Apparent, isn't it? That intertwineing between goal and results. ;-)
\\btw - Ever see "Lucy"?
On big screen. :-)
Well... Besson as ever --spectacular.
But everything else... is just a trawesty.
\\Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
\\How all occasions do inform against me
Do you know what is a difference between jazz... and scripted music?
That's it... even if I'd get flawlessly this your cultural references.
There'd still be that difference between literature and real life.
Each our life it's not opera... written from beginning to the end.
But a jazz improvization. ;-)
\\I'm allowed to synthesize philosophies, aren't I?
All question is -- do you like the results? ;-)
\\ Lem's philosophy/theology. It's how he builds his "worlds" to be populated by his characters.
Naaah.
He do not build his new worlds -- he exploring with it OURS.
And that's all that big difference from others -- Lem have.
Like in that Truth -- did you not admitted it for yourself -- how scrupulous Lem are with technical details??? Do you think he just showing off?
His works... that is not idle imagineing. But more like Einstain's "thought experiments".
Like... why Solaris have that thining ocean?
But you (should) know the answer. We discussed his magna opus -- he percieved development of civilization UP to that point, when it becomes one enormous computer (to say it in simple terms)...
So... his writing method is not like of other sci-fi writers. Like from idea ("imagined" in a drunk stake or under narcotics, maybe) directly to writing.
Like "strange idea came to me -- what if there'd be WHOLE thinking ocean???".
But.
What scientifical premices for development of Civilization is?
Engulfing all planet in some syntethic lifeform(s)?
Well... yeah, let's say... like an ocean... to a human eye.
What it would be -- for people to communicate with it? (to explore the idea)
Death is the end, as "sure" as taxes extracted from citizens for supporting others/ governments projects/goals (not your own). Of course it is interesting. It's the point at which the collection of cells screams, "enough!"
And your observations about Lem's techniques are spot-on. He is extending scientific and mathematical principles as thought experiments, positing successful communication scenarios between life forms and inanimate objects, other alien life forms, etc. I'm reading another short story now, "126 seconds?", in which he posits a computer being able to anticipate communications from distant sources (news outlets) and produce results even when normal/ designated communications channels are interrupted.
I watched a rather simple YouTube video the other day, which offered a similar observation upon the principle of collective intelligences, and their degradation as normal channels get "cut".
It is a field ripe with possibilities and strange outcomes.
As for jazz, yes, I like some results. Take snippets of "scripted music" and re-order them spontaneously (analogously) in different combinations. Much like the post-modern philosophical principles of de-contextualization/ re-contextualization. Or more as Deleuze and Guittari would state, deterritorializing and creating new "lines of flight"
What scientifical premices for development of Civilization is?
I'm not sure how "scientific this is" but you simply need to "capture" a population in a fertile environment. Civilizations develop in areas (like the Nile Valley) where a population is trapped by deserts and must cooperate to share the benefits of a specific environmental resource. The "cyclopian" principle. You "build walls around it". Stone walls (or cell walls?), create a perimeter defense preventing others from using/ exploiting it to the occupant's detriment. I think that the layout of the ancient temples at Luxor demonstrate the principle rather thoroughly. You should study them. I think I've told this story many times to others, but maybe you can figure it out for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions.
ps - the location of the Luxor temple complexes to the Nile itself and the "Valley of the Kings" (where the pharoes are buried) is also extremely relevant, as they duplicate the locations of Orion (Man)/The Milky Way (Nile)/ and (I forget, Scorpio? Whatever the "shaft" in the Great Pyramid of Giza points to it).
I'm a terrorist (not wanting to become Type 1). You are a futurist (can't wait to get to Type 1). Evolution's Oppenheimerian chain reaction is underway.
E: "Ahh the man of the moment. You once had (maybe held?) a a reception for me in Berlin you gave me an award." O: "Yes" E: "You all thought that I had lost the ability to understand what I had started, so the award really wasn't for me it was for all of you hmm? Now its your turn to deal with consequences of your achievement, and one day when they punished you enough they'll serve you salmon and potato salad, make speeches, give you a medal, pat you on the back tell you all is forgiven. Just remember it wont be for you, it will be for them"
O: "When I came to you with those calculations, we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world..." E: "I remember it well. What of it?" O: "I believe we did"
They just trying to impose their views on Reality. Like Dems, like Derpy here do.
Do you think jazzman KNOW/can predict what it will be playing next? ;-)
\\Orion (Man)/The Milky Way (Nile)/ and (I forget, Scorpio? Whatever the "shaft" in the Great Pyramid of Giza points to it).
Sirius?
\\I'm not sure how "scientific this is" but you simply need to "capture" a population in a fertile environment.
I mean Civilization not in planetary. But in galactical sense.
As I said before. "What happens on Green mile, stays on Green mile".
If we'd stay here... all we'd only create -- some remnants for curious E.T. xenoarcheologist... well, maybe he will be SAME or even more excited as you are of that Luxor temple...
but for ones who build that Luxor temple -- what for them in it? Yeah. NOTHING. :-((((
\\Much like the post-modern philosophical principles of de-contextualization/ re-contextualization.
Well... you know Lem's (and mine)... OR mine (and Lem's) POV on it? ;-)
\\Of course it is interesting. It's the point at which the collection of cells screams, "enough!"
While it still a process. And not end result.
I meaned that.
Yawn.
\\I watched a rather simple YouTube video the other day, which offered a similar observation upon the principle of collective intelligences, and their degradation as normal channels get "cut".
\\It is a field ripe with possibilities and strange outcomes.
Yap.
And predicted it. HOW??? :-)))
Well... you blaming me Type 1 (or 4)... while I just curious...
It does get weirder, but it's really a matter of dominance and functions allocated (if I'm allowed to speculate). Like the "atheist" and "Christian" in the same body. During the day, the atheist is in charge (beta wave dominant). At night, the Christian (alpha wave dominant). Because the atheist performs inductive reasoning and the Christian, deductive. I suspect that the Theta waves are more limbically dominant.... and "consciouslness" resides in the wave patterns sending data to different parts of the brain at different times of "dominance". In other words, the brain is a "shared" resource with the "parts of the brain serving different, but collective, functions.
Because the atheist performs inductive reasoning and the Christian, deductive.
erratum. Swap that, the atheist is deductive. :(The right hemisphere inductively builds and postulates the picture of the "whole", the left deductively breaks it down into the smallest parts (or quanta ;)))
Foucault speculated (Archeology of Knowledge) that a major shift in human development occurred around the late eighteenth century. He called it the "medical gaze".
Before then (16th/17th centures), men were "religious" (right hemisphere dominant during day). The medical gaze developed and they became mostly left hemisphere dominant during the day. Deductive reasoning. Poe wrote his first "detective" novels and men became Sherlock Holmesian... deductive dominnt.
You want to "build up" your Civilization (Stage 4)... and I want to tear it down (Stage 0). Can we work at a pace of two steps forward, then one step back? Cuz it's time for a step back for a while.
Like a bozer who goes to his corner and speaks with his trainer between rounds. It's time you talked to your trainer.... gain some objective insight as to how the fight's going.
So if I think in words, and you in pictures... and I talk by speaking words, and you in drawing prictures (dreams)... are we "aware/ conscious" of one another?
The fact that I think I'm "one" and not several intelligences is an illusion. And if I lose this "illusion" (steady brain wave pattern/ timing) I become schizophrenic. The brain waves aren't synching (like computer oscillator) and sending them to the right place (right (night)/ left(day) prefrontal cortex). Dominance in "consciousness" isn't so much a specific structure (although there are neuronal structures/ circuits for calculating 'difference' and "sameness" and prioritizing "difference" for attention/ further processing) as a "desstination" for the brain wave signals. Sometimes left prefrontal cortex (day).... sometimes right prefrontal cortex (night), and sometimes deep diving into the limbic (id). Under all circumstances, I have the illusion of having a single consciousness, but when it leaves me (the brain wave) I become "unconscious" in that hemisphere... but still sharing/processing the data from other sensory parts (for those neuronal "structures" to calculate sameness/difference).
\\Foucault speculated (Archeology of Knowledge) that a major shift in human development occurred around the late eighteenth century. He called it the "medical gaze".
Because of what? Because of technologies.
That is when gentrisation started -- more people working in towns.
\\So if you read Lem's "137 seconds" you'll understand why my hair was blown back.
I have read Lem decades ago... but my hair still standing. ;-P
\\So if I think in words, and you in pictures... and I talk by speaking words, and you in drawing prictures (dreams)... are we "aware/ conscious" of one another?
And how that scientists of Laputa was tolking?
\\You want to "build up" your Civilization (Stage 4)... and I want to tear it down (Stage 0). Can we work at a pace of two steps forward, then one step back? Cuz it's time for a step back for a while.
I described how my tech can be used for gardening of oceans. It will be quite like New Fronteer. Especially in Space. You can start your Stage whereever you like...
Step back -- not possible.
Even light to medium post-apocalipsis will not make it -- as people would remember old glory, and will try to re-develop. No... they will need to -- to survive.
And full-scale one -- will only make that hiden tribes from deepest Amazonia to move out... and to start all anew.
So, New Fronteer in Spasce -- it's your best chance. ;-)
Especially as you'd be able to participate and even direct it, and taste the sweet fruits of results.
Unlike other scenarios...
Well... anyway. Stage 1 (what a moronic definition, yeah) do not eliminate Stage 0.
Evolutional systems CONSIST of ALL stages. That's why they are so robust. ;-)
When Euripides wrote his tragedies, he didn't write them for the General Athenian audience (general peer). He wrote them to entertain and impress ONE man. Socrates.
...parallel loops of differing "intelligences". Auditory. Visual. Olfactory. Limbic (which are multiple). All the way down to cells. With one intelligence that sums them all.
\\...parallel loops of differing "intelligences". Auditory. Visual. Olfactory. Limbic (which are multiple). All the way down to cells. With one intelligence that sums them all.
Do you know about that Achille's Heel of Multi-Processor Systems?
"A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power"
\\"A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power"
Ancient wisdom becomes not that precise... and even outdated, with time.
\\What is it?
Too many processors... and you need to waste most of the time on communications, instead of any work done. :-(
I bet you know from your experience too.
(that's why I talking with you here... instead of crowded forum of socnets)
That's the problem. American SRI and RAND led wargamers only play "hard kill games". You need to consult with the Brits for proper games of "intrigue".
They are that dark horse in a race nowaday. Who knows what they'd do.
Well... no, they already showed their feathers -- with their new maps revealed with territorial gains from neighbours. With whaty they do on south china sea.
That is clearly imperialistic fits. And there is nothing that could subside their hunger.
Not teathless response from USA, for sure.
And if only you'll allow EVEN SMALLEST gain -- that'll be turning point and no way back to peace.
And if they'll be careful, and meticulous... they will steamroll over you. ;-P
That's why I said about my game idea -- it not only interesting because of (unexisting to date) game UX values.
But it also well-suiting for social-network in/around that game... and you knw, that socail networking -- it's new oil of nowaday, isn't it?
But even more to it -- there will be possible to collect in-game data. Of how people come to and make decisions, about political matters -- see, how important... NO, invaluable would be such info for inteligence? ;-)
To know HOW your opponent thinking... EVEN BEFORE it'll even come to him...
And also... to simulate and predict different scenarios of political development.
All thruogh simulation of history... in a form of mere fun game. ;-)
151 comments:
Structural knowledge.
Means... it depends on context.
How could it be otherwise, it isn't equipped with sensors or ESP. I just read Lem's "Lymphater's Formula"...where omniscience is achieved through ESP. This infers that "intelligence" lies in communication to learn the a priori that all "other's" have learned.
...like with Achilles' Myrmidons, knowledge "springs" from the Earth itself.
So what is magnetic reconnection if not a way for the Earth to gather "solar" intelligence?
...and what is "light" and "sound" but means to collect "reflected" and "directed' intelligences?
...or smell, to detect "emitted" intelligence?
The slime's structure forms and contains its' memory.
...of past "failures" and "successes".
:)
\\...where omniscience is achieved through ESP.
One need to keep in mind circumstances of time and place.
1961 year when it was written... it was not unscientifical to talk about ESP. ;-P
Oh...
That is deep philosophical question.
I tryed to come up with answer to very early. Instigated by Lem.
You know, that nowaday Science uses Claude Shannon's formula, isn't it?
And though its total briliance, in respect to DNA for example it is totally clueless.
As it talks about "messages" and "means of deleivery" of that messages.
But... WHO was SENDER of that message??? In the case of DNA inside our bodies? ;-)
Or inside any bacteria?
Any primordial lifeform?
That's how I came to that "structural knowledge" notion. In respect to "measured knowladge"... as we know in our Sciences so far.
Well, we have genetics. And Information Technologies.
But so far... I didn't see (well, I never tryed to find, but I think I would hear about it... if there'd be) a phylosopher, which would explore and tryed to answer to such questions.
PS btw, do you checking your mailbox?
Nope, I don't check that mailbox. I do check this one occasionally (freesoul1957@hotmail.com)
I have many sock puppets and each has its' own e-mail (needed to establish blog for sock puppet). I used to fight in many "blog wars" and needed many fighters to add chaos and confusion, or gather intelligence from opposition blogs.
Sound familiar?
Kerckhoffs's principle.
Mine relied on its' opposite.
...but I became more and more "open" about my numerous identities over time. But I still do appreciate the "confusion". :)
ps- Over 3/4 of my comments get deleted in "moderation" at the link.
Answered there as One Bite... but, chances to be unwind is slim. ;-P
\\Mine relied on its' opposite.
Security by obscurity?
Security by obduraty. ;)
No, actually it's more of a mind bullet kinda thing like you've got going on. Instill paranoia, never let them know "who" they're talking to. If they think I'm an intelligence agency or political infiltrator, all the better. Especially if you play "both sides". have "sympathetic" sock puppets as well as "hostile" ones.
If they rely on metadata, spoof the metadata (ala use anonymouse or proxy server for allied socks). I don't trust metadata. I trust my judgement. Which is to NEVER completely "trust" anything but my own judgement.
Two factor authentication? 'Ef that. I'd have to care too much.
I think it was Archiilochus of Naxos who advised that one could best determine who another person was by his "song". The "song" usually remains consistent across identities. So I used to try and sing different songs.
Gay songs. Feminist songs. Racial songs. Conservative songs. Anti-feminist songs. They each have their own rhythms.
...and their own "ideology'.
I sang Marxist and Communist songs. Maoist Naxalite was one of my faves. Long live COMINTERN! ;)
Εἰμὶ δ' ἐγὼ θεράπων μὲν Ἐνυαλίοιο ἄνακτος,
καὶ Μουσέων ἐρατὸν δῶρον ἐπιστάμενος.
I am the servant of Lord Enyalios [Ares, god of war],
and skilled in the lovely gift of the Muses.[28]
-Archilochus of Paros? Yes, Paros.
\\Security by obduraty. ;)
I do not want to wound you with it.
But you are kitten in it... in compare to such rock solid obDurate... as Derpy is. ;-)
\\ Which is to NEVER completely "trust" anything but my own judgement.
Yup.
\\ Long live COMINTERN! ;)
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
PS Path of war is path of lies...
That's why I omit doing to much positive assertions.
If I said something that "I am".
It can be true.
But same time it can be lie.
Or seen as "lies" by paranoid or just suspicious enough...
Predictably... not unclosed. ;-P
DNA is the "message" and sperm/egg, the "messenger" Virus = noise? Message "change agent"?
Sender lacks one of the following: strength, means, will, cause.
Receiver has what sender lacks.
Communication system (including message/messenger) varies but has strength, means, will, cause to xmit message with minimal noise.
Above relates to Shannon.
If the xmtr's goal is taken up by the rcvr and missing element successfully applied, it is intelligent. If it fails, but then can learn to achieve the goal, it is still intelligent. If it fails, it's stupid, unless it re-transmits the message to a new receiver that is more capable and can achieve the original senders goal. The goal of DNA is "immortality'.
Evolution is the introduction of noise by random variation that either increases or decreases the ability of the receiver to respond successfully to the message and achieve the goal of immortality.
There are many evolutionary "dead ends".
...and one possible "successs"?
...or more?
"The Truth" seems to represent a form of Lemnian "theology" A benevolent world of "energy-based" life forms.
May the force be with you.
ps - Very cool.
ps - As Zizek said, "This simple persistence against all odds is ultimately the stuff true heroes are made of. We learn about such cases only sometimes and only years later."
Antigone, we barely knew ye.
Antigone
daughter of Oedipus, her name in Greek might mean "in place of a mother," from anti "opposite, in place of" (see anti-) + gonē "womb, childbirth, generation," from root of gignesthai "to be born" related to genos "race, birth, descent" (from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups).
Entries linking to Antigone
anti-
word-forming element of Greek origin meaning "against, opposed to, opposite of, instead," shortened to ant- before vowels and -h-, from Old French anti- and directly from Latin anti-, from Greek anti (prep.) "over, against, opposite; instead, in the place of; as good as; at the price of; for the sake of; compared with; in opposition to; in return; counter-," from PIE *anti "against," also "in front of, before" (from root *ant- "front, forehead," with derivatives meaning "in front of, before"), which became anti- in Italian (hence antipasto) and French.
It is cognate with Sanskrit anti "over, against," and Old English and- (the first element in answer). A common compounding element in Greek, in some combinations it became anth- for euphonic reasons. It appears in some words in Middle English but was not commonly used in English word formations until modern times. In a few English words (anticipate, antique) it represents Latin ante.
In noun compounds where it has the sense of "opposed to, opposite" (Antichrist, anti-communist) the accent remains on the anti-; in adjectives where it retains its old prepositional sense "against, opposed to," the accent remains on the other element (anti-Christian, anti-slavery).
cont...
*gene-
*genə-, also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
It forms all or part of: Antigone; autogenous; benign; cognate; congener; congenial; congenital; connate; cosmogony; cryogenic; degenerate; engender; engine; epigone; eugenics; -gen; gendarme; gender; gene; genealogy; general; generate; generation; generic; generous; genesis; -genesis; genial; -genic; genital; genitive; genius; genocide; genotype; genre; gens; gent; genteel; gentile; gentle; gentry; genuine; genus; -geny; germ; german (adj.) "of the same parents or grandparents;" germane; germinal; germinate; germination; gingerly; gonad; gono-; gonorrhea; heterogeneous; homogeneous; homogenize; homogenous; impregnate; indigenous; ingenious; ingenuous; innate; jaunty; kermes; kin; kindergarten; kindred; king; kind (n.) "class, sort, variety;" kind (adj.) "friendly, deliberately doing good to others;" Kriss Kringle; malign; miscegenation; nada; naive; nascent; natal; Natalie; nation; native; nature; nee; neonate; Noel; oncogene; ontogeny; photogenic; phylogeny; pregnant (adj.1) "with child;" primogenitor; primogeniture; progenitor; progeny; puisne; puny; renaissance; theogony; wunderkind.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit janati "begets, bears," janah "offspring, child, person," janman- "birth, origin," jatah "born;" Avestan zizanenti "they bear;" Greek gignesthai "to become, happen," genos "race, kind," gonos "birth, offspring, stock;" Latin gignere "to beget," gnasci "to be born," genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," genius "procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality," ingenium "inborn character," possibly germen "shoot, bud, embryo, germ;" Lithuanian gentis "kinsmen;" Gothic kuni "race;" Old English cennan "beget, create," gecynd "kind, nature, race;" Old High German kind "child;" Old Irish ro-genar "I was born;" Welsh geni "to be born;" Armenian cnanim "I bear, I am born."
\\Receiver has what sender lacks.
Hah...
and where all this??? in that formula?
That's it... there is NO phylosophy around it. (Or... just I don't know? Well, whatever, I know "quality" of modern phylosophers, so, don't care)
\\ If it fails, it's stupid,
It's good as euristic.
But not as good base for sciene.
Or even worse, for phylosophy. (e.g. Nitcshe)
\\"The Truth" seems to represent a form of Lemnian "theology" A benevolent world of "energy-based" life forms.
Naaah.
He just exploring possibilities.
Natural thing for sci-fi writer (and not that natural... for phylosopher ;-))
IMHO.
His power is in ability to stay inquering... till the very end. (ending of his last sci-fi work suggests it)
My another try THERE.
""\\Let the adults continue to do the adulting
Well...
if becoming "adults" mean hiding in cosy little echochmaber sucking own finger...
da fuk with such "adults"... fearing even to disclose anonimouses.
Go make your echo-chamber airtight, suckers. ;-P""
as Veni vidi vici ;-P
In the case of DNA, reproduction for the sake of immortality is the goal. DNA is the message, sperm is messenger/xmtr. Egg is receiver which HAS what the sender lacks, an egg with the "other half of the message" including all its retained viral "noise"... and a "womb" to protect/feed the egg/sperm combination and achieve the goal... produce live offspring.
There is strength, means, will (of couple having sex), and cause (produce offspring).
Today we have many more "means" for achieving this goal (ie - in vitro fertilization, egg freezing, sperm freezing, etc.) and wills (spontaneous sex, deliberate egg implantation into surrogates, etc.) all "tech".
Solaris follows the same pattern as "The Truth". Intelligent stars, planets, etc... with a god-like communicative ability. His story about "Lemphater's? formula" also postulated 2 possible mathematical outcomes, with one being much more complicated than the other. Lem's philosophy/theology. It's how he builds his "worlds" to be populated by his characters.
Like Tolkien's Silmarillion?
...or Asimov's eventual tying of robot stories into Foundation series.
His diegetic technique.
Maybe Shannon's formula was only an incomplete system block diagram. I added the strength, means, cause, will from Hamlet for two of the boxes and posited the "cause" of the communication... a "lack" (ala Lacanian objet petit 'a) by either sender or receiver and as "purpose" of the communication.
I'm allowed to synthesize philosophies, aren't I? Like "A beautiful mind"... when Adam Smith's economic formula was "incomplete"?
Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
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. Examples gross as Earth exhort me:
Witness this army of such mass and charge,
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puffed
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death, and danger dare,
Even for an eggshell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
btw - Ever see "Lucy"?
:)
You can call MY philosophy, "Hollywood Meta".
So if you wish to smother this philosophy in its' cradle, now's your chance.
...or you can postulate that your tech is the means for fullfilling this "lack".
...or show the "intelligence" of Lessing's son.
:P
\\...or you can postulate that your tech is the means for fullfilling this "lack".
Means?
Well, Lem's definition of what tech is -- a way to state goal, and then to solve it.
Apparent, isn't it? That intertwineing between goal and results. ;-)
\\btw - Ever see "Lucy"?
On big screen. :-)
Well... Besson as ever --spectacular.
But everything else... is just a trawesty.
\\Shakespeare, "Hamlet"
\\How all occasions do inform against me
Do you know what is a difference between jazz... and scripted music?
That's it... even if I'd get flawlessly this your cultural references.
There'd still be that difference between literature and real life.
Each our life it's not opera... written from beginning to the end.
But a jazz improvization. ;-)
\\I'm allowed to synthesize philosophies, aren't I?
All question is -- do you like the results? ;-)
\\ Lem's philosophy/theology. It's how he builds his "worlds" to be populated by his characters.
Naaah.
He do not build his new worlds -- he exploring with it OURS.
And that's all that big difference from others -- Lem have.
Like in that Truth -- did you not admitted it for yourself -- how scrupulous Lem are with technical details??? Do you think he just showing off?
His works... that is not idle imagineing. But more like Einstain's "thought experiments".
Like... why Solaris have that thining ocean?
But you (should) know the answer. We discussed his magna opus -- he percieved development of civilization UP to that point, when it becomes one enormous computer (to say it in simple terms)...
So... his writing method is not like of other sci-fi writers. Like from idea ("imagined" in a drunk stake or under narcotics, maybe) directly to writing.
Like "strange idea came to me -- what if there'd be WHOLE thinking ocean???".
But.
What scientifical premices for development of Civilization is?
Engulfing all planet in some syntethic lifeform(s)?
Well... yeah, let's say... like an ocean... to a human eye.
What it would be -- for people to communicate with it? (to explore the idea)
\\...or show the "intelligence" of Lessing's son.
Do you think I have no experience of such tings?
Or... you try to facilitate me to talk about it?
Well... Death... is simplest of things.
And as such... not that interesting.
Death is the end, as "sure" as taxes extracted from citizens for supporting others/ governments projects/goals (not your own). Of course it is interesting. It's the point at which the collection of cells screams, "enough!"
And your observations about Lem's techniques are spot-on. He is extending scientific and mathematical principles as thought experiments, positing successful communication scenarios between life forms and inanimate objects, other alien life forms, etc. I'm reading another short story now, "126 seconds?", in which he posits a computer being able to anticipate communications from distant sources (news outlets) and produce results even when normal/ designated communications channels are interrupted.
I watched a rather simple YouTube video the other day, which offered a similar observation upon the principle of collective intelligences, and their degradation as normal channels get "cut".
It is a field ripe with possibilities and strange outcomes.
As for jazz, yes, I like some results. Take snippets of "scripted music" and re-order them spontaneously (analogously) in different combinations. Much like the post-modern philosophical principles of de-contextualization/ re-contextualization. Or more as Deleuze and Guittari would state, deterritorializing and creating new "lines of flight"
What scientifical premices for development of Civilization is?
I'm not sure how "scientific this is" but you simply need to "capture" a population in a fertile environment. Civilizations develop in areas (like the Nile Valley) where a population is trapped by deserts and must cooperate to share the benefits of a specific environmental resource. The "cyclopian" principle. You "build walls around it". Stone walls (or cell walls?), create a perimeter defense preventing others from using/ exploiting it to the occupant's detriment. I think that the layout of the ancient temples at Luxor demonstrate the principle rather thoroughly. You should study them. I think I've told this story many times to others, but maybe you can figure it out for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions.
ps - the location of the Luxor temple complexes to the Nile itself and the "Valley of the Kings" (where the pharoes are buried) is also extremely relevant, as they duplicate the locations of Orion (Man)/The Milky Way (Nile)/ and (I forget, Scorpio? Whatever the "shaft" in the Great Pyramid of Giza points to it).
The Egyptians wanted their messages/ communications to last, so they built them in stone using "sacred geometry". Same with the Greeks/ Acropolis.
This isn't random. It's "jazz" (sacred geometry). It represent the "Greek mind" (which the Parthanon is an individual mind)
A larger map of Luxor/Karnac/ Valley of Kings relations:P
:P
'Ef "Type 1" civilizations! Type 0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@
...we represent the extremes. I'm type 0, YOU are Type 4 "the Q".
I'm a terrorist (not wanting to become Type 1). You are a futurist (can't wait to get to Type 1). Evolution's Oppenheimerian chain reaction is underway.
E: "Ahh the man of the moment. You once had (maybe held?) a a reception for me in Berlin you gave me an award."
O: "Yes"
E: "You all thought that I had lost the ability to understand what I had started, so the award really wasn't for me it was for all of you hmm? Now its your turn to deal with consequences of your achievement, and one day when they punished you enough they'll serve you salmon and potato salad, make speeches, give you a medal, pat you on the back tell you all is forgiven. Just remember it wont be for you, it will be for them"
O: "When I came to you with those calculations, we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world..."
E: "I remember it well. What of it?"
O: "I believe we did"
You saying it in a way that suggests you are knowing how want translates into have.
Maybe you think I know it too? No, I don't. :-)))
I know some historical examples... but they are -- unhelpful. (like sad story about Nikola Tesla)
\\'Ef "Type 1" civilizations! Type 0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you believe this bullshit from a commie? ;-P
\\This isn't random. It's "jazz" (sacred geometry).
And how that is jazz???
They just trying to impose their views on Reality. Like Dems, like Derpy here do.
Do you think jazzman KNOW/can predict what it will be playing next? ;-)
\\Orion (Man)/The Milky Way (Nile)/ and (I forget, Scorpio? Whatever the "shaft" in the Great Pyramid of Giza points to it).
Sirius?
\\I'm not sure how "scientific this is" but you simply need to "capture" a population in a fertile environment.
I mean Civilization not in planetary. But in galactical sense.
As I said before. "What happens on Green mile, stays on Green mile".
If we'd stay here... all we'd only create -- some remnants for curious E.T. xenoarcheologist... well, maybe he will be SAME or even more excited as you are of that Luxor temple...
but for ones who build that Luxor temple -- what for them in it? Yeah. NOTHING. :-((((
\\Much like the post-modern philosophical principles of de-contextualization/ re-contextualization.
Well... you know Lem's (and mine)... OR mine (and Lem's) POV on it? ;-)
\\Of course it is interesting. It's the point at which the collection of cells screams, "enough!"
While it still a process. And not end result.
I meaned that.
Yawn.
\\I watched a rather simple YouTube video the other day, which offered a similar observation upon the principle of collective intelligences, and their degradation as normal channels get "cut".
\\It is a field ripe with possibilities and strange outcomes.
Yap.
And predicted it. HOW??? :-)))
Well... you blaming me Type 1 (or 4)... while I just curious...
(in wisperin voice)And selfish.
It does get weirder, but it's really a matter of dominance and functions allocated (if I'm allowed to speculate). Like the "atheist" and "Christian" in the same body. During the day, the atheist is in charge (beta wave dominant). At night, the Christian (alpha wave dominant). Because the atheist performs inductive reasoning and the Christian, deductive. I suspect that the Theta waves are more limbically dominant.... and "consciouslness" resides in the wave patterns sending data to different parts of the brain at different times of "dominance". In other words, the brain is a "shared" resource with the "parts of the brain serving different, but collective, functions.
Because the atheist performs inductive reasoning and the Christian, deductive.
erratum. Swap that, the atheist is deductive. :(The right hemisphere inductively builds and postulates the picture of the "whole", the left deductively breaks it down into the smallest parts (or quanta ;)))
But, but... Christianity it's SuperEgo.
Or for at least trying to pretend to be. ;-)
Yes, right hemisphere is SuperEgo, dominant at night.
Well... in my realm that split called Logical-Intuitive.
So, definitely a cultural difference here. ;-)
See the "erratum".
Building the "whole" picture is intuitive (and logical). Inductive.
Breaking down into details is deductive (and logical). Deductive
Nietzsche's rope walker vs. jumping joker.
\\Yes, right hemisphere is SuperEgo, dominant at night.
Ehm???
I am not very versed in it... but never heard about it too.
Vocalisation/Speaking centers are there... but that do not make it "dominant".
More like... dominant zones are individual thing. AFAIK.
\\Building the "whole" picture is intuitive (and logical). Inductive.
\\Breaking down into details is deductive (and logical). Deductive
Never was able to grok what's the point of splitting it this way.
Especially as nowaday, from data of neuroscience especially -- it is holistic cognitive process...
To make picture, we need such cognitive abilities.
But, to construct logical clauses, we need em too.
Derpy is good model example here -- how he unable BOTH.
To grok metaphors... and logic too. ;-)
Foucault speculated (Archeology of Knowledge) that a major shift in human development occurred around the late eighteenth century. He called it the "medical gaze".
Before then (16th/17th centures), men were "religious" (right hemisphere dominant during day). The medical gaze developed and they became mostly left hemisphere dominant during the day. Deductive reasoning. Poe wrote his first "detective" novels and men became Sherlock Holmesian... deductive dominnt.
Dominance does vary in hemispheres... Left handed vs right handed people 85% - 15%. Left-brained/right-brained day-time dominance.
Is Parmenides your "day boss" of consciousness, or Heraclitus?
Which way do YOUR beta waves flow during the day?
Cus like you "motor control" centers, you're partially paralyzed and put off-line. Wait for night... and exact your "revenge' (dreamstate). SuperEgo.
You want to "build up" your Civilization (Stage 4)... and I want to tear it down (Stage 0). Can we work at a pace of two steps forward, then one step back? Cuz it's time for a step back for a while.
Like a bozer who goes to his corner and speaks with his trainer between rounds. It's time you talked to your trainer.... gain some objective insight as to how the fight's going.
...and figure out the "opportune" time (kairos) to strike.
Left brain dominant in words... right brain "pictures". Left brain recessive "smell"... right brain recessive "taste"?
So if I think in words, and you in pictures... and I talk by speaking words, and you in drawing prictures (dreams)... are we "aware/ conscious" of one another?
...and what if a third/fouth? party gives us pains and pleasures.... are they "conscious" too?
...perhaps only for very short times produced by different brain wave patters?
The fact that I think I'm "one" and not several intelligences is an illusion. And if I lose this "illusion" (steady brain wave pattern/ timing) I become schizophrenic. The brain waves aren't synching (like computer oscillator) and sending them to the right place (right (night)/ left(day) prefrontal cortex). Dominance in "consciousness" isn't so much a specific structure (although there are neuronal structures/ circuits for calculating 'difference' and "sameness" and prioritizing "difference" for attention/ further processing) as a "desstination" for the brain wave signals. Sometimes left prefrontal cortex (day).... sometimes right prefrontal cortex (night), and sometimes deep diving into the limbic (id). Under all circumstances, I have the illusion of having a single consciousness, but when it leaves me (the brain wave) I become "unconscious" in that hemisphere... but still sharing/processing the data from other sensory parts (for those neuronal "structures" to calculate sameness/difference).
All pure speculation, but hey, everyone needs a paradigm to work from.
So if you read Lem's "137 seconds" you'll understand why my hair was blown back.
\\Foucault speculated (Archeology of Knowledge) that a major shift in human development occurred around the late eighteenth century. He called it the "medical gaze".
Because of what? Because of technologies.
That is when gentrisation started -- more people working in towns.
\\So if you read Lem's "137 seconds" you'll understand why my hair was blown back.
I have read Lem decades ago... but my hair still standing. ;-P
\\So if I think in words, and you in pictures... and I talk by speaking words, and you in drawing prictures (dreams)... are we "aware/ conscious" of one another?
And how that scientists of Laputa was tolking?
\\You want to "build up" your Civilization (Stage 4)... and I want to tear it down (Stage 0). Can we work at a pace of two steps forward, then one step back? Cuz it's time for a step back for a while.
I described how my tech can be used for gardening of oceans.
It will be quite like New Fronteer. Especially in Space.
You can start your Stage whereever you like...
Step back -- not possible.
Even light to medium post-apocalipsis will not make it -- as people would remember old glory, and will try to re-develop. No... they will need to -- to survive.
And full-scale one -- will only make that hiden tribes from deepest Amazonia to move out... and to start all anew.
So, New Fronteer in Spasce -- it's your best chance. ;-)
Especially as you'd be able to participate and even direct it, and taste the sweet fruits of results.
Unlike other scenarios...
Well... anyway. Stage 1 (what a moronic definition, yeah) do not eliminate Stage 0.
Evolutional systems CONSIST of ALL stages. That's why they are so robust. ;-)
/Because of technologies. Enlightenment tech.
...but 1st, "Reformation tech". The start of religious individuation and secularization.
...stop listening to the priest, and gnothi seuton.
...which is the moment we have currently reached with secular democracy. The "reformation" of the secular State.
Secret Hot Heads 3 Teaser ;-P
\\ Enlightenment tech.
Depends on how one defines that goal. ;-)
But so far... nobody was too successful.
:P
Love is...
Time for Asimov's "Zeroeth Law".
R.Daniel need to be made and programmed by someone... fir that. ;-)
...or a shift in human brain wave patterns into a new state of consciousness. ;P
...one hopefully not involving 2nd order observation and performance for a "general humanity peer" as a requirement for an act of profilicity.
Final State Macine. ;-P
No place for ""a new state of consciousness"
lol! There is no "being" (final state)... only "becoming". Ontology 101. ;P
Identity "tech" (even for robots).
\\...one hopefully not involving 2nd order observation and performance for a "general humanity peer" as a requirement for an act of profilicity.
It's all about epicycles...
huh, feedback loops.
and loops all way down. ;-)
When Euripides wrote his tragedies, he didn't write them for the General Athenian audience (general peer). He wrote them to entertain and impress ONE man. Socrates.
\\lol! There is no "being" (final state)...
Cybernetics.
Final State Machine or Fixed Size Automaton.
System, number of states of which is finite.
And as such -- possible ways it can behave -- too.
comunication between people -- it's only available possibility to overcome that limitation.
As principlaes of combinarotics say that even small number of elements can burst into nearly infinite number of possible connections between em.
...parallel loops of differing "intelligences". Auditory. Visual. Olfactory. Limbic (which are multiple). All the way down to cells. With one intelligence that sums them all.
(and "rests" by sharing that summation capacity).
System with many subsystems, always within larger/greater system. Universe within Multiverses. Infinite Multiverses.
No Final state (Everything, Everywhere, All at once). No Everything Bagel of Nihilism. ;P
1st law of thermodynamics.
\\...parallel loops of differing "intelligences". Auditory. Visual. Olfactory. Limbic (which are multiple). All the way down to cells. With one intelligence that sums them all.
Do you know about that Achille's Heel of Multi-Processor Systems?
"A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power"
What is it?
\\1st law of thermodynamics.
That's for physical systems.
But we talking about systems with "Structural knowledge" here, remember?
Most of that physically possible states... mean Death, for such systems. :-(
\\"A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power"
Ancient wisdom becomes not that precise... and even outdated, with time.
\\What is it?
Too many processors... and you need to waste most of the time on communications, instead of any work done. :-(
I bet you know from your experience too.
(that's why I talking with you here... instead of crowded forum of socnets)
Humans aren't immortal.
Suns go nova.
That is part of being Final State Machines... yes.
Well... stars are FSMs too... as well as whole Universe.
Infinity... that bitch, laughing at us as ever... ;-)
...but yeah, I know what you mean. Big Science has WAY too many processors.
...which uses one "paradigm" to unify them "all". Until it can't, and a new one "can". For "Synchronicity".
...and which induces "psychosis".
Such is the problem of civilization. You're always adding/discovering new 'states". I wonder how Luhman handles that.
...and New "techs".
...perhaps that why I love this painting.
...but you chase Kairos, and never wish to rest. :(
:P
:)
\\For "Synchronicity".
???
Well...
or... Creator of the Worlds. ;-)
Coordination of activities/goals/methods? of the independent elements?
You mean Synergy? ;-P
Well... that's what creates problem for that Mutli-Processoring -- overbearing tryes to keep in sync what is inherently not. ;-)
Watched documentary.
"War gamers"
Insightful.
Holistic overview.
Tell that to my Academy instructors that had been on the Murmansk run.
:P
Well... it showing how that thing -- decision making, looks like under the hood.
Unproductive.
They not only was unable to use talants and come to decisions rationally.
Most important information was almost lost... and barely founded back in the process.
Like one of personages have said "Navy knew it... but almost forgot".
And it took em more than a year of struggles.
PS Surelly, that is what Lem have had on his mind...
I watched this...
The Americans ignored them entirely. And when they joined the effort, ignored all the lessons that the Brits had learned.
Like I've said many times, British are the masters of soft-kill. Americans are hard-kill.
It's the same today.
Only... White Whale before you... too big, too impossible.
For hard-kill. ;-P
Without gaining intelligence... through wargames? ;-)
That's the problem. American SRI and RAND led wargamers only play "hard kill games". You need to consult with the Brits for proper games of "intrigue".
You know, perfidious Albion.
btw - We do do decent counter-torpedo (hardkill) simulations.
...but the Brits have a much more robust arsenal of countermeasure options.
The Russians developed a few as well.
If you inclined to believe to their mere words... and cartooms. ;-P
Well... I refered to Chinese.
They are that dark horse in a race nowaday. Who knows what they'd do.
Well... no, they already showed their feathers -- with their new maps revealed with territorial gains from neighbours. With whaty they do on south china sea.
That is clearly imperialistic fits. And there is nothing that could subside their hunger.
Not teathless response from USA, for sure.
And if only you'll allow EVEN SMALLEST gain -- that'll be turning point and no way back to peace.
And if they'll be careful, and meticulous... they will steamroll over you. ;-P
That's why I said about my game idea -- it not only interesting because of (unexisting to date) game UX values.
But it also well-suiting for social-network in/around that game... and you knw, that socail networking -- it's new oil of nowaday, isn't it?
But even more to it -- there will be possible to collect in-game data. Of how people come to and make decisions, about political matters -- see, how important... NO, invaluable would be such info for inteligence? ;-)
To know HOW your opponent thinking... EVEN BEFORE it'll even come to him...
And also... to simulate and predict different scenarios of political development.
All thruogh simulation of history... in a form of mere fun game. ;-)
Who needs a game, when you have AcXiom and Jack's Magic Coffee Shop?
The hard part is getting the AI algorithm's to better analyze and report the data.
NASA had a great graphics and visualization tools... but even I had a hard time interpreting them.
\\The hard part is getting the AI algorithm's to better analyze and report the data.
That's why that data need to be controlable.
And where it can be achieved... if not inside gameworld?
Well... that's just my passion talking. Passion toward History.
Wouldn't it be nifty, to know intrinsic details of how that rusty screaching mechanism works???
Post a Comment