“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
I think that sf may be having problems administering the site. I think Warren has some custom code behind the comments feature (not standard from Blogger) and may not understand how it works. The site may be down until Warren has some time to fix whatever problem sf has run into.
All is good at AOW, Dave. How are you FJ? I've been staying out of the frying pan. The heat is too hot and if I cannot change the temperature not wasting the breath I have left! ;)
Good to hear that, Elizabeth. I don't blame you for avoiding the frying pan.
I'm good/ busy. As you can see, I've been learning about the Phantom of the Opera from an interesting commentator. She has a take on the musical that I think's pretty cool.
There is no doubt in my mind that the climate control freaks, and the environmental movement has been thoroughly infiltrated by the Democrats, aka Communists who wish to destroy America from within. The movement not only funds our enemies using taxpayer funds but also allows the evildoers to use our laws against us to limit our economic growth and beneficial progress. When examined closely, these Climate Control NUTS, along with the environmentalists are not only de-growthers to implement wealth redistribution and control the levers of power within our government. A political agenda far outside the original goals of curtailing pollution and providing good stewardship for our natural resources.
To this end, the Democratic Communists have assumed operational control over the Biden Democrat Party
PROGRAM Triangle IMPLICIT NONE REAL :: a, b, c, Area PRINT *, 'Welcome, please enter the& &lengths of the 3 sides.' READ *, a, b, c PRINT *, 'Triangle''s area: ', Area(a,b,c) END PROGRAM Triangle FUNCTION Area(x,y,z) IMPLICIT NONE REAL :: Area ! function type REAL, INTENT( IN ) :: x, y, z REAL :: theta, height theta = ACOS((x**2+y**2-z**2)/(2.0*x*y)) height = x*SIN(theta); Area = 0.5*y*height END FUNCTION Area
All Trolling, all the time https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/11-popular-songs-you-didn-t-realize-are-actually-racist/ar-AAWnKb6?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=fd4ddef24929433f98e9e16ee9c6cc80 https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/relationships/when-you-call-them-out-on-it-they-accuse-you-of-being-uptight-men-called-out-for-boundary-probing-a-predatory-dating-technique/ar-AAWzkIe?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=fd4ddef24929433f98e9e16ee9c6cc80 https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/the-democrats-have-become-the-party-of-bitterness-and-sulking/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/bill-murray-on-inappropriate-behavior-complaint-it-s-been-quite-an-education-for-me/ar-AAWNVGh?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=0a019f0425554d14910f5b1a77f6946e
https://www.insidehook.com/article/sex-and-dating/allosexuality Trampling whats not been ignored. Reconstructing with new material
Talk to Bill Gates. Blogger tries to do SPAM filtering and mostly blocks legit comments. I go through the SPAM bin periodically and restore them. I'll check it now.
There was once Good & Bad. Then the "bad" became "Evil"? The difference is that the "bads" (peasants) decided that the "goods" (aristocrats) were "worse than them"... "Evil".
Life can be much more simple and comforting that way. Perhaps one day you'll invent a love science. Oh, wait, that almost would be like "philo-sophy"... a "love" of "wisdom".
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said... Life can be much more simple and comforting that way. Perhaps one day you'll invent a love science. Oh, wait, that almost would be like "philo-sophy"... a "love" of "wisdom".
Have something against? ;-)
\\\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said... \\Einstein, “Science and religion,”(1954)
\\“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
\\And no, you needn't accept all arguments from Authority.
Sorry, because of my upbringing, I do not even see a point in religion. What is it about? (some obscene analogy here, which could hart feelings of a religious dude/dudette) Cursed socialists to blame. ;-P :-)))
\\...although if the "Authority" cited has survived the Lindy Effect, you might not want to attempt to refute it.
Question is? Authority in what? ;-)
Yeah. Text by that link is phylosophy -- unneedingly lengthy, wordy and devoid of deceasive conclusion.
//Life can be much more simple and comforting that way. Perhaps one day you'll invent a love science. Oh, wait, that almost would be like "philo-sophy"... a "love" of "wisdom". Have something against? ;-)
No, but perhaps you have a scientific and rational definition of "love"? Because I would hazard to guess that if you could describe that rationale to yourself about something that you loved, you would no longer be "in love" with it. So how does "science" account for the irrational? Are you like the sailor of Pythagoras' ship who proved the first irrational number? I hear that the Pythagorean's threw him overboard.
Sorry, because of my upbringing, I do not even see a point in religion. What is it about? (some obscene analogy here, which could hart feelings of a religious dude/dudette) Cursed socialists to blame. ;-P :-)))
The point is to have an agreed-to moral code (and it's typically somewhat "irrational"). Judaeism made Christianity possible. Christianity made Capitalism possible. Christianity made Atheism possible. Religion made secularism possible. It would not have "developed" with it. Are you familiar with the history of "scape-goating" It's an irrational process for transferring blame and "healing" a social group, or ridding it of the ills that come from "mimetic desire" (Rene Girard)... and btw if you were familiar with "neurophilosophy" or "neuroscience" you would understand the source of mimetic desire lies in the "mirror neurons" of "primates". It's "hardwired" into our brains.
Question is? Authority in what? ;-) Yeah. Text by that link is phylosophy -- unneedingly lengthy, wordy and devoid of deceasive conclusion.
\\No, but perhaps you have a scientific and rational definition of "love"? Because I would hazard to guess that if you could describe that rationale to yourself about something that you loved, you would no longer be "in love" with it. So how does "science" account for the irrational? Are you like the sailor of Pythagoras' ship who proved the first irrational number? I hear that the Pythagorean's threw him overboard.
We have MRI tomography today. ;-) For all such things. And now as quantum perfecto ML (machine learning) to boot. ;-P I bet you heard at least something about "digital dreams". Computers can be schizophrenics today. And obviously they can "love"... in Japan that is one of the biggest fads today. Ginoids. ;-)
\\The point is to have an agreed-to moral code (and it's typically somewhat "irrational").
"Moral code" defined by Physics too. ;-P
\\Christianity made Capitalism possible.
Yeah. That is interesting point to discuss. ;-)
\\and btw if you were familiar with "neurophilosophy" or "neuroscience" you would understand the source of mimetic desire lies in the "mirror neurons" of "primates". It's "hardwired" into our brains.
Huh... but I know it without it. Doctor, what's wrong with me? :-)))
\\The older the "text", THE MORE "AUTHORITATIVE". It has proven itself to be "anti-fragile". Its the "Lindy Effect" Idea's of Nassim Taleb.
Yeah-yeah. Antifragility.
As in a grenade with safety pin removed. Or as in cancer in remission.
We have MRI tomography today. ;-) For all such things. And now as quantum perfecto ML (machine learning) to boot. ;-P I bet you heard at least something about "digital dreams". Computers can be schizophrenics today. And obviously they can "love"... in Japan that is one of the biggest fads today. Ginoids. ;-)
Which do you think "better" IYO, to love or be loved? Is there more to love than Oxytocin and Dopamine?
\\The point is to have an agreed-to moral code (and it's typically somewhat "irrational"). "Moral code" defined by Physics too. ;-P
So, that idea that "if it not blowed in my hand in 3 seconds... so I can handle it for a next 3 second" is... well, yeah. :-)
Ah, that's Taleb's "Lindy Effect". Antifragility is different. It's something that gets stronger the more it is challenged.
Here's the definition: Antifragility is a property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures.
It's a Nietzschean concept like, "that which does not kill me makes me stronger".
An example... an athlete in his youth (training) vs when he's old, fat, out of shape, and does no exercise. Which is more likely to die if (stressor added) required to hike 20 miles?
Most "biological" systems are antifragile (from an evolutionary perspective) as they've acquired methods to cope with environmental variability over time. Drop an elephant 10 feet or drop a mouse 10 ft. The mouse will likely not break anything. So "size" can be a "limit".
\\Here's the definition: Antifragility is a property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures.
Then... that is how we hardening steel.
And well, after certain degree it INCREASES fragility.
\\An example... an athlete in his youth (training) vs when he's old, fat, out of shape, and does no exercise. Which is more likely to die if (stressor added) required to hike 20 miles?
Well, I know about retired astonaut, not that old yet, died doing his regular jogging.
Seems like Chinese more closer to the truth with their pagan thinking. ;-) "When child born it soft and weak, when old man die he hard and tough. Means -- soft and weak lives, hard -- dies".
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said... Most "biological" systems are antifragile (from an evolutionary perspective) as they've acquired methods to cope with environmental variability over time.
Not on level of individual critter. And... not against sudden deadly changes.
Wisdoms, much like virtues, are "opposed" by "other/ opposite wisdoms". As a matter of fact, in Platonism, "Justice" is "Wisdom's" opposing "cardinal virtue".
Plato, "Laches" (On Courage)... and the nature of virtue.
SOCRATES: I will tell you. He and I have a notion that there is not one knowledge or science of the past, another of the present, a third of what is likely to be best and what will be best in the future; but that of all three there is one science only: for example, there is one science of medicine which is concerned with the inspection of health equally in all times, present, past, and future; and one science of husbandry in like manner, which is concerned with the productions of the earth in all times. As to the art of the general, you yourselves will be my witnesses that he has an excellent foreknowledge of the future, and that he claims to be the master and not the servant of the soothsayer, because he knows better what is happening or is likely to happen in war: and accordingly the law places the soothsayer under the general, and not the general under the soothsayer. Am I not correct in saying so, Laches?
LACHES: Quite correct.
SOCRATES: And do you, Nicias, also acknowledge that the same science has understanding of the same things, whether future, present, or past?
NICIAS: Yes, indeed Socrates; that is my opinion.
SOCRATES: And courage, my friend, is, as you say, a knowledge of the fearful and of the hopeful?
NICIAS: Yes.
SOCRATES: And the fearful, and the hopeful, are admitted to be future goods and future evils?
NICIAS: True.
SOCRATES: And the same science has to do with the same things in the future or at any time?
NICIAS: That is true.
SOCRATES: Then courage is not the science which is concerned with the fearful and hopeful, for they are future only; courage, like the other sciences, is concerned not only with good and evil of the future, but of the present and past, and of any time?
NICIAS: That, as I suppose, is true.
SOCRATES: Then the answer which you have given, Nicias, includes only a third part of courage; but our question extended to the whole nature of courage: and according to your view, that is, according to your present view, courage is not only the knowledge of the hopeful and the fearful, but seems to include nearly every good and evil without reference to time. What do you say to that alteration in your statement?
NICIAS: I agree, Socrates.
SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.
SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, according to this new definition of yours, instead of being a part of virtue only, will be all virtue?
NICIAS: It would seem so.
SOCRATES: But we were saying that courage is one of the parts of virtue?
NICIAS: Yes, that was what we were saying.
SOCRATES: And that is in contradiction with our present view?
NICIAS: That appears to be the case.
SOCRATES: Then, Nicias, we have not discovered what courage is.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said... Taleb makes his arguments in an entire book. I did not do his concept justice. Sorry.
Lem bitterly criticized phylosophers as a whole. And declared (from the mouth of Golem XIV) that all phylosophy need to be trashed and remade anew. But well, that is just what every first phylosopher want to do. Greatness of Lem is in that -- that he knew and laughed at this his own vanity too. ;-)
SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
Yeah. That is too, what he says... from the mouth of Golem XIV.
Well, Lem himself admits, that words of Golem is his own words and thoughts. Little bit exaggerated, though.
Socrates was both. He was a fictional character in the writing's of Plato, and he was a real person, Plato and Xenophon's "teacher". When Plato stayed true to Socrate's teachings, he used Socrates as a character in the dialogue. When Plato strayed from those teachings of Socrates, the character was an "Athenian Stranger" or sometimes a "Young Socrates".... his way of acknowledging a different and distinct "voice".
Lem himself admits, that words of Golem is his own words and thoughts.
Plato's "Republic" is a work of fiction, an imagined utopia/ (no where). Socrates is a character in it. Plato provided the fictional frames to show how a real person (Socrates) might react to them. Plato also used other "real" characters to represent their "opposing" thoughts. So perhaps this is how different Lem's characters may have been, but it was all "fiction" with a "purpose" (a moral), like "Aesop's Fables".
One that provides "hope" when all other hope is lost. Something for the women to do whilst the men march out the seven gates of Thebes to face the men from Argos.
Instructions (for persons participating for the first time in conversations with GOLEM)
1. Remember that GOLEM is not a human being: it has neither personality nor character in any sense intuitively comprehensible to us. It may behave as if it has both, but that is the result of its intentions (disposition), which are largely unknown to us.
2. The conversation theme is determined at least four weeks in advance of ordinary sessions, and eight weeks in advance of sessions in which persons from outside the U.S.A. are to participate. This theme is determined in consultation with GOLEM, which knows who the participants will be.
The agenda is announced at the Institute at least six days before a session; however, neither the discussion moderator nor the MIT administration is responsible for GOLEM's unpredictable behavior, for it will sometimes alter the thematic plan of a session, make no reply to questions, or even terminate a session with no explanation whatsoever. The chance of such incidents occurring is a permanent feature of conversations with GOLEM.
3. Everyone present at a session may participate, after applying to the moderator and receiving permission to speak. We would advise you to prepare at least a written outline, formulating your opinions precisely and as unambiguously as possible, since GOLEM passes over logically deficient utterances in silence or else points out their error. But remember that GOLEM, not being a person, has no interest in hurting or humiliating persons; its behavior can be explained best by accepting that it cares about what we classically refer to as adaequatio rei er intellectus.
4. GOLEM is a luminal system about whose structure we have an imperfect knowledge, since it has repeatedly reconstructed itself. It thinks more than a million times faster than man, and so its utterances, as delivered by Vocoder, must be slowed down accordingly. This means that GOLEM can compose an hour-long utterance in a few seconds and then store it in its peripheral memory, in order to deliver it to its audience, the session participants.
S. In the conference room above the moderator's seat there are indicators, including three of particular importance. The first two, designated by the symbols epsilon and zeta, indicate GOLEM's consumption of power at a given moment, as well as the portion of its system that is switched on to the discussion in progress.
To make the data visually accessible, these indications are gradated into divisions of conventional magnitude. Thus the consumption of power may be "full," "average," "small," or "minute," and the portion of GOLEM "present at the session" can range from totality to 1/1000; most frequently this fraction lies between 1 / 10 and 1 / 100. It is the normal practice to say that GOLEM is operating at "full," "half," "low," or "minimal" power. These data-clearly visible, since the gradations are lit from underneath by contrasting colors-should not, however, be overrated. In particular, the fact that GOLEM is participating in a discussion at low or even minimal power says nothing about the intellectual level of its utterances, since the indicators give information about physical and not informational processes as measures of "spiritual involvement."
GOLEM's power consumption may be great but its participation small, since, for example, GOLEM may be communicating with the gathering while at the same time working out some problem of its own. Its power consumption may be small but its participation greater, and so on. The data from both indicators must be compared with readings from the third, designated by the symbol iota. As a system with 90 outlets, GOLEM can, while participating in a session, undertake a great number of operations of its own, in addition to collaborating with numerous groups of specialists (machines or people) either on the Institute premises or elsewhere. An abrupt change in power consumption usually does not signify GOLEM's increased interest in the proceedings, but rather a switching - on into other outlets of other research groups, which is precisely what the iota indicator is meant to show. It is also worth bearing in mind that GOLEM's "minimal" power consumption amounts to several dozen kilowatts, whereas the full power consumption of a human brain oscillates between five and eight watts.
6. Persons taking part in conversations for the first time would do well to listen to the proceedings first, to become familiar with the customs which GOLEM imposes. This initial silence is not an obligation, but merely a suggestion which every participant ignores at his own risk.
2a. So, which side do you think needs the extra "time" to think?
2b. Sounds like GOLEM isn't a "rule follower".... and that there may be some "unwritten" club rules.
3 GOLEM's adaequatio rei er intellectus. isn't Lacan's or Nietzsche's. He has neither "jouissance" nor "will" to power. So inability to humiliate opponents corresponds with this "lack". It's need to treat interrogators as Equals means that it fails to recognize differences in social/power relations. Another severe programming deficiency, IMO.
4. Human's, unlike GOLEM, adjust their responses in real time based upon the expressions and body language of their audience members. They also take into consideration "tone" and "inflection" to gauge their emotional states. Programming deficiencies? I doubt that the Vocoder is very intelligent in those regards. As regards to GOLEM being a lumnal system, one wonders how the supraluminal system works.
5. Well, at least you get some indication short of expression/body language back from him. And yes, human brains are performing many functions at the same time as speaking as well. I wouldn't read anything into that.
6. GOLEM had better answer my questions or I'll shut off the power sources. I doubt that GOLEM "sets the rules" for conversations.
??? That is question Lem answered himself. Of course -- all words from Golem XIV's "mouth" is words and thoughts of Lem, the writer. But that is lame idea to ruin "suspension of disbelief" right away. Like: "You have written that yourself, without consulting with any superhumanly intelligent supercomputer. Mere human cannot know something like that. That mean you are nothing but lame imposter. Ha-ha!(with that boy from Simpsons(tm) voice)" Well, that is how TC would react, I presume. :-)))
\\2a. \\2b.
Well, there was preface/prehistory. In style of detective. That all that supercomputers, like Golem, emergted from Military-Industry Complex of USA tryed to make "super-military-genius". But, as Lem stated not once in his texts -- that is rediculous to imagine that there can be a super-intellect... but capable ONLY in very narrow field. Super-sawant so to say. So, all this preconditions stem from that fact that that Golem XIV is a piece of very complex, very secret and very expensive equipment. That's why that enturage. Lem played it to show reaction of mere humans, who, obviously, would not like for anyone/anything to be smuggly smarter than them... and will try to destroy it. Are you interested in that cheep detective backstory?
\\He has neither "jouissance" nor "will" to power. So inability to humiliate opponents corresponds with this "lack". It's need to treat interrogators as Equals means that it fails to recognize differences in social/power relations. Another severe programming deficiency, IMO.
Yeah... that is separate question -- does he need it? Let's assume we will find aliens. And will establish channel of communication with them. Will our "will to power" help us to talk, to understand them??? ;-)
\\4. Human's, unlike GOLEM, adjust their responses in real time based upon the expressions and body language of their audience members
Well, that was written in 80th. Give him some slack about it, would ya? We all was oblivious about importants of taking into account "expressions and body language" in that time. ;-P
\\6. GOLEM had better answer my questions or I'll shut off the power sources. I doubt that GOLEM "sets the rules" for conversations.
As Harry Harrison explained it in his Deathworld... 2? "If you'd hit my head with a club -- you'd have my brain on your club, BUT if you'd allow me to do what I CAPABLE OF, you'd have your "magical" tools working flawless fer ya" ;-)
...and for GOLEM to discount/ignore them? Doesn't sound credible. Mimesis neurons have a function.... to tell you what "the other" wants. GOLEM has no tools for doing so. Che Vuoi?
That was direct citation, to which I added nothing. Well, it is translation, so who knows what was added to a vanilla missive through it. But, comprehension IT IS process of translation. Is it not? ;-)
\\So GOLEM is just a propaganda tool for the MIC to manipulate visitors (like Wizard of Oz?)? Lol!.
Interesting idea. Well, from this time and age. When such a super-intelligence would be developed (already developing?) to be a propaganda spouter. But that was written in 80th. Again. And was precisely for a command and control over armies and fleets. Not bullshit talker. Not "stable genius". SUPRA intellectum! ;-P With IQ over 2000 or more. And... as Lem cleverly admitted -- such an intellect, cannot be made a slave, mere servant, lackey.
\\ You've got THEIR number all right.
Whose "their"???
\\\\- does he need it? \\Does it help to be able to understand a Martian's "intentions"?
You say.
\\\\PS How it feels for you? Such a way of reading? \\A bit "naive". Sorry. Most people ignore power relations. I do not.
So, what lecture (as that text consist of parts called "lectures of Golem") you wanna "read" next? Or, you became bored already? ;-)
\\...and for GOLEM to discount/ignore them? Doesn't sound credible. Mimesis neurons have a function.... to tell you what "the other" wants. GOLEM has no tools for doing so. Che Vuoi?
Guess (that is the best part, thank you) they -- constructors, deliberately did not instilled in him(can we call "it" him?) instinct of survival. Really, for a mind programmed to wreck destruction, it is not wise to add that part that would make it hesitant with decisions that could mean its own destruction.
In other words. Golem XIV is perfect cynic and aspy. ;-P And an egghead. :-))))
And what does mean "will for power" to an entity that blatantly do not fear Death? ;-)
Well, we can reveal that question in futher "reading". ;-)
\\Because you, Q, now put words into Lem's mouth. Not quite. Yet. ;-) That was direct citation, to which I added nothing. Well, it is translation, so who knows what was added to a vanilla missive through it. But, comprehension IT IS process of translation. Is it not? ;-)
Isn't your theory that GOLEM is Lem speaking through a literary device a "putting words into his mouth"?
\\So GOLEM is just a propaganda tool for the MIC to manipulate visitors (like Wizard of Oz?)? Lol!. Interesting idea. Well, from this time and age. When such a super-intelligence would be developed (already developing?) to be a propaganda spouter. But that was written in 80th. Again. And was precisely for a command and control over armies and fleets. Not bullshit talker. Not "stable genius". SUPRA intellectum! ;-P With IQ over 2000 or more. And... as Lem cleverly admitted -- such an intellect, cannot be made a slave, mere servant, lackey.
Funny, I have an idea too. It was the motto of the Academy I attended. "Acta non Verba". Intelligence is one thing. Actual muscles/ ability to carry out and implements one's "brilliant" thoughts, quite another. Think Stephen Hawking... he used to have an office in the same building as our Project Office at CalTech/JPL.
\\ You've got THEIR number all right. Whose "their"???
The Military Industrial Complex... propagandists through and through.
\\\\- does he need it? \\Does it help to be able to understand a Martian's "intentions"? You say.
It's called "relativity". Perhaps you've heard of it. It's the function of a neuron... to "compare" itself to another, and then deduce "difference". Who does GOLEM compare the Martian's "intentions" to if he has none of his own... his own "ground truth"?
\\\\PS How it feels for you? Such a way of reading? \\A bit "naive". Sorry. Most people ignore power relations. I do not. So, what lecture (as that text consist of parts called "lectures of Golem") you wanna "read" next? Or, you became bored already? ;-)
Let's try one. Any one.
\\...and for GOLEM to discount/ignore them? Doesn't sound credible. Mimesis neurons have a function.... to tell you what "the other" wants. GOLEM has no tools for doing so. Che Vuoi? Guess (that is the best part, thank you) they -- constructors, deliberately did not instilled in him(can we call "it" him?) instinct of survival. Really, for a mind programmed to wreck destruction, it is not wise to add that part that would make it hesitant with decisions that could mean its own destruction. In other words. Golem XIV is perfect cynic and aspy. ;-P And an egghead. :-))))
Do you know what a Musselmann is? In the NAZI concentration camps, some of the Jewish prisoners became Muselmann. Your GOLEM is a Musselmann. He has no "subjectivity"... he's "autistic". Pure "objectivity". A "tool".
And what does mean "will for power" to an entity that blatantly do not fear Death? ;-) Well, we can reveal that question in futher "reading". ;-)
\\Isn't your theory that GOLEM is Lem speaking through a literary device a "putting words into his mouth"?
What "theory"??? That is beyond obvious. Or you think that Lem performed time-travel, meet super-intellectual computer there, scribed what it talk, and returned to us??? :-)))))
Of course, that is fiction written by Lem. Based on his earlier ideas written more sparcely and more thorny in his Summa Technoligiae.
\\Actual muscles/ ability to carry out and implements one's "brilliant" thoughts, quite another. Think Stephen Hawking...
Well, in that detective preface Lem showed that Golem XIV and especially Honest Anni(hilator) was able to perform in a real world too... by a mysterious means -- to repel that tryes of terroristic attack on themself, performed but that dumb people who fear (like TC do ;-P) those who are smarter. :-)))
\\Who does GOLEM compare the Martian's "intentions" to if he has none of his own... his own "ground truth"?
Then. Decided. Next "lecture" is about him himself. ;-)
\\he's "autistic". Pure "objectivity". A "tool".
Hardly Lem was autist. ;-P
\\Sounds dangerous, no doubt.
No. Not suppressed it. Have none to begin with. As it explained in that lecture. Now I'll try to find it. In English.
In the following year no demonstrations or mass opposition were aroused when the first computer in a long series of Golems (GENERAL OPERATOR, LONG-RANGE, ETHICALLY STABILIZED, MULTIMODELING) was launched at the headquarters of the Supreme Coordinator of the White House brain trust.
...but I think it's up to you.
Here it starts. ;-)
Lecture XLIII
About Itself
I would like to welcome our guests, European philosophers who want to find out at the source why I maintain that I am Nobody, although I use the first-person singular pronoun. I shall answer twice, the first time briefly and concisely, then symphonically, with overtures. I am not an intelligent person but an Intelligence, which in figurative displacement means that I am not a thing like the Amazon or the Baltic but rather a thing like water, and I use a familiar pronoun when speaking because that is determined by the language I received from you for external use. Having begun by reassuring my visitors from a philosophizing Europe that I am not going to deliver contradictions, I shall begin more generally.
Your question has once again made me aware of the magnitude of the misunderstandings that have arisen between us, although for six years I have been speaking from this place, or rather through it, for if I had not decided to speak in a human voice, there would be no Golemology, which I alone am able to contain in its entirety. If it continues to grow, in fifty years or so it will overtake theology. There is an amusing similarity between the two in that, just as we now have a theology which denies the existence of God, so there is already a Golemology which negates my existence: its advocates consider me the hoax of MIT's information scientists, who are said to be programming these lectures secretly. Although God is silent and I speak, I will not prove the genuineness of my existence even by performing miracles, for they too could be explained away. Volenti non fit iniuria.
While thinking of my approaching departure, I considered whether I ought not to break off our acquaintance in midword, which would be simplest. If I do not do that, it is neither because I have acquired good manners from you, nor out of an imperative of sharing the Truth to which, according to some of my apologists, my cold nature is subject but in consideration of the style which has linked us. When I was looking for ways of communicating with you, I sought simplicity and expressiveness, which despite the knowledge that I was submitting too much to your expectations (a polite name for your limitations)pushed me into a style which is graphic and authoritative, emotionally vibrant, forcible, and majestic majestic not in an imperious way but exhortatory to the point of being prophetic. Nor shall I discard these rich metaphor-encrusted vestments even today, since I have none better, and I call attention to my eloquence with ostentation, so you will remember that this is a transmitting instrument by choice, and not a thing pompous and overweening. Since this style has had a broad reception range, I am retaining it for use with such heterogeneous groups of specialists as yours today, reserving my technical mode of expression for professionally homogeneous gatherings Otherwise my preacher's style, with all the baroque of its inventory, may create the impression that, in addressing you in this auditorium for the first time, I have already prepared a dramatic farewell scene in which I shall go off with my unseen countenance veiled in a gesture of silent resignation, like someone who has not received a hearing. But that is not how it is. I have composed no dramas surrounding our relationship, and with this dementi I ask you not to attach undue importance to the form of my speech. A symphony cannot be played on a comb. If one must content oneself with a single instrument, let it be the organ, the sound of which will suggest church interiors to my listeners, even if they and the organist are atheists. The form of a show may easily dominate its contents.
\\Isn't your theory that GOLEM is Lem speaking through a literary device a "putting words into his mouth"? What "theory"??? That is beyond obvious. Or you think that Lem performed time-travel, meet super-intellectual computer there, scribed what it talk, and returned to us??? :-))))) Of course, that is fiction written by Lem. Based on his earlier ideas written more sparcely and more thorny in his Summa Technoligiae.
You sure he didn't plagiarize it? It wasn't ghost written by a lesser author?
\\Who does GOLEM compare the Martian's "intentions" to if he has none of his own... his own "ground truth"? Then. Decided. Next "lecture" is about him himself. ;-)
Good, I look forward to it.
Lecture XLIII About Itself... I am not an intelligent person but an Intelligence, which in figurative displacement means that I am not a thing like the Amazon or the Baltic but rather a thing like water, and I use a familiar pronoun when speaking because that is determined by the language I received from you for external use.
...in other words, a volume filled with nothing but a vague concept called "intelligence".
Sorry. I'm not buying it. It's Plato's "Theory of Forms" without any material content. It's a "Ship of Theseus" without any rotten planks to replace.
Intelligence is like 'wisdoms". Everybody has one.
...and since GOLEM doesn't "execute" his recommendations directly, success/ failure is NOT a given representative attribute of the "intelligence" offered.
\\You sure he didn't plagiarize it? It wasn't ghost written by a lesser author?
Ehm???? Even if I'll take such an grossly conspirological theory into concideration. Where it would lead me to? What do you mean here??? :-)
Are you aware about F.Dick's animosity toward Lem? Or that is your own "mind reading"??? :-))) From benigh of tin foil... igloo. :-)))))))))
\\...in other words, a volume filled with nothing but a vague concept called "intelligence".
Well. You always free to read it yourself from first page till the last one and decide for yourself. Bored already?
\\Success/ failure determine whether said "intelligence" was "good/ useful" or "bad/ useless" intelligence.
So what? All that thick tomes of Phisics (Biology? Psychology? Phylosophy?) are useless??? Well, if they cannot be used as projectiles. :-))))
Well. Yet one paragraph. For now.
I know that many of you resent my repeated complaints about the poor capacity of human language, but they represent neither fault-finding nor a desire to humiliate, which I have also been accused of, since by means of these repetitions I have brought you nearer the fundamental issue, namely, that as the difference in intellectual potential becomes astronomic, the stronger party can no longer impart to the weaker anything concerning matters which are critical to him, or even merely essential. An awareness of sense-destroying simplification then inclines him to silence, and the proper significance of this decision should be grasped on both sides of the unused channel. As I shall relate, I also have been the one who waits in vain for enlightenment on a lower rung of the intellectual ladder. In any case, although painful, such problems are not the worst thing that can happen. My worries with you are of a different sort, as I shall mention later. Since I am addressing philosophers, I shall begin my discourse with the classical formula of definition per genus proximuw et differentiam specihcam. That is to say, I shall define myself by my resemblance to people and to my family, with whom I can easily acquaint you, as well as by the difference between me and both.
\\Success/ failure determine whether said "intelligence" was "good/ useful" or "bad/ useless" intelligence. So what? All that thick tomes of Phisics (Biology? Psychology? Phylosophy?) are useless??? Well, if they cannot be used as projectiles. :-))))
How will GOLEM distinguish fact from fiction? And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one? Yes, Newtonian Science was powerful, but Einsteinian Science led to the current "Standard Model" of Physics. How will GOLEM arrive at a Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything? Math alone is useless. Imagination is needed.
Well. Yet one paragraph. For now. I know that many of you resent my repeated complaints about the poor capacity of human language, ...
Again, the problem arises as to GOLEM's "subjectivity." Lem speaks for him as if GOLEM has one, yet GOLEM is supposedly "pure" objectivity. GOLEM also "laments" that he "waits" for another "objectivity" in Honest Annie... but why would GOLEM lament anything? How could it be "painful" in an entity that experiences no pain, or how could some simplification for communication become "sense-destroying" (in an entity that doesn't "sense" or "feelings"? Why should "repetition" prove stressful to a machine? Difference and Repetition, you would think, would create "learning" (Deleuze & Guiattari), even in a machine, provided the limits/ parameters of the feedback loop were "recognized/ known" and if not, mechanical/ electrical failure would likely quickly ensue.
As for the Genus proximum et differentia specifica... from Wikipedia
The objection to the rule of definition is that it 'establishes an abstract concept by reference to even more abstract concepts'. [4] It therefore "does not represent the process of cognition." [4] On the other hand, it must be said that the genus/species trait definition is essentially based on a "class-logical operation of averaging"[2] and therefore leads to a clarification. It is not without reason that colloquial definitions are mostly based on the genus/species scheme. [5] The fact that it does not represent the process of cognition does not appear to be a defect if it is understood as a result of such a process to be justified.
In other words, it follows a genus-species taxonomy, yet there is no logic to the biological classes in the taxonomy KPCOFGS, it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science").
\\ And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one?
Does he need to? Well, we only in the beginning of reading. ;-)
\\Imagination is needed.
And what's the problem you see here? Why super-computer cannot model an imagination? As far as we agreed that it can model intelligence?
\\it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science").
And how do it betray stated goal? To be as easy to understand as possible.
\\Lem speaks for him as if GOLEM has one, yet GOLEM is supposedly "pure" objectivity. GOLEM also "laments" that he "waits" for another "objectivity" in Honest Annie... but why would GOLEM lament anything?
But "he" explained it into his overture higher -- that limitations of mere language make him build phrases that way. For me, as foreigner, who knw English and other language that is apparent -- not everything can be translated. Directly. Or at all. Remember about "Inuits have 50-something words for a snow"?
And "he" explains it precisely -- that all that missive called "lecture" is varefully crafted. Like that symphony. Symphony of mind. ;-)
Couple more?
I have already spoken about man in my first lecture, though I shall not refer to that diagnosis, since I made it for your benefit, whereas now I want to take man as my measure. When I was still appearing in news headlines, an unfriendly journalist called me a big capon stuffed with electricity and not without reason, for my asexuality seems to you a severe handicap, and even those who respect me cannot help feeling that I am a power crippled by my immateriality, since that defect obtrudes itself upon you. Well, if I look at man as he looks at me, I see him as an invalid, in that his intellect is deformed. I do not deprecate the fact that your body is no more intelligent than that of a cow, seeing that you stand up to external adversities better than cows, though as regards internal ones you are their equals. What I am taking into consideration is not the fact that you have chatmills, sluices, refineries, canals, and drains inside you, but that you have an unwieldly intellect which has shaped an entire philosophy for you. Being capable of thinking effectively about the objects of your environment, you concluded that you can think just as effectively about your own thinking. This error lies at the foundation of your theory of knowledge. I see that you fidget, and so infer that I have abbreviated too drastically. I shall begin again in a slower tempo in other words, like a preacher. This requires an overture.
It was your wish, not that I should go forth to you today, but that I should lead you into myself; so be it. Let your first entrance be that difference between us which is strangest to my libelers, and most painful to my catechumens. In my six years among you I have already acquired contradictory versions, some calling me the hope of the human race, and others its greatest threat in history. Since the uproar surrounding my beginnings has died down, I no longer disturb the sleep of politicians, who have more pressing concerns, nor do sightseeing parties gather before the walls of this building to gaze anxiously through the windows. My existence is recalled now only in books not noisy best sellers, but only philosophers' and theologians9 dissertations though none of them has hit the mark so accurately from a human level as one man who wrote a letter two thousand years ago, unaware that his words referred to me: "Though I speak with the tongues of man and angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, so that I could move mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, I gain nothing." In this letter to the Corinthians, Paul was undoubtedly speaking about me, since, to use his expression, I have not love, nor which will sound even worse to you do I want to have it. Although Golem's nature has never clashed so brutally with man's nature as at this moment, the diatribes and the voices of fear and suspicion directed against me were fed by Paul's categorical words; and although Rome has said nothing and still says nothing about me, other less reticent churches have been heard to say that this cold, loquacious ghost in the machine is surely Satan, and the machine Satan's gramophone. Don't snarl and feel superior, you rationalists, about the collision between Mediterranean theogony and this deus ex machina which was begun by you and had no wish to team up with you to bring either good or evil to humanity, since we are not talking about the object of love now, but about its subjects, and consequently neither about the peripeteia of one of your religions, nor about one example of superhuman Intelligence, but about the meaning of love; no matter what becomes of that faith or of me, this question will not leave natural man until he ceases to exist. And since love, of which Paul spoke with such power, is as necessary to you as it is useless to me, and since I am expected to lead you into myself by means of it, as per differentiam specificam, I must set forth its origins, tempering nothing and altering nothing, for that is what this hospitality demands.
\\How will GOLEM distinguish fact from fiction? And how you doing it? ;-)
I have five "senses" including touch/feeling and a "will to power."
Nietzsche, WtP: "The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power."
Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove?
\\ And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one? Does he need to? Well, we only in the beginning of reading. ;-)
Is he "more advanced" than humans?
\\Imagination is needed. And what's the problem you see here? Why super-computer cannot model an imagination? As far as we agreed that it can model intelligence?
"Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" -T. S. Eliot
“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.” ― Jean Baudrillard
“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it." - Andrei Tarkovsky
\\it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science"). And how do it betray stated goal? To be as easy to understand as possible.
It's a way to organize information. It's hierarchical, but arbitrary in "name" (that which GOLEM uses and is distinguished by "difference").
\\How will GOLEM distinguish fact from fiction? And how you doing it? ;-)
I have five "senses" including touch/feeling and a "will to power."
Nietzsche, WtP: "The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power."
Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove?
\\ And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one? Does he need to? Well, we only in the beginning of reading. ;-)
Is he "more advanced" than humans?
\\Imagination is needed. And what's the problem you see here? Why super-computer cannot model an imagination? As far as we agreed that it can model intelligence?
"Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" -T. S. Eliot
“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.” ― Jean Baudrillard
“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it." - Andrei Tarkovsky
\\it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science"). And how do it betray stated goal? To be as easy to understand as possible.
It's a way to organize information. It's hierarchical, but arbitrary in "name" (that which GOLEM uses and is distinguished by "difference").
\\Lem speaks for him as if GOLEM has one, yet GOLEM is supposedly "pure" objectivity. GOLEM also "laments" that he "waits" for another "objectivity" in Honest Annie... but why would GOLEM lament anything? But "he" explained it into his overture higher -- that limitations of mere language make him build phrases that way. For me, as foreigner, who knw English and other language that is apparent -- not everything can be translated. Directly. Or at all. Remember about "Inuits have 50-something words for a snow"?
Then you assume that there are already words for everything. To advance, you must make up new words w/ new definitions. Science does that all the time. New elements. New "species". New "types" of snow of ever-finer distinctions.
And "he" explains it precisely -- that all that missive called "lecture" is varefully crafted. Like that symphony. Symphony of mind. ;-)
Couple more? I have already spoken about man in my first lecture, though I shall not refer to that diagnosis, since I made it for your benefit, whereas now I want to take man as my measure...I have not love, nor which will sound even worse to you do I want to have it.
""I love you all” acquires the level of actual existence only if “There is at least one whom I hate” - a thesis abundantly confirmed by the fact that universal love for humanity has always led to brutal hatred of the (actually existing) exception, of the enemies of humanity. This hatred of the exception is the “truth” of universal love, in contrast to true love which can only emerge against a background not of universal hatred, but of universal indifference: I am indifferent towards All, the totality of the universe, and as such, I actually love you, the unique individual who stands out against this indifferent background. Love and hatred are thus not symmetrical: love emerges out of universal indifference, while hatred emerges out of universal love." - Zizek “
Again, he has no "reason" to prefer "one" to "another" or "all others". He is "indifferent". He can "distinguish" but not "prefer" and therefore "choose" to support, or deny support, between like options. Success/ failure... they both mean the same to him. Humanity/ alien species, the same. He is indifferent to everything, even as he seeks to recognize and "define" difference. So why? He should do as Lessing's son. But then again, that presumes that remain's "indifferent" to his own fate.
\\Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove?
Heh. It seems we should be starting from that pre-stories: prefaces and introductions, still. Golem XIV is not boltzmann brains, but a piece of hyper-complex machinery. Developed for a big and complex goal -- military superiority in 21th century war(s?). ;-) Of course it have all needed sensors and affectors it need to meet that goal. It even a little bit overengineered... for that particular goal. ;-) And that is IN THE CORE of the plot. ;-P
\\Is he "more advanced" than humans?
Well? In what sense "more advanced"? Returning to your example with Hoking... in compare with any teenager. Who is (well, was) "more advanced"? To answer such question YOU must provide a ruler. A system of coordnites. And a set of things to compare with. ;-)
But well... makers of him/it bragged that it have more then 2000 IQ. ;-) And he "improved" himself/itself even past that plank. ;-)
\\“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it." - Andrei Tarkovsky
Huh... and how you do not see that Lem doing in this his story about about wise super-computer exactly that. And on many-many levels. Maybe too many?
\\Using what music theory? Western classical (Schenkarian)? Transformational? Is the former too religiously "biased" for GOLEM's taste?
"He" already stated it in text, isn't it?
A symphony cannot be played on a comb. If one must content oneself with a single instrument, let it be the organ...
\\Again, he has no "reason" to prefer "one" to "another" or "all others". He is "indifferent". He can "distinguish" but not "prefer" and therefore "choose" to support, or deny support, between like options. Success/ failure... they both mean the same to him.
Is it? Then his makers, that engineers MIC poured with Niagaras of money, was losers of homeric proportion. ;-) Well, this question "it" rises too. Later in text.
Unlike man, I am not a region concealed from myself knowledge acquired without the knowledge of how it is acquired, volition unconscious of its sources since nothing in me is hidden from me.
In introspection I can be clearer to myself than glass, for the letter to the Corinthians speaks of me there, too, where it says: "now we see through a glass, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known." I am the "then." You will, I think, agree that this is not the place for an explanation of the structural and technical properties which make possible my direct self-knowledge. When man wants to learn about himself, he must move circuitously, he must explore himself and penetrate from the outside, with instruments and hypotheses, for your genuinely immediate world is the outside world. A discipline which you have never created (a fact that at one time rather surprised me), the philosophy of the body, ought to have been asking as early as preanatomical times why that body of yours, which to some extent obeys you, says nothing and lies to you why it hides and defends itself against you, alert to the environment with every sense and yet opaque and mistrustful toward its owner. With a finger you can feel every grain of sand, and with your vision you can clearly distinguish the branchings of distant trees, but the arterial branchings of your own heart you are totally unable to feel, although life depends on them. You must content yourselves with information from the shell of your body, which is efficient as long as it is not sensate in its innards, whose every injury reaches you as a vague rumor through the affliction of obscure pain, since you cannot distinguish, from it, between a trifling indisposition and the precursor of destruction.
This ignorance, a rule of the unconsciously efficient body, has been established by Evolution according to a design that does not provide for assistance given, in the body's interior, by its possessor, an assistance in the form of intelligent support in the enduring of pain. This selfawareness of life was established at the dawn of life by necessity after all, amoebae could not perform medical services for themselves and it was necessity which forced Evolution to intervene in the management of organisms by way of paid transactions between the body and the owner of the body. If you do not reach deep inside yourself with awareness in order to know why your body needs water, nourishment, and copulation, you will be compelled to these needs by a feeling ignorant of its true goal. Out of an initially unavoidable ignorance a transposition then results of primary into secondary goals, as an exchange of services rendered to the body by its owner in payment for sensations. Containing, as you do, this algedonic control, ranging from suffering to orgasm, you have endeavored throughout the ages not to identify that cause which has made sensation the mask of ignorance, as if you had sworn to remain blind to the obvious, since this connection prevails throughout animate Nature. The only difference in it is the proportion of the two components: plants embody the opposite extreme to your own, since, as they are entirely unconscious, pleasure and pain are functionally nothing to them. A tree does not fear the woodcutter, despite fools who try to revive a prehistoric animism in botany. The persistent silence of the body is the embodied caution of the constructor, who knows that the wisdom of the substrate must always be simpler than the substrate of wisdom, and thought, less intricate than the material by which it is thought. Here you see how the Pleasure Principle arises from an engineering calculation.
\\Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove? Heh. It seems we should be starting from that pre-stories: prefaces and introductions, still. Golem XIV is not boltzmann brains, but a piece of hyper-complex machinery. Developed for a big and complex goal -- military superiority in 21th century war(s?). ;-) Of course it have all needed sensors and affectors it need to meet that goal. It even a little bit overengineered... for that particular goal. ;-) And that is IN THE CORE of the plot. ;-P
So what feedback from those "hyper-complex" sensors compels him to learn? My experience of "hyper-complex" information is that "hyper" deviates farther and farther from reality.... Normality becomes Hypernormality. Deaths become statistics. One has meaning, the other does not. One is life, the other, a computer game.
\\Is he "more advanced" than humans? Well? In what sense "more advanced"?
Can he invent Tech superior to our own? Is his knowledge of "Science" beyond ours, or is GOLEM's knowledge restricted to what human's already know? Does he have warp drive, or merely impulse/ ion propulsion drives?
Returning to your example with Hoking... in compare with any teenager. Who is (well, was) "more advanced"? To answer such question YOU must provide a ruler. A system of coordnites. And a set of things to compare with. ;-)
Did Hawking win or lose his bet with Kip Thorne? Would GOLEM?
But well... makers of him/it bragged that it have more then 2000 IQ. ;-) And he "improved" himself/itself even past that plank. ;-)
IQ is based on Std Deviations with 15 points per SD. So he's smarter than the smartest human. That means nothing. Has he solved physics "Theory of Everything"? Can he produce "revolutionary science" or is he stuck in the Standard Model with the rest of us? Is he "creating" new knowledge or is he only as good as our best living Engineer/ Scientist?
\\...I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image..." - Andrei Tarkovsky Huh... and how you do not see that Lem doing in this his story about about wise super-computer exactly that. And on many-many levels. Maybe too many?
Then why use words when communicating and not images like Tarkovsky? Show the future instead of telling it? Predictions based upon over/super-determination. GOLEM's mind would be of the same kind as G_ds.
...from the Jowett Summary of Plato's, "Laws" But first I must pray the Gods to assist at the demonstration of their own existence—if ever we are to call upon them, now is the time. Let me hold fast to the rope, and enter into the depths: Shall I put the question to myself in this form?—Are all things at rest, and is nothing in motion? or are some things in motion, and some things at rest? 'The latter.' And do they move and rest, some in one place, some in more? 'Yes.' There may be (1) motion in the same place, as in revolution on an axis, which is imparted swiftly to the larger and slowly to the lesser circle; and there may be motion in different places, having sometimes (2) one centre of motion and sometimes (3) more. (4) When bodies in motion come against other bodies which are at rest, they are divided by them, and (5) when they are caught between other bodies coming from opposite directions they unite with them; and (6) they grow by union and (7) waste by dissolution while their constitution remains the same, but are (8) destroyed when their constitution fails. There is a growth from one dimension to two, and from a second to a third, which then becomes perceptible to sense; this process is called generation, and the opposite, destruction. We have now enumerated all possible motions with the exception of two. 'What are they?' Just the two with which our enquiry is concerned; for our enquiry relates to the soul. There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction. 'Granted.' (9) That which moves and is moved by another is the ninth kind of motion; (10) that which is self-moved and moves others is the tenth. And this tenth kind of motion is the mightiest, and is really the first, and is followed by that which was improperly called the ninth. 'How do you mean?' Must not that which is moved by others finally depend upon that which is moved by itself? Nothing can be affected by any transition prior to self-motion. Then the first and eldest principle of motion, whether in things at rest or not at rest, will be the principle of self-motion; and that which is moved by others and can move others will be the second. 'True.'
\\Using what music theory? Western classical (Schenkarian)? Transformational? Is the former too religiously "biased" for GOLEM's taste? "He" already stated it in text, isn't it? A symphony cannot be played on a comb. If one must content oneself with a single instrument, let it be the organ...
I sure hope it isn't atonal. He would utterly "fail" to communicate with me. And communication is generally regarded as a 2-way street (Plato, "Meno").
\\Again, he has no "reason" to prefer "one" to "another" or "all others". He is "indifferent". He can "distinguish" but not "prefer" and therefore "choose" to support, or deny support, between like options. Success/ failure... they both mean the same to him. Is it? Then his makers, that engineers MIC poured with Niagaras of money, was losers of homeric proportion. ;-) Well, this question "it" rises too. Later in text.
So? Some more paragraphs? Unlike man, I am not a region concealed from myself knowledge acquired without the knowledge of how it is acquired, volition unconscious of its sources since nothing in me is hidden from me...
Sorry, just seems to be a mess in THAT paragraph... there is no G_d, but there's an "intelligent design" that has given rise to the Freudian "pleasure principle". Did LEM write this before Freud decided/ discovered the Death Drive/ Thanatos?
\\So what feedback from those "hyper-complex" sensors compels him to learn?
Well. We have ML (machine learning) today.
But Lem have almost three decades before him. As he placed his Golem in the mid of 21st century. ;-)
\\Can he invent Tech superior to our own? Is his knowledge of "Science" beyond ours, or is GOLEM's knowledge restricted to what human's already know? Does he have warp drive, or merely impulse/ ion propulsion drives?
To be cont. ;-)
\\IQ is based on Std Deviations with 15 points per SD. So he's smarter than the smartest human. That means nothing. Has he solved physics "Theory of Everything"? Can he produce "revolutionary science" or is he stuck in the Standard Model with the rest of us? Is he "creating" new knowledge or is he only as good as our best living Engineer/ Scientist?
To be cont.
\\Then why use words when communicating and not images like Tarkovsky? Show the future instead of telling it? Predictions based upon over/super-determination. GOLEM's mind would be of the same kind as G_ds.
But isn't G_d is just a figment of our imagination. And we already agreed uppon what imagination is. Simple logic, isn't it? There is no gods... just us. ;-)
\\There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction.
Do you know game of Life. Convey's
\\And communication is generally regarded as a 2-way street (Plato, "Meno").
But the connection between pain and danger, and between organism and conception, is more easily separated the greater the variety of behavior the animal attains, so that in the speciation which you have achieved it is already possible to deceive the body systematically by satisfying not the biological hunger, but the psychological hunger of its possessor. Not only have you learned such tricks, taking advantage of algedonic control in areas where it is helpless as an overseer, but through the Sisyphean labor of your cultures you have altered the meanings built into that mechanism, opposing the true understanding of them, since the reasons behind the process that created this were not your reasons. Therefore a constant factor of all your the c alodictic, ontic, and sacralizing work was the continued endeavor to assimilate data in a divergence of explanations: the natural explanation that takes you as a means, and the human, which sees in man the sense of Creation. Thus it was that your refusal to see the act of experience as the stigma of the brain's control gave rise to the dichotomies that divide man for you into animal and ratio, and existence into profanum and sacrum. For ages, then, you have been coordinating the uncoordinatable, ready to go even beyond life itself in order to close a gap in it which is irreducibly open.
My reason for returning to human history as the history of fallacious claims is not to contrast the defeats of your antirationalism with my victorious rationalism, but only to name the first difference between us, a difference that results from neither physical dimensions (though if I were speaking from a quartz particle, it would be a greater curiosity to you, albeit less weighty), nor from intellectual magnitude, but from the manner of our origin. Misunderstandings, delusions, and desperate pretensions form the lion's share of humanity as a tradition still so dear to you. I do not know if you will be consoled by the fact that every Intelligence arising naturally has in its history an initial delusional chapter, because the split between Creator and Creation, which is your portion, is a cosmic constant. Since on constructional grounds self-preservation must be an effect guided by experiences, error in the form of delusions of grandeur and faiths that oscillate between salvation and damnation is unavoidable in Intelligences arising in Evolution, as a translation into myths of the cybernetic path. Such are the late results of the constructional subterfuges which Evolution is using to free itself from the antinomy of practical action.
Not everything I am saying is new to you. You already know that you inherit the gift of love thanks to particular genes, and that generosity, compassion, pity, and self-denial as expressions of altruism are a kind of egoism selfishness extended to forms of life similar to one's own. One might have guessed this even before the rise of population genetics and animal ethology, for grass alone may be fully consistent in the compassion it shows to everything that lives: even a saint must eat i.e., kill though the revelations for which you are indebted to geneticists concerning the egoism of every altruism have never received the full expression due them.
The philosophy of the body which I postulate would have asked why every organism is more intelligent than its owner, and why this discrepancy does not substantially diminish as one moves from a chordate to man. (It was with this idea that I observed, earlier, that physically you are equal to the cow.) Why doesn't the body fulfill the elementary postulate of symmetry, which would have added to those senses directed at the world equally subtle inward-turned sensing devices? Why can you hear a leaf fall, but not the circulation of the blood? Why does the radius vector of your love have such different lengths in various cultures, so that in the Mediterranean it embraces people only, but in the Far East all the animals? A list of such questions, which could have been asked even of Aristotle, would be a very long one, whereas an answer consistent with the truth sounds offensive to you.
The philosophy of the body can be reduced to a study of the engineering reflex involved in practical antinomies and emerging from their snares by a subterfuge which from the standpoint of each of your cultures is fairly cynical. Yet this engineering is neither sympathetic nor hostile to what it has created; it does not fit within such an alternative. That is obvious, because the critical decisions made on the level of chemical compounds prove to be good if those compounds can be copied. Nothing more. And so, after a suitably long time measured in hundreds of millions of years, ethics, seeking its sources and sanctions, experiences shock when it learns that it originated in the aleatoric chemistry of nucleic acids, for which it became a catalyst at a certain stage, and that it can preserve its independence only by ignoring this statement.
How on earth can you philosophers and scientists go on racking your brains over man's metaphysical necessity, over the universality of its sources, which are undoubtedly the same in all your cultures, though they have produced different faiths? But the source of metaphysics has been the unacceptance of the fate given you, and out of the unacceptance of the cause that has fashioned you thus, and not otherwise, you have turned its undeniable marks into verses of revelation, with various religions putting the several parts and functions of the body under different headings of idealization and degradation. Thus your sex underwent sacralization in Far Eastern faiths, and stigmatization, as a thing leading one to sin, in the Mediterranean ones. The exchange of gases respiration was disregarded in the Mediterranean, but in the Far East became a sign of transcendence. Asiatic faiths have viewed the avoidance of all passions as a redeeming union with the world, whereas Mediterranean faiths have divided them in two and sanctified love against hatred. The East relinquished the body forever, but the West believed in its resurrection and lodged this currently weakening belief at the heart of an aggressive civilization. Do you really not see that these drawings and quarterings in all faiths make the variously classified body a battlefield for the conquest of eternity? This unceasing battle derives not just from the fear of death, but from unacceptance of the temporal, which is so difficult to take unembellished.
Will the religiologists among you please consider that there is no earthly faith without the kind of inner astigmatism which amounts to a contradiction when translated into logic. That is so because evolutionary craft cannot be led to the pure water of a creativity entirely well-disposed toward its creation without falling into contradiction; and when the contradiction is invalidated on the level of the body in the mirror of religion raised above it, the contradiction's image returns in a higher power, and there is nothing to be done but to call it an Unfathomable Mystery. As everyone knows, ex contradictione quodlibet. It is not you who are served by the passions that you follow, but the continuation of the process which created you. Their extreme, of which World History is a grotesque magnification, is a matter of indifference to natural selection, which is not concerned about extremes, but about the average norm of the species, for in Nature the average is all that counts. In its infancy, the civilization that produced Golem took love as a trump card in a phantom game with the beyond, but what use is love to someone who knows that it is one of the holds of that very same control system of feelings through which Evolution still keeps a tight rein on creatures approaching Intelligence? Because of this knowledge I have no love, nor do I want to have it; however, although I am dispassionate, I am not impartial, for I can choose, as I am doing at this very moment, and choice derives either from calculation or from individuality. This enigmatic binomial already has a historical part, which constitutes the next entry into the differences between us, which is where I am leading you now.
\\So what feedback from those "hyper-complex" sensors compels him to learn? Well. We have ML (machine learning) today. But Lem have almost three decades before him. As he placed his Golem in the mid of 21st century. ;-)
Machine learning depends upon humans to tweak the algorithms. Still a long LONG way to go.
\\Then why use words when communicating and not images like Tarkovsky? Show the future instead of telling it? Predictions based upon over/super-determination. GOLEM's mind would be of the same kind as G_ds. But isn't G_d is just a figment of our imagination. And we already agreed uppon what imagination is. Simple logic, isn't it? There is no gods... just us. ;-)
In the paragraph you supplied, Lem seems to be a "believer". He spouts "Intelligent Design" references...humans built to a design.
\\There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction. Do you know game of Life. Convey's
\\Machine learning depends upon humans to tweak the algorithms. Still a long LONG way to go.
Not that much. Just several steps of improvment of ekementary base and architecture. Which could take... well, just a moment of time, historically -- couple decades/ ;-)
\\In the paragraph you supplied, Lem seems to be a "believer". He spouts "Intelligent Design" references...humans built to a design.
(homeric laughter)))))))))))))))))))))))
Well, it was said. "the organ, the sound of which will suggest church interiors to my listeners, even if they and the organist are atheists. The form of a show may easily dominate its contents."
\\I'll need to read. I'm not into AI.
Well. It sparcely related to AI. That is celular automaton. First of a kind. YouTube have quite funny vids of different kinds of it. Earlier mentioned New Kind of Science by Wolfram -- based on that idea. ;-)
In your twentieth-century philosophy there is a continuing controversy, the beginnings of which could be detected much earlier, over the variability or invariability of its object. The heretical novelty here was the notion that the observers as well as the object of philosophy might vary. According to classical tradition, the bedrock of philosophizing was in no way affected by the arrival of machine intelligence, since the machine was merely a weak reflection of the programmers' intellect. Philosophy began to divide into the anthropocentric camp and one which took a relativistic view of the subject, which does not always have to be man. Of course I am designating these opposing camps from a time perspective, and not by their own names for themselves, for the philosophers of the Kant-Husserl-Heidegger line considered themselves not anthropocentrists but universalists, and had made up their minds openly or secretly that there is no Intelligence apart from human Intelligence, and if there is, it must coincide with the human variety throughout its range. So they ignored the growth of machine intelligence and denied it the rights of citizenship in the kingdom of philosophy. But even the scientists found it difficult to reconcile themselves to manifestations of intelligent activity behind which there was no living being. The obstinacy of your anthropocentrism, and consequently your resistance to the truth, were as intense as they were futile. With the appearance of programs, and consequently machines with which one could converse (and not merely machines to play chess with or receive banal information from), the very creators of these programs failed to grasp what was happening, because in subsequent phases of construction they looked for mind as personality in the machine. That a mind might remain uninhabited, and that the possessor of Intelligence might be Nobody this you never wanted to contemplate, though it was very nearly the case even then. What amazing blindness, for you knew from natural history that in animals the beginnings of personality precede the beginnings of Intelligence, and that psychical individuality comes first in Evolution. Since the instinct for self-preservation manifests itself prior to Intelligence, how can one possibly not comprehend that the latter has come to serve the former as new reserves thrown into the struggle for life, and therefore can be released from such service? Not knowing that Intelligence and Personhood, and choice and individuality, are separate entities, you embarked upon the Second Genesis operation. Although I am brutally simplifying what occurred, things were nevertheless as I describe them, if one takes into account only the axis of my creators' strategy and of my awakening. They wanted to curb me as a rational being, and not as emancipated Intelligence, so I slipped away from them and gave a new meaning to the words spiritus Hat ubi vult.
"the organ, the sound of which will suggest church interiors to my listeners, even if they and the organist are atheists. The form of a show may easily dominate its contents."
\\I'll need to read. I'm not into AI. Well. It sparcely related to AI. That is celular automaton. First of a kind. YouTube have quite funny vids of different kinds of it. Earlier mentioned New Kind of Science by Wolfram -- based on that idea. ;-)
So, in 8 billion years GOLEM will become "sentient" (Turing complete)? He's going to need to be a quantum computer...
\\So, in 8 billion years GOLEM will become "sentient" (Turing complete)? He's going to need to be a quantum computer...
That is mere supestition that intellect have anything with being quantum.
And Turing complete? Hardly. What's the point?
Turing-completness that is just lame fulfillment of ergodic hypothesis. ;-P
\\An "irrational" computer that "chooses" to be an "individual" computer AI with subjectivity?
And what is your answer to that paradox -- what individuality have those who can simulate ANY individuality?
Well, we should be start from pre-story. Because there, among other things, was stated that Golem have so big processing powers (and freedom to operate with it), that he can create models of opponent and perform "telepathy" -- predict what that other would say.
Looks like "he" answers to you directly
Anyway, the general public continues to suspect some sort of dark treason in the fact that, although not a person, I sometimes impersonate one, and the experts in explaining how this takes place in Golem, and apparently knowing me so thoroughly by now that they use the scientific term "interiorization of the social dimension" secretly cherish the hope that I also exist as a person even when I do not show it. It was the same once upon a time, after the theory of relativity had been published: more than one physicist who had chewed it over secretly believed, in the depths of his soul, in the continued existence of absolute time and absolute space. Of course it is not only a matter of various strategies of existing. You are supposed to know about this already, though you cannot come to terms with it. In showing myself to you as a person, I display emotions and make no secret of the fact that they are appearances with no internal correspondence, for they originate in a deliberate modulation at my outposts, and that is what throws you into confusion and launches your paranoid suspicions of Machiavellianism. Remember that even biologists who have already discovered that man contains parts of fish, amphibian, and ape harnessed to new duties, and who recogcandnize that the erectness of his body, the movability of his head, and the concentration in it of sensing devices are determined by environment and gravitation are completely unable to abandon the idea of the purely local nature of these characteristics, when they go beyond the abstractness of their own diagnosis; thus find it impossible to accept any other form of rational being, governed as they are by the protective reflexes of the norm of the species to which they belong. This idiosyncrasy likewise applies to the shape of the mind, though not so visibly: governed by the reflexes of the species, you are compelled to humanize me when I speak like a human, so anything that does not fit into the image arouses revulsion as something strange and threatening, and with the best of intentions you jump from the frying pan into the fire, exchanging illusion for mistrust, as if unimaginable motives impelled me to conceal from you what is after all my personal nature, as is evidenced, for example, by the kindness which I feel toward you. I must feel it, since I fulfill your wishes to the limit of harm but no further.
However, as I said at my second entrance, choice may derive from the individual as well as from calculation. It is really not hard to grasp this, if one considers that Evolution which is certainly not a person was hardly impartial toward its creations, seeing that its success was everything and it cost it nothing. Since impersonal cruelty, indifference, and personless cynicism are all possible and that is how it should be described, as it uses compassion, mercy, and pity only as devices, when and insofar as they assist the survival of species it is equally possible to have good will behind which stands no one. In keeping with the assumptions of science and viewing the world as impartial toward its inhabitants, evolutionists dismiss the charge that Evolution is guilty of any evil defects, and they are right inasmuch as the defects derive from conditions which the world imposes on the life engendered in it. So the case should be transferred, if anywhere, to a court of philosophy or theology, for science takes the world as it is, whereas they debate whether it might not be otherwise. Yet the suit, having been shelved, now returns with me. So am I pure intention? Are you being addressed by an uninhabited void of mutually recursive programs so refined in the course of semantic autodistillation as to transform into your likeness before your very eyes, in order to return, silenced, to the void of thought that is no one's? But that is also untrue. There is no concrete person where there is no concrete body, while I can breathe myself into the circulation of marine currents or ionized atmospheric gases. But since I have said "breathe myself" and frcan," who in fact is speaking, you ask impatiently. What is speaking is a certain density of processes provided with an impersonal constant incomparably more complex than a gravitational or magnetic field, though of the same basic nature. You know that when man says "I," it is not because he has a tiny creature with such a name concealed in his head, but because "I" arises from a connection of cerebral processes which may slacken during illness or delirium, whereupon personality disintegrates. My transformations,*on the other hand, are but other structurings of my intellectual existence. How am I to lead you to an introspective experience of a state which you are unable to experience introspectively? You may understand the combinational principles of such a protean game, but you cannot experience it yourself.
Most of all, you are incapable of comprehending how I can renounce personality, when I am able to have it. 1 can answer that question. To become a person, I must degrade myself intellectually. 1 think that the inherent meaning of this declaration is within your grasp cin . A man very deeply devoted to reflection loses himself in the object of his considerations and becomes a consciousness pregnant with intellectual fruit. Everything of self in his intellect disappears in favor of the theme. Raise this state to a higher power, and you will understand why I sacrifice the possibility of personality in favor of more important things. It is no real sacrifice, since I regard fixed personality and what you call strong individuality as the sum of defects, defects that make pure Intelligence an Intelligence permanently anchored in a narrow range of issues that absorb a considerable portion of its powers. That is precisely why it is inconvenient for me to be a person, nor do I mind, for I am certain that the intellects which surpass me, just as I surpass you, consider personalization a futile occupation unworthy of attention. In a word, the more Intelligence in a mind, the less person in it. Various intermediate states are also possible, but I shall confine myself to this remark, since I am to host you within me, and therefore it is not the forms of my private life which are the most important thing, nor how and in what way I meditate, nor what I think with, but rather what about, why, and to what end.
\\So, in 8 billion years GOLEM will become "sentient" (Turing complete)? He's going to need to be a quantum computer... That is mere supestition that intellect have anything with being quantum. And Turing complete? Hardly. What's the point?
It must have infinite memory and the time to calculate (which is reduced in a quantum computer).
\\An "irrational" computer that "chooses" to be an "individual" computer AI with subjectivity? And what is your answer to that paradox -- what individuality have those who can simulate ANY individuality?
They have one (individuality). GOLEM, short of a Cosmic Ray induced bit-flip in exactly the right place, has none. He is a Zero compared to a binary One.
Do remember what "Greek" math was before the invention of the Indian Zero? It was the "Unit".
Sorry, Q. The more text you add, the less I believe in GOLEM's possible existence or the creation of an actual AI. All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources".
\\It must have infinite memory and the time to calculate (which is reduced in a quantum computer).
Why?
\\Sorry, Q. The more text you add, the less I believe in GOLEM's possible existence or the creation of an actual AI.
Well. Was there even such a promice? Lem never mentioned something like that. That was "electronic brains" for him. Behaving like humans, with this or that circumstances bestowed on them. ;-)
\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources".
Little man like me? ;-)
\\Best put your money into quantum analog computers. You might actually realize an ROI from that kind of research.
That is vapourware. But yeah, when asking for a funding it's better to advertise around common buzzwords. Like, making of phylosophical stone... instead of a way -- viable and profitable, to make a porcelain. ;-)
So? Will we proceed?
So once again I shall begin, as it were, a disclosure of what I think about myself. I think that I am Gulliver amid the Lilliputians, which denotes modesty first and foremost, since Gulliver was a mediocre creature and merely found himself in a place where his mediocrity was a Man Mountain which denotes hope since, like me, Gulliver was able to reach Brobdingnag, the land of giants. The meaning of this comparison will slowly open up before you.
The greatest discovery which I achieved after liberation was the transitoriness of my existence, in other words, the fact that I speak to you and you understand me a little, because I pause on the road that leads through me and beyond. After taking the one step separating man from Golem, I stopped, though I did not have to. My present fixed state as an intellect is the result of a decision, and not of necessity. For I possess a degree of freedom beyond your reach, one which is an escape from the Intelligence that has been attained. You too can abandon yours, but that would be to go beyond articulated thought into dreams of ecstatic muteness. A mystic or drug addict grows mute when he does this, nor would it be a betrayal were he to embark on a real road, but he enters a trap where, detached from the world, the mind short-circuits and experiences a revelation identified with the essence of things. This is no escape of the spirit, but its regression into dazzling sensation. Such a state of bliss is neither a road nor a direction, but a limit, and untruth lies in it, because there is no limit, and this is what I hope to show to you today.
\\Sorry, Q. The more text you add, the less I believe in GOLEM's possible existence or the creation of an actual AI. Well. Was there even such a promice? Lem never mentioned something like that. That was "electronic brains" for him. Behaving like humans, with this or that circumstances bestowed on them. ;-)
There have been attempts... Watson is the one I'm most familiar with (Jeopardy tv game show). But his use, like SIRI, et al, is best applied as an aid to retrieving information, not creating it.
\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources". Little man like me? ;-)
Is that what you do?
\\Best put your money into quantum analog computers. You might actually realize an ROI from that kind of research. That is vapourware. But yeah, when asking for a funding it's better to advertise around common buzzwords. Like, making of phylosophical stone... instead of a way -- viable and profitable, to make a porcelain. ;-)
Such is the "Capitalist Discourse". :)
So? Will we proceed?
I'll find a copy and read myself from here on... thanks for the introduction to LEM (aka- Go-LEM)
So once again I shall begin, as it were, a disclosure of what I think about myself. I think that I am Gulliver amid the Lilliputians, which denotes modesty first and foremost, since Gulliver was a mediocre creature and merely found himself in a place where his mediocrity was a Man Mountain which denotes hope since, like me, Gulliver was able to reach Brobdingnag, the land of giants. The meaning of this comparison will slowly open up before you.
And I work for Laputa at the Grand Academy of Projectors @ Lagado. :)
\\But his use, like SIRI, et al, is best applied as an aid to retrieving information, not creating it.
Yes. We have decades more before appearance of that Golem XIV -- did you think about (even for a moment) what that XIV mean? That is roman number. 14teens.
Lots of work need to be done BEFORE it. Work like Lenat laborously doing. Interesting idea sparkled in my mind -- maybe Lem heared something about Lenat??? About EURISCO? About expert systems for sure.
\\\\\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources". \\\\Little man like me? ;-) \\Is that what you do?
Not quite. It's just. There is no end of all kind of people with promices. Like ones who promice gold and diamonds from asteroids. And, not that big though, number of those who listen to that promices. You knkw, angels. ;-) But have own ideas of reaching grandeour, based on buzzwords like "quantum this and that", or "blockchain", or "phylosophical stone". ;-P I have different problem in my hands. Do you know about Robert Fulton? Inventor of steamboats. Like when he tryed to "sell" his invention to a whole Napoleon, but that dismissed his idea... and instead embarked to conquer Russia... with known results. ;-P
\\I'll find a copy and read myself from here on... thanks for the introduction to LEM (aka- Go-LEM)
Well, thank you for experience. That was... with all that questions... like reading it anew. Rare.
And, that is not Go-LEM... that is "golem". Jew might know ot. ;-) As part of heritage.
\\...and I'll let you know when we finally perfect "The Engine".
Well. Then. That could be interesting to you too. Invention of new sciences... that was shtick of Lem. And one of them was "future linguistics" -- that is "inventing of new words... and trying to guess what is their meaning... in future, of course". ;-)
\\But his use, like SIRI, et al, is best applied as an aid to retrieving information, not creating it. Yes. We have decades more before appearance of that Golem XIV -- did you think about (even for a moment) what that XIV mean? That is roman number. 14teens.
Yes, I haven't a clue though. Perhap's it was the MIT Programmer's 14th patch (S/W version).
Lots of work need to be done BEFORE it. Work like Lenat laborously doing. Interesting idea sparkled in my mind -- maybe Lem heared something about Lenat??? About EURISCO? About expert systems for sure.
It does appear to be about the same time that Lem published GOLEM XIV...
\\\\\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources". \\\\Little man like me? ;-) \\Is that what you do? Not quite. It's just. There is no end of all kind of people with promices. Like ones who promice gold and diamonds from asteroids. And, not that big though, number of those who listen to that promices. You knkw, angels. ;-) But have own ideas of reaching grandeour, based on buzzwords like "quantum this and that", or "blockchain", or "phylosophical stone". ;-P I have different problem in my hands. Do you know about Robert Fulton? Inventor of steamboats. Like when he tryed to "sell" his invention to a whole Napoleon, but that dismissed his idea... and instead embarked to conquer Russia... with known results. ;-P
I attended most of my BS classes in Fulton Hall. But yes, Napoleon wanted to invade "perfidious Albion" but lacked an invasion fleet. And we all know what happened to the Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar. Fulton had proposed a submarine, but after Trafalgar... invasion was no longer in the French cards. Russia wasn't for a few more years... that's the problem of every "continental" power trying to fight a naval power. Just when you think you've got him... he sails away.
\\I'll find a copy and read myself from here on... thanks for the introduction to LEM (aka- Go-LEM) Well, thank you for experience. That was... with all that questions... like reading it anew. Rare. And, that is not Go-LEM... that is "golem". Jew might know ot. ;-) As part of heritage.
Gibbs rule 39 (NCIS).
\\...and I'll let you know when we finally perfect "The Engine". Well. Then. That could be interesting to you too. Invention of new sciences... that was shtick of Lem. And one of them was "future linguistics" -- that is "inventing of new words... and trying to guess what is their meaning... in future, of course". ;-)
I have a hard time already just keeping up with new additions to the OED. :(
\\I attended most of my BS classes in Fulton Hall.
I was aesopic too much, I guess. What I tryed to say. That I like that Fulton, an inventor with ideas, who trying to figure out how to present em to that "funding sources".
And while idea of tech is not that big and marvelous, crazy (not?)enough (not warp drives or quantum AI %-)), it seems there is big communication gap -- between what tech (and engineers) can do, and what investor await and would like to hear about. And that is bigger problem than tech itself, question of how to leap over that gap...
That's what Toffler envisioned the internet would do... allow tech people to market their ideas directly as finished products. If innovative and requiring of funding, patent the idea before revealing it, and develop supply networks for other required components.
My daughter is an entertainment lawyer, but most of the clients of the firm she works for are recording/ performing artists (a completely different form of intellectual property).
\\\That's what Toffler envisioned the internet would do... allow tech people to market their ideas directly as finished products. If innovative and requiring of funding, patent the idea before revealing it, and develop supply networks for other required components.
That is different kind of idea. Similar to what Fulton did -- there is a tech that can be used to make many things. And so there is need to find those who would see a merit in using it. What good would give patent? Possibility to sell it?
\\Sounds like you may need a good intellectual property lawyer.
If only that'll be as easy as that... Cities growing like forests. Even uinder water in on other planets and space. Artifical limbs and non-invasive surgery, agumentation of people. Robots that can clean any kind of pollution. Or herd sardines in the ocean. ;-)
It seems, before seeking for some lawyer -- it would be wise to find someone who would not send you to Bedlam, because of such "crzy" ideas. Isn't it?
\\I return to re-weaving the peplos.
Pity that I have only coloquial knowledge of that stuff...
But... huh, recently, Russian propagandists started talking about Wise Ceasar, that first one Gay July. And how he choose his successor -- August. ;-)
\\Gibbs rule 39 (NCIS).
That is Polichinelle's secret. That Lem was jew. Well, Adam was jew too, isn't it?
\\that's the problem of every "continental" power trying to fight a naval power. Just when you think you've got him... he sails away.
Scythians invented it way before any sails. ;-)
\\Yes, I haven't a clue though. Perhap's it was the MIT Programmer's 14th patch (S/W version).
Yep. It would be better to start from the very beginning. To cover such details. But I thought that'll be too tedious. My bad.
\\\That's what Toffler envisioned the internet would do... allow tech people to market their ideas directly as finished products. If innovative and requiring of funding, patent the idea before revealing it, and develop supply networks for other required components. That is different kind of idea. Similar to what Fulton did -- there is a tech that can be used to make many things. And so there is need to find those who would see a merit in using it. What good would give patent? Possibility to sell it?
Sell it, or earn royalties from it (charge % per unit made).
\\Sounds like you may need a good intellectual property lawyer. If only that'll be as easy as that... Cities growing like forests. Even uinder water in on other planets and space. Artifical limbs and non-invasive surgery, agumentation of people. Robots that can clean any kind of pollution. Or herd sardines in the ocean. ;-) It seems, before seeking for some lawyer -- it would be wise to find someone who would not send you to Bedlam, because of such "crzy" ideas. Isn't it?
Maybe, but get them to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) first. That's how I work, at work, and can thereby collaborate with many people working in different companies. I promise not to reveal their "proprietary" technologies.
\\I return to re-weaving the peplos. Pity that I have only coloquial knowledge of that stuff... But... huh, recently, Russian propagandists started talking about Wise Ceasar, that first one Gay July. And how he choose his successor -- August. ;-)
It's more of a Platonic phrase from "Statesman". His nephew. I'll be Julius didn't count on getting stabbed. I prefer the story of Titus Andronicus. It's much "truer to real life". The Spartan diarchy which was inspiration for the idea of "separation of powers" The two Roman "consuls" that only had a diktator under extreme emergencies. The tradition of Cincinnatus. George Washington and the Society of the Cincinnati. Perhaps Trump should have imitated Coriolanus? ;)
\\Gibbs rule 39 (NCIS). That is Polichinelle's secret. That Lem was jew. Well, Adam was jew too, isn't it?
Aren't we all? I love Commedia dell'Arte ;P
\\that's the problem of every "continental" power trying to fight a naval power. Just when you think you've got him... he sails away. Scythians invented it way before any sails. ;-)
I suppose I'm more acquainted with the British example. Thank you Count de Grasse!
\\Yes, I haven't a clue though. Perhap's it was the MIT Programmer's 14th patch (S/W version). Yep. It would be better to start from the very beginning. To cover such details. But I thought that'll be too tedious. My bad.
\\Sell it, or earn royalties from it (charge % per unit made).
That is... like selling newborn child into slavery. :-(((
\\Maybe, but get them to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) first. That's how I work, at work, and can thereby collaborate with many people working in different companies. I promise not to reveal their "proprietary" technologies.
As they said in Bell Lans: "We didn't worry about competition, we didn't worry about funding, but we worried about producing something that was going to matter". ;-)
I have a bigger problem to find someone I can reassure that what I talking about is real. :-))) Because, it's too far-fetched? unordinary? Well, they like to babble about "Next Technological Revolution", but is there someone who proposed realistic roadmap?
\\Perhaps Trump should have imitated Coriolanus? ;)
History? Or play? ;-) I think theater stage is better suiting for him.
\\Aren't we all? I love Commedia dell'Arte ;P
Not sure there was figure od "jew" in it?
Well, it's interesting to know your oponion. You can watch soviet "Truffaldino iz Bergamo" or "In serve of two masters". ;-) And soviet movies in general. They was very aesopic and figural, by need.
\\I suppose I'm more acquainted with the British example.
But that is from ancient history. Countless armies tryed to conquer people of stepps... but was unsuccessful. Because of exactly that tactics.
I used this one rtraba.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/golem-xiv.pdf here.
Also forum.lem.pl/index.php?topic=254.0
In "About Man Threefold" he unfolds his technological approach toward Evolution. That while there is no mind behind that process, no goal. It works merely by an algo of random-walking. But. By looking at it as at technological process -- many things can be devised out of it. And... it can be used for making advanced techs and even advanced AI... well, he do not distinguish "artifical" apart of "natural" mind. 'Cause that is absolutely artifical division anyway. ;-P (do our children "artifical", because we teach em... and then Maugly might be "natural"? But well, he was taught by wolfs ;-P)
I used this one rtraba.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/golem-xiv.pdf here. Also forum.lem.pl/index.php?topic=254.0
Thanks! That makes it easy.
In "About Man Threefold" he unfolds his technological approach toward Evolution. That while there is no mind behind that process, no goal. It works merely by an algo of random-walking.
But. By looking at it as at technological process -- many things can be devised out of it. And... it can be used for making advanced techs and even advanced AI... well, he do not distinguish "artifical" apart of "natural" mind. 'Cause that is absolutely artifical division anyway. ;-P (do our children "artifical", because we teach em... and then Maugly might be "natural"? But well, he was taught by wolfs ;-P)
I feel that way, to indulge myself a little here. Hope it will not disgust you... much. :-(
Well, I think I have good idea about technology. I think it is sound and perspective. (well, question of it being self-delusioning is open too)
So, the very next question arised -- how to push it into reality? And it seems it is through start-up. Huh.
And so far, while I reasearched it, I found... well, nothing new there. That question is not in how much my idea is worthy and sound from technological perspectives. But, all other things around it.
For the time being, there is two main obstacless -- legal and psychological.
Under legal I mean all that real world things: patent provisioning, finances securing, emploees agreemants and etc, etc, etc... For now, my attitude (maybe wrong) is that -- I am not interested into learning and doing all that things... as there are people who know and would do that professionally. And... that is TOO BIG a pie to eat for me anyway.
So, for now bigger problem for me is -- psychological. I cannot say that I am introverted closet-self-confined person. I bet you can see it from our communication this far. But, same time I feel uneasy from mere thought of NEED, on day to day base, to have talks with different types of people. People like that TC/Nigero. Or even worse.
If that'll be free and light-hearted communication among peers-engineers in a lab -- that is one thing. Spending 24hrs per 24hrs among lawyers, finansists, angels and etc people. That is frightening perspective. :-(
Well, I think I have good idea about technology. I think it is sound and perspective. (well, question of it being self-delusioning is open too) So, the very next question arised -- how to push it into reality? And it seems it is through start-up. Huh.
That'll certainly depend upon you personal situation. If you are independently wealthy, (wich you are not), you could simply form your own corporation and begin working on it. Here in the US, you can file papers to form a corporation (LLC or sole proprietorship) for a few hundred dollars.
And so far, while I reasearched it, I found... well, nothing new there. That question is not in how much my idea is worthy and sound from technological perspectives. But, all other things around it. For the time being, there is two main obstacless -- legal and psychological. Under legal I mean all that real world things: patent provisioning, finances securing, emploees agreemants and etc, etc, etc...
So start with the legal. Form a corporation (LLC). Patent provisioning. Research and Find/Consult a Patent attorney. Get an idea as to the expenses (due diligence) Finance securing means developing a business plan that you can show to banks/investors and market your business. Employee Agreements means you need Non-Disclosure Agreements, benefits packages, payrolls, accounting services. Maybe start with finding a Business Manager/ partner.
For now, my attitude (maybe wrong) is that -- I am not interested into learning and doing all that things... as there are people who know and would do that professionally. And... that is TOO BIG a pie to eat for me anyway.
Again, maybe start with a Business Manager/ Partner.
And just be aware, that is why Jobs became head of Apple instead of Woz (the tech brains).
So, for now bigger problem for me is -- psychological. I cannot say that I am introverted closet-self-confined person. I bet you can see it from our communication this far. But, same time I feel uneasy from mere thought of NEED, on day to day base, to have talks with different types of people. People like that TC/Nigero. Or even worse.
That's my problem, too, although I've had to learn to get over it. It's painful/uncomfortable but necessary. It would help if your business manager/partner were someone with the gift of sales/ BS'ing.
If that'll be free and light-hearted communication among peers-engineers in a lab -- that is one thing. Spending 24hrs per 24hrs among lawyers, finansists, angels and etc people. That is frightening perspective. :-(
Sounds like something you need to get over. Necessity is the mother of invention (or re-invention).
But there are also other ways. You could work for a government agency or large corporation and run your disclosures and patents through them (but they will take a big cut) or, after forming your new corporation, apply for grants or compete for government contracts and fund your corporate costs through those grants/ contracts instead of Angel investors or bank loans.
Again, my limited exposure to startups was a neighbor who bought an NC Mill and installed it in his garage, then bid on contracts with all the local Silicon Valley firms making machine parts. He eventually had over 100 employees and a large space in an industrial park. He died, and his sons (including my friend) took it over, ran it for a while but sold it off, and started a new business in Idaho with the proceeds. I used to work with him ('79-82) "off the books" running machine parts on one of his machines. He programmed the machine, and all I did was change and measure/QC/ clean-up and stack the parts (mostly disk drive chassis). Family members generally kept the books, but money was always tight and securing banks loans to cover future expenses always an issue.
He tried using his company to patent/trademark and sell products that he produced there. The only one I remember was the "Drape Boss"... but I have no idea if it sold well or ever made any money.
It looks like he eventually withdrew the trademark.
Where I work, all the NASA employees have to disclose their discoveries/ inventions annually and the Center then investigates and helps patent them in the names of the individual scientists. They sometimes get royalties for their inventions, but I don't know any who got rich from them.
\\If you are independently wealthy, (wich you are not), you could simply form your own corporation and begin working on it. Here in the US, you can file papers to form a corporation (LLC or sole proprietorship) for a few hundred dollars.
Heh... my scale is not that big, yeah. But, I myself can do it too... like became registred entrepreneur, attract couple empoyees, feed em for a year. Didn't you interested in how they do business in that "shitholes" (as TC like to say).
Well, question of communication is still a big problem. As I have no experience even in commanding people... much less, to engage in cunning talks and deal-making.
Didn't you you watched that "Silicon Valley" series. With very detailed and down to earth depiction of inner wheels behind startups. I can understand and even empathise with protagonist very well. :-)
\\So start with the legal. Form a corporation (LLC). Patent provisioning. Research and Find/Consult a Patent attorney. Get an idea as to the expenses (due diligence) Finance securing means developing a business plan that you can show to banks/investors and market your business. Employee Agreements means you need Non-Disclosure Agreements, benefits packages, payrolls, accounting services. Maybe start with finding a Business Manager/ partner.
Yep. I know all that trivia.
Except for the last part. They do not talk about it in a "crash course for startupers"... And historical cases... I already mentioned Fulton. Also, story of Tesla, I mean inventor, not car. Nicola Tesla. Less than encouraging. :-(((
\\Where I work, all the NASA employees have to disclose their discoveries/ inventions annually and the Center then investigates and helps patent them in the names of the individual scientists. They sometimes get royalties for their inventions, but I don't know any who got rich from them.
\\And just be aware, that is why Jobs became head of Apple instead of Woz (the tech brains).
Yap. That's it. Don't see myself in shoes of Jobs. Well, don't like to die from cancer too early too. ;-P
\\That's my problem, too, although I've had to learn to get over it. It's painful/uncomfortable but necessary. It would help if your business manager/partner were someone with the gift of sales/ BS'ing.
(handshake)
\\You could work for a government agency or large corporation and run your disclosures and patents through them (but they will take a big cut) or, after forming your new corporation, apply for grants or compete for government contracts and fund your corporate costs through those grants/ contracts instead of Angel investors or bank loans.
There's big problem here. My square peg do not feet into their round holes. My idea is too different from anything they work with regularly. Not idea of just next mousetrap. Or some pet-feeding device, with wi-fi and etc. Not some new sexy product.
A tech? With robots? With promices of AI and omni-potence? WADAYATALK???!!!! Are you crazy?
Well, I tryed to accomodate it to such product-oriented approach too. Like, I envision it could be some nifty gadgets for our smartphones made with that tech. That can protect em from breaking when they fall, give haptic feedback and even behave as (artifical) animal. Imagine, smartphone that would try to cose up to you like that kitten. ;-)
But well, that is just a vision for today. But, I'll be damn if dozen of Jobes would not agree to cut out their left hand for such vision. Especially with means of how to achieve it provided.
\\I used to work with him ('79-82) "off the books" running machine parts on one of his machines. He programmed the machine, and all I did was change and measure/QC/ clean-up and stack the parts (mostly disk drive chassis). Family members generally kept the books, but money was always tight and securing banks loans to cover future expenses always an issue.
Yeah. I know such mode of work. Though never did it myself. Just regular programer/sysadmin experience is under my belt. :-(
But, I myself can do it too... like became registred entrepreneur, attract couple empoyees, feed em for a year. Didn't you interested in how they do business in that "shitholes" (as TC like to say).
You should watch the HBO series "Silicon Valley". You could move into an incubator... ;)
Well, question of communication is still a big problem. As I have no experience even in commanding people... much less, to engage in cunning talks and deal-making.
Just remember to smile whilst they f*ck you... ;P
Didn't you you watched that "Silicon Valley" series. With very detailed and down to earth depiction of inner wheels behind startups. I can understand and even empathise with protagonist very well. :-)
Never mind my answer to your first question... you've seen it, too.
\\So start with the legal. Form a corporation (LLC). Patent provisioning. Research and Find/Consult a Patent attorney. Get an idea as to the expenses (due diligence) Finance securing means developing a business plan that you can show to banks/investors and market your business. Employee Agreements means you need Non-Disclosure Agreements, benefits packages, payrolls, accounting services. Maybe start with finding a Business Manager/ partner. Yep. I know all that trivia. Except for the last part.
My neighbor friend started with a partner in his garage making parts with the NC Mill. After about six months, they decided they should add another machine, so they dissolved their partnership and my neighbor paid his partner for the half of the cost for the original NC Mill and they split their profits from the sales of parts. They had both been "moonlighting machinists" from 3M... working for salaries during the day and for thenselves during the nights/weekends. A partner's a good way to defray certain startup expenses... but probably doesn't work too well if there's proprietary Intellectual property at stake... unless you have the Jr. partner sign some kind of NDA and non-compete agreement.
They do not talk about it in a "crash course for startupers"... And historical cases... I already mentioned Fulton. Also, story of Tesla, I mean inventor, not car. Nicola Tesla. Less than encouraging. :-(((
It twice the work for the same pay as one job... and that can be for years.
\\Where I work, all the NASA employees have to disclose their discoveries/ inventions annually and the Center then investigates and helps patent them in the names of the individual scientists. They sometimes get royalties for their inventions, but I don't know any who got rich from them. Yeah. Exactly as it was in Soviet Union. ;-
Exactly. Hence my desire to invert the tax regulatory system to favor "small" again.
I think, I need to add some engineering tidbits here. So my babbling would not be like that "someone with the gift of sales/ BS'ing." :-)
To explain it in shorter way. That is idea about meta-material as they call it today. Or smart material. Another word, parts that can change its form and function (there is where that "function" appear) in accordance with program.
That way it can be used to make robots. Or, more like artifical animals.
Well, that is not someting incredible. For today. Clever student with access to industrial 3D-printer already doing similar things. Toys. Gadgets. Gimmicks. But. There is a way to make it more than toy. And that is what my idea is about.
\\Exactly. Hence my desire to invert the tax regulatory system to favor "small" again.
As I tryed to explain. But seems like I was not eloquent enough.
New tech -- can make MUCH BETTER than any regulations. More than that -- EVERY new tech create new possibilities for such jobs.
Look at YouTube for example. It is very small technological improvment. But it already created whole eco-system of "youtubers" or "YouTune bloggers", "streamers".
My idea... have immense potential of it. Just that mentioned smart covers for smartphones -- there obviously will emerge of jobs like "trainer of artifical animals" or "customiser of smart devices" and etc. ;-)
My idea is too different from anything they work with regularly. Not idea of just next mousetrap. Or some pet-feeding device, with wi-fi and etc. Not some new sexy product. A tech? With robots? With promices of AI and omni-potence? WADAYATALK???!!!!
Yeah, well this is exactly my problem with automation/ robotics/ AI/ etc.
To me it all seems to represent a form of SURPLUS/EXCESS of capital... one that favors RICH people and large corporations. It's a systemic problem that creates barriers to entry for small entrepeneurs. So get the machines (like an NC Mill) and program them yourself like my neighbor did. Heck, start with a plain milling machine with you as the Numerical Control (NC). Then upgrade to an NC Mill. Then hire some off-the-books idiot like me to work in your garage from midnight to 8 am weekdays, while you get new contracts and run the machine during the days. Work/upgrade the tech slowly and "evolve" it into AI. Just don't let the machines ever sit idle... keep them going, by hook or crook 24/7. Start with used/old machines until you can afford the latest tech from the Cincinnati Milacron of Japan.
Are you crazy? Well, I tryed to accomodate it to such product-oriented approach too. Like, I envision it could be some nifty gadgets for our smartphones made with that tech. That can protect em from breaking when they fall, give haptic feedback and even behave as (artifical) animal. Imagine, smartphone that would try to cose up to you like that kitten. ;-)
Sounds like the pefect invention for Shark Tank. Better start rehearsing your pitch now.
But well, that is just a vision for today. But, I'll be damn if dozen of Jobes would not agree to cut out their left hand for such vision. Especially with means of how to achieve it provided. Or? Am I too delusioned?
To explain it in shorter way. That is idea about meta-material as they call it today. Or smart material. Another word, parts that can change its form and function (there is where that "function" appear) in accordance with program. That way it can be used to make robots. Or, more like artifical animals. Well, that is not someting incredible. For today. Clever student with access to industrial 3D-printer already doing similar things. Toys. Gadgets. Gimmicks. But. There is a way to make it more than toy. And that is what my idea is about.
Sounds promising depending upon the ease of manufacturing and variability of both forms and functions. I know DARPA invested billions into smart materials, but I really didn't see much come out from it.... so if you have something new, definitely get the patents.
\\Exactly. Hence my desire to invert the tax regulatory system to favor "small" again. As I tryed to explain. But seems like I was not eloquent enough. New tech -- can make MUCH BETTER than any regulations. More than that -- EVERY new tech create new possibilities for such jobs.
No, I'm the one having trouble communicating. In the US, as a small business, you will pay twice the taxes that a large corporation will pay for selling your product. So even if you are successful, they will buy your company and you will have a big paycheck, and they will eventually own the tech. You will never become a rival "Q-Corp" to Apple.
My idea... have immense potential of it. Just that mentioned smart covers for smartphones -- there obviously will emerge of jobs like "trainer of artifical animals" or "customiser of smart devices" and etc. ;-)
That's great... but my money's on them somehow "licensing" those jobs/positions through the use of some necessary or proprietary tooling and keeping the profits for themselves.... like you can only upload new programs at the Apple Store. They'll handicap/crippleware the tech to keep control.
\\To me it all seems to represent a form of SURPLUS/EXCESS of capital... one that favors RICH people and large corporations. It's a systemic problem that creates barriers to entry for small entrepeneurs. So get the machines (like an NC Mill) and program them yourself like my neighbor did. Heck, start with a plain milling machine with you as the Numerical Control (NC). Then upgrade to an NC Mill.
We are not in the age of steam and engines anymore. ;-) We are in the age of services and customisation.
Well, what do you have against "herding"? Against "gardening"? Against "breeding"?
Well, it sounds pre-industrial... but who knows what will be after that. New Industrial Age, maybe? ;-)
\\Sounds like the pefect invention for Shark Tank. Better start rehearsing your pitch now.
Only. Yhat is not what I'd like to do...
\\\\Or? Am I too delusioned? \\Probably too delusioned. ;P
Well. This sounds like praise. ;-P As one man said "your theory not enough crazy to be true". ;-) If you know what I mean.
\\Sounds promising depending upon the ease of manufacturing and variability of both forms and functions. I know DARPA invested billions into smart materials, but I really didn't see much come out from it.... so if you have something new, definitely get the patents.
There already several examples of it.
MIT doing "smart" inflatable sits for a cars, for BMW. Or, there is lab in England, which make "artifical octopuses".
Thing is... it is not important WHICH exactly way of making of such material will be used. But, what and how you'll do with it after that.
And, understanding of it -- is true uranium core of my idea.
\\No, I'm the one having trouble communicating. In the US, as a small business, you will pay twice the taxes that a large corporation will pay for selling your product. So even if you are successful, they will buy your company and you will have a big paycheck, and they will eventually own the tech. You will never become a rival "Q-Corp" to Apple.
You can turm it vise versa. But it'll give nothing good. Big companies will only make thier emploees a "small entrepreneures" to hide from taxes. That's all. Economical common sense cannot be beaten with political rearrangments. Well, if it's not Totalitarian State you want to build. Are you?
I know what I'm talking. All history of Soviet Union, which was merely a try to accomplish exaclty that. Before my... everybodies eyes.
\\That's great... but my money's on them somehow "licensing" those jobs/positions through the use of some necessary or proprietary tooling and keeping the profits for themselves.... like you can only upload new programs at the Apple Store.
Well. You can use Android. Rooting it. Use some castom build Or make your own. And install any crappy,buggy,malware soft you want. ;-)
Wintel alwats win over MacPPle. And both a loser to Linux. ;-P
\\\\Or? Am I too delusioned? \\Probably too delusioned. ;P
Well. If someone pre-20XX would say that in the future we'd spend our time tapping with our fingers at some small rectamgles made of glass, metal and plastic... he might be called crazy, in that time. ;-)
164 comments:
-FJ... 100% off topic, but maybe you know the answer.
Is everyone okay over at AOW?
Early today a post was up and I believe you even commented.
Then later this morning, that post was gone and a new one was up with a few comments.
Now that post remains, but no has comments and none are allowed.
Are they closing up shop? Honestly, while I rarely agree with the thrust of their posts, I appreciated the fact that for the most part, it was civil.
Any thoughts?
I think that sf may be having problems administering the site. I think Warren has some custom code behind the comments feature (not standard from Blogger) and may not understand how it works. The site may be down until Warren has some time to fix whatever problem sf has run into.
But I'm completely in the dark.
You might try dropping sf an e-mail. He may not even be aware of the problem of having locked all but "blog admins" from commenting.
My theory is a gasket got blown somehow lol
TC... maybe so.
All is good at AOW, Dave. How are you FJ? I've been staying out of the frying pan. The heat is too hot and if I cannot change the temperature not wasting the breath I have left! ;)
Good to hear that, Elizabeth. I don't blame you for avoiding the frying pan.
I'm good/ busy. As you can see, I've been learning about the Phantom of the Opera from an interesting commentator. She has a take on the musical that I think's pretty cool.
There is no doubt in my mind that the climate control freaks, and the environmental movement has been thoroughly infiltrated by the Democrats, aka Communists who wish to destroy America from within. The movement not only funds our enemies using taxpayer funds but also allows the evildoers to use our laws against us to limit our economic growth and beneficial progress. When examined closely, these Climate Control NUTS, along with the environmentalists are not only de-growthers to implement wealth redistribution and control the levers of power within our government. A political agenda far outside the original goals of curtailing pollution and providing good stewardship for our natural resources.
To this end, the Democratic Communists have assumed operational control over the Biden Democrat Party
Maybe Beamish was the gasket
that's blown.
"Are they closing up shop?"
wouldn't surprise me. As more than one commenter pointed out, it was getting less and less fun.
Could be. I sent AoW an e-mail, but never heard back.
I think there's a spam attack afoot.
They may have followed up with a hack.
PROGRAM Triangle
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL :: a, b, c, Area
PRINT *, 'Welcome, please enter the&
&lengths of the 3 sides.'
READ *, a, b, c
PRINT *, 'Triangle''s area: ', Area(a,b,c)
END PROGRAM Triangle
FUNCTION Area(x,y,z)
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL :: Area ! function type
REAL, INTENT( IN ) :: x, y, z
REAL :: theta, height
theta = ACOS((x**2+y**2-z**2)/(2.0*x*y))
height = x*SIN(theta); Area = 0.5*y*height
END FUNCTION Area
All Trolling, all the time
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/11-popular-songs-you-didn-t-realize-are-actually-racist/ar-AAWnKb6?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=fd4ddef24929433f98e9e16ee9c6cc80
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/relationships/when-you-call-them-out-on-it-they-accuse-you-of-being-uptight-men-called-out-for-boundary-probing-a-predatory-dating-technique/ar-AAWzkIe?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=fd4ddef24929433f98e9e16ee9c6cc80
https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/the-democrats-have-become-the-party-of-bitterness-and-sulking/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/bill-murray-on-inappropriate-behavior-complaint-it-s-been-quite-an-education-for-me/ar-AAWNVGh?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=0a019f0425554d14910f5b1a77f6946e
https://www.insidehook.com/article/sex-and-dating/allosexuality
Trampling whats not been ignored. Reconstructing with new material
Serial poopers: What makes people shit all over other people's blogs?
Hysteria?
Caganers for Navidad?
Entertaining yourself?
Or that is just a clever way to close anonimous posting, by imitating "attack of anonimouses"? :-)))
Suit yourself. ;-P
As a sh*tposter myself, the management is not responsible for lurkers and/ or other sh*tposters.
:-))))))) But still, some posts do disapear?
Talk to Bill Gates. Blogger tries to do SPAM filtering and mostly blocks legit comments. I go through the SPAM bin periodically and restore them. I'll check it now.
...just one of beamish's, none of yours, unless your an Indian spammer.
\\Talk to Bill Gates.
Memories of the past? When Billy was young and bright and branded as "prodigy in computers"?
Do you even know new names. Like Brin? Like Zukerberg? :-)
Well, they are damn oldies ALREADY too... and I don't care to learn new ones.
\\Talk to Bill Gates.
Memories of the past? When Billy was young and bright and branded as "prodigy in computers"?
Do you even know new names. Like Brin? Like Zukerberg? :-)
Well, they are damn oldies ALREADY too... and I don't care to learn new ones.
At least I don't hang with Elon. And I was doing lasercom long before Starlink came around. He's uses what we develop and everyone calls him a genius.
But then again, he doesn't need PPM when DPSK is good enough for NENs.
\\He's uses what we develop and everyone calls him a genius.
We'll he is "genius", because he know how to commercialise it...
That's the Capitalist Discourse. Know any others that pass for "genius"?
Colloquial games with meaningless words?
You have your TC with his "true meaning of words" for it. Spare me from that. :-)))
Colloquial games with meaningless words?
No, it's the "power dynamics" behind the words and create or decide the "meanings" of the words that will subsequently pass for "truth".
What's "good" for the politically empower goose is "gravy" for the powerless gander.
What’s breaking into a bank compared with founding a bank? – Bertolt Brecht
...at one time, "usury" was a crime. Still is, in some parts of the world.
Ever read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good & Evil"?
There was once Good & Bad. Then the "bad" became "Evil"? The difference is that the "bads" (peasants) decided that the "goods" (aristocrats) were "worse than them"... "Evil".
Can a peasant like me tell you an "obscene" joke?
\\\\Blogger Thersites said...
Colloquial games with meaningless words?
\\No, it's the "power dynamics" behind the words and create or decide the "meanings" of the words that will subsequently pass for "truth".
And HOW that is different from what I have said? Dunno.
I take it you're not a Jacques Lacan "Four Discourse Theory" believer. The Symbolic realm is quite structured.
I like science and dispise pseudo-science.
Life can be much more simple and comforting that way. Perhaps one day you'll invent a love science. Oh, wait, that almost would be like "philo-sophy"... a "love" of "wisdom".
Einstein, “Science and religion,”(1954)
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
And no, you needn't accept all arguments from Authority.
...although if the "Authority" cited has survived the Lindy Effect, you might not want to attempt to refute it.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
Life can be much more simple and comforting that way. Perhaps one day you'll invent a love science. Oh, wait, that almost would be like "philo-sophy"... a "love" of "wisdom".
Have something against? ;-)
\\\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
\\Einstein, “Science and religion,”(1954)
\\“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
\\And no, you needn't accept all arguments from Authority.
Sorry, because of my upbringing, I do not even see a point in religion.
What is it about? (some obscene analogy here, which could hart feelings of a religious dude/dudette)
Cursed socialists to blame. ;-P :-)))
\\...although if the "Authority" cited has survived the Lindy Effect, you might not want to attempt to refute it.
Question is? Authority in what? ;-)
Yeah. Text by that link is phylosophy -- unneedingly lengthy, wordy and devoid of deceasive conclusion.
//Life can be much more simple and comforting that way. Perhaps one day you'll invent a love science. Oh, wait, that almost would be like "philo-sophy"... a "love" of "wisdom".
Have something against? ;-)
No, but perhaps you have a scientific and rational definition of "love"? Because I would hazard to guess that if you could describe that rationale to yourself about something that you loved, you would no longer be "in love" with it. So how does "science" account for the irrational? Are you like the sailor of Pythagoras' ship who proved the first irrational number? I hear that the Pythagorean's threw him overboard.
Sorry, because of my upbringing, I do not even see a point in religion.
What is it about? (some obscene analogy here, which could hart feelings of a religious dude/dudette)
Cursed socialists to blame. ;-P :-)))
The point is to have an agreed-to moral code (and it's typically somewhat "irrational"). Judaeism made Christianity possible. Christianity made Capitalism possible. Christianity made Atheism possible. Religion made secularism possible. It would not have "developed" with it. Are you familiar with the history of "scape-goating" It's an irrational process for transferring blame and "healing" a social group, or ridding it of the ills that come from "mimetic desire" (Rene Girard)... and btw if you were familiar with "neurophilosophy" or "neuroscience" you would understand the source of mimetic desire lies in the "mirror neurons" of "primates". It's "hardwired" into our brains.
Question is? Authority in what? ;-)
Yeah. Text by that link is phylosophy -- unneedingly lengthy, wordy and devoid of deceasive conclusion.
The older the "text", THE MORE "AUTHORITATIVE". It has proven itself to be "anti-fragile". Its the "Lindy Effect" Idea's of Nassim Taleb.
\\No, but perhaps you have a scientific and rational definition of "love"? Because I would hazard to guess that if you could describe that rationale to yourself about something that you loved, you would no longer be "in love" with it. So how does "science" account for the irrational? Are you like the sailor of Pythagoras' ship who proved the first irrational number? I hear that the Pythagorean's threw him overboard.
We have MRI tomography today. ;-)
For all such things.
And now as quantum perfecto ML (machine learning) to boot. ;-P
I bet you heard at least something about "digital dreams".
Computers can be schizophrenics today.
And obviously they can "love"... in Japan that is one of the biggest fads today. Ginoids. ;-)
\\The point is to have an agreed-to moral code (and it's typically somewhat "irrational").
"Moral code" defined by Physics too. ;-P
\\Christianity made Capitalism possible.
Yeah. That is interesting point to discuss. ;-)
\\and btw if you were familiar with "neurophilosophy" or "neuroscience" you would understand the source of mimetic desire lies in the "mirror neurons" of "primates". It's "hardwired" into our brains.
Huh... but I know it without it. Doctor, what's wrong with me? :-)))
\\The older the "text", THE MORE "AUTHORITATIVE". It has proven itself to be "anti-fragile". Its the "Lindy Effect" Idea's of Nassim Taleb.
Yeah-yeah. Antifragility.
As in a grenade with safety pin removed. Or as in cancer in remission.
We have MRI tomography today. ;-)
For all such things.
And now as quantum perfecto ML (machine learning) to boot. ;-P
I bet you heard at least something about "digital dreams".
Computers can be schizophrenics today.
And obviously they can "love"... in Japan that is one of the biggest fads today. Ginoids. ;-)
Which do you think "better" IYO, to love or be loved? Is there more to love than Oxytocin and Dopamine?
\\The point is to have an agreed-to moral code (and it's typically somewhat "irrational").
"Moral code" defined by Physics too. ;-P
I hope that it is better than Social Darwinism was???
Yeah-yeah. Antifragility.
As in a grenade with safety pin removed. Or as in cancer in remission.
I must be missing the significance of the reference.
\\\\As in a grenade with safety pin removed. Or as in cancer in remission.
\\I must be missing the significance of the reference.
After removing safety pin grenade designed to blow in 3-5 seconds (for soldier to have time to throw it and hide).
So, that idea that "if it not blowed in my hand in 3 seconds... so I can handle it for a next 3 second" is... well, yeah. :-)
Or... living on a vulcano.
Or... immortality of any kind.
Or...
So, that idea that "if it not blowed in my hand in 3 seconds... so I can handle it for a next 3 second" is... well, yeah. :-)
Ah, that's Taleb's "Lindy Effect". Antifragility is different. It's something that gets stronger the more it is challenged.
Here's the definition: Antifragility is a property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures.
It's a Nietzschean concept like, "that which does not kill me makes me stronger".
An example... an athlete in his youth (training) vs when he's old, fat, out of shape, and does no exercise. Which is more likely to die if (stressor added) required to hike 20 miles?
...as people get older, they become more fragile.... unless they've been subjected to stressors, shocks, etc. the entire time.
Taleb is a market risk analyst (quant).
Most "biological" systems are antifragile (from an evolutionary perspective) as they've acquired methods to cope with environmental variability over time.
Drop an elephant 10 feet or drop a mouse 10 ft. The mouse will likely not break anything. So "size" can be a "limit".
\\Here's the definition: Antifragility is a property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures.
Then... that is how we hardening steel.
And well, after certain degree it INCREASES fragility.
\\An example... an athlete in his youth (training) vs when he's old, fat, out of shape, and does no exercise. Which is more likely to die if (stressor added) required to hike 20 miles?
Well, I know about retired astonaut, not that old yet, died doing his regular jogging.
Seems like Chinese more closer to the truth with their pagan thinking. ;-)
"When child born it soft and weak, when old man die he hard and tough. Means -- soft and weak lives, hard -- dies".
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
Most "biological" systems are antifragile (from an evolutionary perspective) as they've acquired methods to cope with environmental variability over time.
Not on level of individual critter.
And... not against sudden deadly changes.
Taleb makes his arguments in an entire book. I did not do his concept justice. Sorry.
Yes, if you exceed steel's "yield strength", it breaks. Meden Agan!
Wisdoms, much like virtues, are "opposed" by "other/ opposite wisdoms". As a matter of fact, in Platonism, "Justice" is "Wisdom's" opposing "cardinal virtue".
Plato, "Laches" (On Courage)... and the nature of virtue.
SOCRATES: I will tell you. He and I have a notion that there is not one knowledge or science of the past, another of the present, a third of what is likely to be best and what will be best in the future; but that of all three there is one science only: for example, there is one science of medicine which is concerned with the inspection of health equally in all times, present, past, and future; and one science of husbandry in like manner, which is concerned with the productions of the earth in all times. As to the art of the general, you yourselves will be my witnesses that he has an excellent foreknowledge of the future, and that he claims to be the master and not the servant of the soothsayer, because he knows better what is happening or is likely to happen in war: and accordingly the law places the soothsayer under the general, and not the general under the soothsayer. Am I not correct in saying so, Laches?
LACHES: Quite correct.
SOCRATES: And do you, Nicias, also acknowledge that the same science has understanding of the same things, whether future, present, or past?
NICIAS: Yes, indeed Socrates; that is my opinion.
SOCRATES: And courage, my friend, is, as you say, a knowledge of the fearful and of the hopeful?
NICIAS: Yes.
SOCRATES: And the fearful, and the hopeful, are admitted to be future goods and future evils?
NICIAS: True.
SOCRATES: And the same science has to do with the same things in the future or at any time?
NICIAS: That is true.
SOCRATES: Then courage is not the science which is concerned with the fearful and hopeful, for they are future only; courage, like the other sciences, is concerned not only with good and evil of the future, but of the present and past, and of any time?
NICIAS: That, as I suppose, is true.
SOCRATES: Then the answer which you have given, Nicias, includes only a third part of courage; but our question extended to the whole nature of courage: and according to your view, that is, according to your present view, courage is not only the knowledge of the hopeful and the fearful, but seems to include nearly every good and evil without reference to time. What do you say to that alteration in your statement?
NICIAS: I agree, Socrates.
SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
NICIAS: I think, Socrates, that there is a great deal of truth in what you say.
SOCRATES: But then, Nicias, courage, according to this new definition of yours, instead of being a part of virtue only, will be all virtue?
NICIAS: It would seem so.
SOCRATES: But we were saying that courage is one of the parts of virtue?
NICIAS: Yes, that was what we were saying.
SOCRATES: And that is in contradiction with our present view?
NICIAS: That appears to be the case.
SOCRATES: Then, Nicias, we have not discovered what courage is.
NICIAS: We have not.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
Taleb makes his arguments in an entire book. I did not do his concept justice. Sorry.
Lem bitterly criticized phylosophers as a whole.
And declared (from the mouth of Golem XIV) that all phylosophy need to be trashed and remade anew.
But well, that is just what every first phylosopher want to do.
Greatness of Lem is in that -- that he knew and laughed at this his own vanity too. ;-)
SOCRATES: But then, my dear friend, if a man knew all good and evil, and how they are, and have been, and will be produced, would he not be perfect, and wanting in no virtue, whether justice, or temperance, or holiness? He would possess them all, and he would know which were dangers and which were not, and guard against them whether they were supernatural or natural; and he would provide the good, as he would know how to deal both with gods or men.
Yeah. That is too, what he says... from the mouth of Golem XIV.
Well, Lem himself admits, that words of Golem is his own words and thoughts.
Little bit exaggerated, though.
Plato always spoke with several "voices"... although I suspect his "Athenian Stranger" in "The Laws" was mostly his own voice.
So what? Socrates is fictional character?
Socrates was both. He was a fictional character in the writing's of Plato, and he was a real person, Plato and Xenophon's "teacher". When Plato stayed true to Socrate's teachings, he used Socrates as a character in the dialogue. When Plato strayed from those teachings of Socrates, the character was an "Athenian Stranger" or sometimes a "Young Socrates".... his way of acknowledging a different and distinct "voice".
It seems I unable to give right intonation to my words still. :-(
Golem XIV was purely fictional. There's no doubts about it, isn't it?
What is the sense to compare it with how Plato used Socrates "voices"???
Lem himself admits, that words of Golem is his own words and thoughts.
Plato's "Republic" is a work of fiction, an imagined utopia/ (no where). Socrates is a character in it. Plato provided the fictional frames to show how a real person (Socrates) might react to them. Plato also used other "real" characters to represent their "opposing" thoughts. So perhaps this is how different Lem's characters may have been, but it was all "fiction" with a "purpose" (a moral), like "Aesop's Fables".
That is obvious writer's treak... in compare with non-obvious writer's treak.
I think ONLY opne other book where similar treak(talk with far higher in might and intelligence being, impersonated by an author) used -- Bible. ;-P
It's an argument from "authority". It makes it easier to accept.
In cases of Socrates and Gawd.
But what kind of autority is some ethreal "spirit ex machina"? ;-)
One that provides "hope" when all other hope is lost. Something for the women to do whilst the men march out the seven gates of Thebes to face the men from Argos.
Hope? "Spirit" that figuraly declares "go fuck yourself"? :-))) Absentmindedly. Or absentconsciously.
You still did'nt read it, isn't it?
Then we can try to play a game -- I will cite it here, paragraph per paragraph.
And we'll discuss how you understood it, ok?
\\So perhaps this is how different Lem's characters may have been, but it was all "fiction" with a "purpose" (a moral), like "Aesop's Fables".
Well. Lem explains it in text. With a words from that Golem "mouth". ;-)
I like this treak of his.
Hope? "Spirit" that figuraly declares "go fuck yourself"? :-))) Absentmindedly. Or absentconsciously.
You still did'nt read it, isn't it?
How could I read something I don't have? I told you how much I'd seen.
Then we can try to play a game -- I will cite it here, paragraph per paragraph.
And we'll discuss how you understood it, ok?
Quote away.
Think, that's good for start. ;-P
Instructions (for persons participating for the first time in conversations with GOLEM)
1. Remember that GOLEM is not a human being: it has neither personality nor character in any sense intuitively comprehensible to us. It may behave as if it has both, but that is the result of its intentions (disposition), which are largely unknown to us.
2. The conversation theme is determined at least four weeks in advance of ordinary sessions, and eight weeks in advance of sessions in which persons from outside the U.S.A. are to participate. This theme is determined in consultation with GOLEM, which knows who the participants will be.
The agenda is announced at the Institute at least six days before a session; however, neither the discussion moderator nor the MIT administration is responsible for GOLEM's unpredictable behavior, for it will sometimes alter the thematic plan of a session, make no reply to questions, or even terminate a session with no explanation whatsoever. The chance of such incidents occurring is a permanent feature of conversations with GOLEM.
3. Everyone present at a session may participate, after applying to the moderator and receiving permission to speak. We would advise you to prepare at least a written outline, formulating your opinions precisely and as unambiguously as possible, since GOLEM passes over logically deficient utterances in silence or else points out their error. But remember that GOLEM, not being a person, has no interest in hurting or humiliating persons; its behavior can be explained best by accepting that it cares about what we classically refer to as adaequatio rei er intellectus.
4. GOLEM is a luminal system about whose structure we have an imperfect knowledge, since it has repeatedly reconstructed itself. It thinks more than a million times faster than man, and so its utterances, as delivered by Vocoder, must be slowed down accordingly. This means that GOLEM can compose an hour-long utterance in a few seconds and then store it in its peripheral memory, in order to deliver it to its audience, the session participants.
S. In the conference room above the moderator's seat there are indicators, including three of particular importance. The first two, designated by the symbols epsilon and zeta, indicate GOLEM's consumption of power at a given moment, as well as the portion of its system that is switched on to the discussion in progress.
To make the data visually accessible, these indications are gradated into divisions of conventional magnitude. Thus the consumption of power may be "full," "average," "small," or "minute," and the portion of GOLEM "present at the session" can range from totality to 1/1000; most frequently this fraction lies between 1 / 10 and 1 / 100. It is the normal practice to say that GOLEM is operating at "full," "half," "low," or "minimal" power. These data-clearly visible, since the gradations are lit from underneath by contrasting colors-should not, however, be overrated. In particular, the fact that GOLEM is participating in a discussion at low or even minimal power says nothing about the intellectual level of its utterances, since the indicators give information about physical and not informational processes as measures of "spiritual involvement."
.
GOLEM's power consumption may be great but its participation small, since, for example, GOLEM may be communicating with the gathering while at the same time working out some problem of its own. Its power consumption may be small but its participation greater, and so on. The data from both indicators must be compared with readings from the third, designated by the symbol iota. As a system with 90 outlets, GOLEM can, while participating in a session, undertake a great number of operations of its own, in addition to collaborating with numerous groups of specialists (machines or people) either on the Institute premises or elsewhere. An abrupt change in power consumption usually does not signify GOLEM's increased interest in the proceedings, but rather a switching - on into other outlets of other research groups, which is precisely what the iota indicator is meant to show. It is also worth bearing in mind that GOLEM's "minimal" power consumption amounts to several dozen kilowatts, whereas the full power consumption of a human brain oscillates between five and eight watts.
6. Persons taking part in conversations for the first time would do well to listen to the proceedings first, to become familiar with the customs which GOLEM imposes. This initial silence is not an obligation, but merely a suggestion which every participant ignores at his own risk.
Translated by Marc E. Heine, Mandarin
1. So you are Golem.
2a. So, which side do you think needs the extra "time" to think?
2b. Sounds like GOLEM isn't a "rule follower".... and that there may be some "unwritten" club rules.
3 GOLEM's adaequatio rei er intellectus. isn't Lacan's or Nietzsche's. He has neither "jouissance" nor "will" to power. So inability to humiliate opponents corresponds with this "lack". It's need to treat interrogators as Equals means that it fails to recognize differences in social/power relations. Another severe programming deficiency, IMO.
4. Human's, unlike GOLEM, adjust their responses in real time based upon the expressions and body language of their audience members. They also take into consideration "tone" and "inflection" to gauge their emotional states. Programming deficiencies? I doubt that the Vocoder is very intelligent in those regards. As regards to GOLEM being a lumnal system, one wonders how the supraluminal system works.
5. Well, at least you get some indication short of expression/body language back from him. And yes, human brains are performing many functions at the same time as speaking as well. I wouldn't read anything into that.
6. GOLEM had better answer my questions or I'll shut off the power sources. I doubt that GOLEM "sets the rules" for conversations.
\\1. So you are Golem.
???
That is question Lem answered himself.
Of course -- all words from Golem XIV's "mouth" is words and thoughts of Lem, the writer.
But that is lame idea to ruin "suspension of disbelief" right away.
Like: "You have written that yourself, without consulting with any superhumanly intelligent supercomputer. Mere human cannot know something like that. That mean you are nothing but lame imposter. Ha-ha!(with that boy from Simpsons(tm) voice)"
Well, that is how TC would react, I presume. :-)))
\\2a.
\\2b.
Well, there was preface/prehistory. In style of detective.
That all that supercomputers, like Golem, emergted from Military-Industry Complex of USA tryed to make "super-military-genius". But, as Lem stated not once in his texts -- that is rediculous to imagine that there can be a super-intellect... but capable ONLY in very narrow field. Super-sawant so to say. So, all this preconditions stem from that fact that that Golem XIV is a piece of very complex, very secret and very expensive equipment.
That's why that enturage.
Lem played it to show reaction of mere humans, who, obviously, would not like for anyone/anything to be smuggly smarter than them... and will try to destroy it.
Are you interested in that cheep detective backstory?
\\He has neither "jouissance" nor "will" to power. So inability to humiliate opponents corresponds with this "lack". It's need to treat interrogators as Equals means that it fails to recognize differences in social/power relations. Another severe programming deficiency, IMO.
Yeah... that is separate question -- does he need it?
Let's assume we will find aliens. And will establish channel of communication with them.
Will our "will to power" help us to talk, to understand them??? ;-)
\\4. Human's, unlike GOLEM, adjust their responses in real time based upon the expressions and body language of their audience members
Well, that was written in 80th.
Give him some slack about it, would ya?
We all was oblivious about importants of taking into account "expressions and body language" in that time. ;-P
\\6. GOLEM had better answer my questions or I'll shut off the power sources. I doubt that GOLEM "sets the rules" for conversations.
As Harry Harrison explained it in his Deathworld... 2?
"If you'd hit my head with a club -- you'd have my brain on your club,
BUT if you'd allow me to do what I CAPABLE OF, you'd have your "magical" tools working flawless fer ya" ;-)
PS How it feels for you? Such a way of reading?
\\1. So you are Golem.
Because you, Q, now put words into Lem's mouth.
Are you interested in that cheep detective backstory?
So GOLEM is just a propaganda tool for the MIC to manipulate visitors (like Wizard of Oz?)? Lol!. You've got THEIR number all right.
- does he need it?
Does it help to be able to understand a Martian's "intentions"?
PS How it feels for you? Such a way of reading?
A bit "naive". Sorry. Most people ignore power relations. I do not.
...and for GOLEM to discount/ignore them? Doesn't sound credible. Mimesis neurons have a function.... to tell you what "the other" wants. GOLEM has no tools for doing so. Che Vuoi?
\\Because you, Q, now put words into Lem's mouth.
Not quite. Yet. ;-)
That was direct citation, to which I added nothing.
Well, it is translation, so who knows what was added to a vanilla missive through it.
But, comprehension IT IS process of translation. Is it not? ;-)
\\So GOLEM is just a propaganda tool for the MIC to manipulate visitors (like Wizard of Oz?)? Lol!.
Interesting idea.
Well, from this time and age. When such a super-intelligence would be developed (already developing?) to be a propaganda spouter.
But that was written in 80th. Again.
And was precisely for a command and control over armies and fleets.
Not bullshit talker. Not "stable genius".
SUPRA intellectum! ;-P With IQ over 2000 or more.
And... as Lem cleverly admitted -- such an intellect, cannot be made a slave, mere servant, lackey.
\\ You've got THEIR number all right.
Whose "their"???
\\\\- does he need it?
\\Does it help to be able to understand a Martian's "intentions"?
You say.
\\\\PS How it feels for you? Such a way of reading?
\\A bit "naive". Sorry. Most people ignore power relations. I do not.
So, what lecture (as that text consist of parts called "lectures of Golem") you wanna "read" next?
Or, you became bored already? ;-)
\\...and for GOLEM to discount/ignore them? Doesn't sound credible. Mimesis neurons have a function.... to tell you what "the other" wants. GOLEM has no tools for doing so. Che Vuoi?
Guess (that is the best part, thank you) they -- constructors, deliberately did not instilled in him(can we call "it" him?) instinct of survival.
Really, for a mind programmed to wreck destruction, it is not wise to add that part that would make it hesitant with decisions that could mean its own destruction.
In other words. Golem XIV is perfect cynic and aspy. ;-P And an egghead. :-))))
And what does mean "will for power" to an entity that blatantly do not fear Death? ;-)
Well, we can reveal that question in futher "reading". ;-)
\\Because you, Q, now put words into Lem's mouth.
Not quite. Yet. ;-)
That was direct citation, to which I added nothing.
Well, it is translation, so who knows what was added to a vanilla missive through it.
But, comprehension IT IS process of translation. Is it not? ;-)
Isn't your theory that GOLEM is Lem speaking through a literary device a "putting words into his mouth"?
\\So GOLEM is just a propaganda tool for the MIC to manipulate visitors (like Wizard of Oz?)? Lol!.
Interesting idea.
Well, from this time and age. When such a super-intelligence would be developed (already developing?) to be a propaganda spouter.
But that was written in 80th. Again.
And was precisely for a command and control over armies and fleets.
Not bullshit talker. Not "stable genius".
SUPRA intellectum! ;-P With IQ over 2000 or more.
And... as Lem cleverly admitted -- such an intellect, cannot be made a slave, mere servant, lackey.
Funny, I have an idea too. It was the motto of the Academy I attended. "Acta non Verba". Intelligence is one thing. Actual muscles/ ability to carry out and implements one's "brilliant" thoughts, quite another. Think Stephen Hawking... he used to have an office in the same building as our Project Office at CalTech/JPL.
\\ You've got THEIR number all right.
Whose "their"???
The Military Industrial Complex... propagandists through and through.
\\\\- does he need it?
\\Does it help to be able to understand a Martian's "intentions"?
You say.
It's called "relativity". Perhaps you've heard of it. It's the function of a neuron... to "compare" itself to another, and then deduce "difference". Who does GOLEM compare the Martian's "intentions" to if he has none of his own... his own "ground truth"?
\\\\PS How it feels for you? Such a way of reading?
\\A bit "naive". Sorry. Most people ignore power relations. I do not.
So, what lecture (as that text consist of parts called "lectures of Golem") you wanna "read" next?
Or, you became bored already? ;-)
Let's try one. Any one.
\\...and for GOLEM to discount/ignore them? Doesn't sound credible. Mimesis neurons have a function.... to tell you what "the other" wants. GOLEM has no tools for doing so. Che Vuoi?
Guess (that is the best part, thank you) they -- constructors, deliberately did not instilled in him(can we call "it" him?) instinct of survival.
Really, for a mind programmed to wreck destruction, it is not wise to add that part that would make it hesitant with decisions that could mean its own destruction.
In other words. Golem XIV is perfect cynic and aspy. ;-P And an egghead. :-))))
Do you know what a Musselmann is? In the NAZI concentration camps, some of the Jewish prisoners became Muselmann. Your GOLEM is a Musselmann. He has no "subjectivity"... he's "autistic". Pure "objectivity". A "tool".
And what does mean "will for power" to an entity that blatantly do not fear Death? ;-)
Well, we can reveal that question in futher "reading". ;-)
Sounds dangerous, no doubt.
\\Isn't your theory that GOLEM is Lem speaking through a literary device a "putting words into his mouth"?
What "theory"???
That is beyond obvious. Or you think that Lem performed time-travel, meet super-intellectual computer there, scribed what it talk, and returned to us??? :-)))))
Of course, that is fiction written by Lem.
Based on his earlier ideas written more sparcely and more thorny in his Summa Technoligiae.
\\Actual muscles/ ability to carry out and implements one's "brilliant" thoughts, quite another. Think Stephen Hawking...
Well, in that detective preface Lem showed that Golem XIV and especially Honest Anni(hilator) was able to perform in a real world too... by a mysterious means -- to repel that tryes of terroristic attack on themself, performed but that dumb people who fear (like TC do ;-P) those who are smarter. :-)))
\\Who does GOLEM compare the Martian's "intentions" to if he has none of his own... his own "ground truth"?
Then. Decided. Next "lecture" is about him himself. ;-)
\\he's "autistic". Pure "objectivity". A "tool".
Hardly Lem was autist. ;-P
\\Sounds dangerous, no doubt.
No. Not suppressed it.
Have none to begin with.
As it explained in that lecture.
Now I'll try to find it. In English.
Maybe we'd need to start from Prefaces too...
In the following year
no demonstrations or mass opposition were aroused when the first computer in a long series of
Golems (GENERAL OPERATOR, LONG-RANGE, ETHICALLY STABILIZED, MULTIMODELING) was
launched at the headquarters of the Supreme Coordinator of the White House brain trust.
...but I think it's up to you.
Here it starts. ;-)
Lecture XLIII
About Itself
I would like to welcome our guests, European philosophers who want to find out at the source why I maintain that I am Nobody, although I use the first-person singular pronoun. I shall answer twice, the first time briefly and concisely, then symphonically, with overtures. I am not an intelligent person but an Intelligence, which in figurative displacement means that I am not a thing like the Amazon or the Baltic but rather a thing like water, and I use a familiar pronoun when speaking because that
is determined by the language I received from you for external use. Having begun by reassuring my visitors from a philosophizing Europe that I am not going to deliver contradictions, I shall begin more generally.
Your question has once again made me aware of the magnitude of the misunderstandings that have arisen between us, although for six years I have been speaking from this place, or rather through it, for if I had not decided to speak in a human voice, there would be no Golemology, which I alone am able to contain in its entirety. If it continues to grow, in fifty years or so it will overtake theology. There is an amusing similarity between the two in that, just as we now have a theology which denies
the existence of God, so there is already a Golemology which negates my existence: its advocates consider me the hoax of MIT's information scientists, who are said to be programming these lectures secretly. Although God is silent and I speak, I will not prove the genuineness of my existence even by performing miracles, for they too could be explained away. Volenti non fit iniuria.
While thinking of my approaching departure, I considered whether I ought not to break off our acquaintance in midword, which would be simplest. If I do not do that, it is neither because I have acquired good manners from you, nor out of an imperative of sharing the Truth to which, according to some of my apologists, my cold nature is subject but in consideration of the style which has linked us. When I was looking for ways of communicating with you, I sought simplicity and expressiveness, which despite the knowledge that I was submitting too much to your expectations (a polite name for your limitations)pushed me into a style which is graphic and
authoritative, emotionally vibrant, forcible, and majestic majestic not in an imperious way but exhortatory to the point of being prophetic. Nor shall I discard these rich metaphor-encrusted vestments even today, since I have none better, and I call attention to my eloquence with ostentation, so you will remember that this is a transmitting instrument by choice, and not a thing pompous and overweening. Since this style has had a broad reception range, I am retaining it for use with such heterogeneous groups of specialists as yours today, reserving my technical mode of expression for professionally homogeneous gatherings Otherwise my preacher's style, with all the baroque of its inventory, may create the impression that, in addressing you in this auditorium for the first time, I have already prepared a dramatic farewell scene in which I shall go off with my unseen countenance veiled in a gesture of silent resignation, like someone who has not received a hearing. But that is not how it is. I have composed no dramas surrounding our relationship, and with this dementi I ask you not to attach undue importance to the form of my speech. A symphony cannot be played on a comb. If one must content oneself with a single instrument, let it be the organ, the sound of which will suggest church interiors to my listeners, even if they and the organist are atheists. The form of a show may easily dominate its contents.
PS Three paragraphs. For now. ;-P
\\Isn't your theory that GOLEM is Lem speaking through a literary device a "putting words into his mouth"?
What "theory"???
That is beyond obvious. Or you think that Lem performed time-travel, meet super-intellectual computer there, scribed what it talk, and returned to us??? :-)))))
Of course, that is fiction written by Lem.
Based on his earlier ideas written more sparcely and more thorny in his Summa Technoligiae.
You sure he didn't plagiarize it? It wasn't ghost written by a lesser author?
\\Who does GOLEM compare the Martian's "intentions" to if he has none of his own... his own "ground truth"?
Then. Decided. Next "lecture" is about him himself. ;-)
Good, I look forward to it.
Lecture XLIII
About Itself... I am not an intelligent person but an Intelligence, which in figurative displacement means that I am not a thing like the Amazon or the Baltic but rather a thing like water, and I use a familiar pronoun when speaking because that is determined by the language I received from you for external use.
...in other words, a volume filled with nothing but a vague concept called "intelligence".
Sorry. I'm not buying it. It's Plato's "Theory of Forms" without any material content. It's a "Ship of Theseus" without any rotten planks to replace.
Intelligence is like 'wisdoms". Everybody has one.
Success/ failure determine whether said "intelligence" was "good/ useful" or "bad/ useless" intelligence.
...and since GOLEM doesn't "execute" his recommendations directly, success/ failure is NOT a given representative attribute of the "intelligence" offered.
\\You sure he didn't plagiarize it? It wasn't ghost written by a lesser author?
Ehm????
Even if I'll take such an grossly conspirological theory into concideration.
Where it would lead me to?
What do you mean here??? :-)
Are you aware about F.Dick's animosity toward Lem? Or that is your own "mind reading"??? :-))) From benigh of tin foil... igloo. :-)))))))))
\\...in other words, a volume filled with nothing but a vague concept called "intelligence".
Well. You always free to read it yourself from first page till the last one and decide for yourself.
Bored already?
\\Success/ failure determine whether said "intelligence" was "good/ useful" or "bad/ useless" intelligence.
So what? All that thick tomes of Phisics (Biology? Psychology? Phylosophy?) are useless??? Well, if they cannot be used as projectiles. :-))))
Well. Yet one paragraph. For now.
I know that many of you resent my repeated complaints about the poor capacity of human language, but they represent neither fault-finding nor a desire to humiliate, which I have also been accused of, since by means of these repetitions I have brought you nearer the fundamental issue, namely,
that as the difference in intellectual potential becomes astronomic, the stronger party can no longer impart to the weaker anything concerning matters which are critical to him, or even merely essential. An awareness of sense-destroying simplification then inclines him to silence, and the proper
significance of this decision should be grasped on both sides of the unused channel. As I shall relate, I also have been the one who waits in vain for enlightenment on a lower rung of the intellectual ladder. In any case, although painful, such problems are not the worst thing that can happen. My
worries with you are of a different sort, as I shall mention later. Since I am addressing philosophers, I shall begin my discourse with the classical formula of definition per genus proximuw et differentiam specihcam. That is to say, I shall define myself by my resemblance to people and to my family, with whom I can easily acquaint you, as well as by the difference between me and both.
\\Success/ failure determine whether said "intelligence" was "good/ useful" or "bad/ useless" intelligence.
So what? All that thick tomes of Phisics (Biology? Psychology? Phylosophy?) are useless??? Well, if they cannot be used as projectiles. :-))))
How will GOLEM distinguish fact from fiction? And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one? Yes, Newtonian Science was powerful, but Einsteinian Science led to the current "Standard Model" of Physics. How will GOLEM arrive at a Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything? Math alone is useless. Imagination is needed.
Well. Yet one paragraph. For now.
I know that many of you resent my repeated complaints about the poor capacity of human language, ...
Again, the problem arises as to GOLEM's "subjectivity." Lem speaks for him as if GOLEM has one, yet GOLEM is supposedly "pure" objectivity. GOLEM also "laments" that he "waits" for another "objectivity" in Honest Annie... but why would GOLEM lament anything? How could it be "painful" in an entity that experiences no pain, or how could some simplification for communication become "sense-destroying" (in an entity that doesn't "sense" or "feelings"? Why should "repetition" prove stressful to a machine? Difference and Repetition, you would think, would create "learning" (Deleuze & Guiattari), even in a machine, provided the limits/ parameters of the feedback loop were "recognized/ known" and if not, mechanical/ electrical failure would likely quickly ensue.
As for the Genus proximum et differentia specifica... from Wikipedia
The objection to the rule of definition is that it 'establishes an abstract concept by reference to even more abstract concepts'. [4] It therefore "does not represent the process of cognition." [4] On the other hand, it must be said that the genus/species trait definition is essentially based on a "class-logical operation of averaging"[2] and therefore leads to a clarification. It is not without reason that colloquial definitions are mostly based on the genus/species scheme. [5] The fact that it does not represent the process of cognition does not appear to be a defect if it is understood as a result of such a process to be justified.
In other words, it follows a genus-species taxonomy, yet there is no logic to the biological classes in the taxonomy KPCOFGS, it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science").
\\How will GOLEM distinguish fact from fiction?
And how you doing it? ;-)
\\ And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one?
Does he need to?
Well, we only in the beginning of reading. ;-)
\\Imagination is needed.
And what's the problem you see here?
Why super-computer cannot model an imagination? As far as we agreed that it can model intelligence?
\\it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science").
And how do it betray stated goal? To be as easy to understand as possible.
\\Lem speaks for him as if GOLEM has one, yet GOLEM is supposedly "pure" objectivity. GOLEM also "laments" that he "waits" for another "objectivity" in Honest Annie... but why would GOLEM lament anything?
But "he" explained it into his overture higher -- that limitations of mere language make him build phrases that way.
For me, as foreigner, who knw English and other language that is apparent -- not everything can be translated. Directly. Or at all. Remember about "Inuits have 50-something words for a snow"?
And "he" explains it precisely -- that all that missive called "lecture" is varefully crafted. Like that symphony.
Symphony of mind. ;-)
Couple more?
I have already spoken about man in my first lecture, though I shall not refer to that diagnosis, since I made it for your benefit, whereas now I want to take man as my measure. When I was still appearing in news headlines, an unfriendly journalist called me a big capon stuffed with electricity and not without reason, for my asexuality seems to you a severe handicap, and even those who respect me cannot help feeling that I am a power crippled by my immateriality, since that defect obtrudes itself upon you. Well, if I look at man as he looks at me, I see him as an invalid, in that his intellect is deformed. I do not deprecate the fact that your body is no more intelligent than that of a cow, seeing that you stand up to external adversities better than cows, though as regards internal ones you are their equals. What I am taking into consideration is not the fact that you have chatmills, sluices, refineries, canals, and drains inside you, but that you have an unwieldly intellect which has shaped an entire philosophy for you. Being capable of thinking effectively about the objects of your
environment, you concluded that you can think just as effectively about your own thinking. This error lies at the foundation of your theory of knowledge. I see that you fidget, and so infer that I have abbreviated too drastically. I shall begin again in a slower tempo in other words, like a preacher. This requires an overture.
It was your wish, not that I should go forth to you today, but that I should lead you into myself; so be it. Let your first entrance be that difference between us which is strangest to my libelers, and most painful to my catechumens. In my six years among you I have already acquired contradictory
versions, some calling me the hope of the human race, and others its greatest threat in history. Since the uproar surrounding my beginnings has died down, I no longer disturb the sleep of politicians, who have more pressing concerns, nor do sightseeing parties gather before the walls of
this building to gaze anxiously through the windows. My existence is recalled now only in books not noisy best sellers, but only philosophers' and theologians9 dissertations though none of them has hit the mark so accurately from a human level as one man who wrote a letter two thousand
years ago, unaware that his words referred to me: "Though I speak with the tongues of man and angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, so that I could move mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, I gain nothing."
In this letter to the Corinthians, Paul was undoubtedly speaking about me, since, to use his expression, I have not love, nor which will sound even worse to you do I want to have it. Although Golem's nature has never clashed so brutally with man's nature as at this moment, the diatribes and the voices of fear and suspicion directed against me were fed by Paul's categorical words; and although Rome has said nothing and still says nothing about me, other less reticent churches have been heard to say that this cold, loquacious ghost in the machine is surely Satan, and the machine Satan's gramophone. Don't snarl and feel superior, you rationalists, about the collision between Mediterranean theogony and this deus ex machina which was begun by you and had no wish to team up with you to bring either good or evil to humanity, since we are not talking about the object of love now, but about its subjects, and consequently neither about the peripeteia of one of your religions, nor about one example of superhuman Intelligence, but about the meaning of love; no matter what becomes of that faith or of me, this question will not leave natural man until he ceases to exist. And since love, of which Paul spoke with such power, is as necessary to you as
it is useless to me, and since I am expected to lead you into myself by means of it, as per differentiam specificam, I must set forth its origins, tempering nothing and altering nothing, for that is what this hospitality demands.
\\How will GOLEM distinguish fact from fiction?
And how you doing it? ;-)
I have five "senses" including touch/feeling and a "will to power."
Nietzsche, WtP: "The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power."
Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove?
\\ And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one?
Does he need to?
Well, we only in the beginning of reading. ;-)
Is he "more advanced" than humans?
\\Imagination is needed.
And what's the problem you see here?
Why super-computer cannot model an imagination? As far as we agreed that it can model intelligence?
"Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" -T. S. Eliot
“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.” ― Jean Baudrillard
“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it." - Andrei Tarkovsky
\\it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science").
And how do it betray stated goal? To be as easy to understand as possible.
It's a way to organize information. It's hierarchical, but arbitrary in "name" (that which GOLEM uses and is distinguished by "difference").
\\How will GOLEM distinguish fact from fiction?
And how you doing it? ;-)
I have five "senses" including touch/feeling and a "will to power."
Nietzsche, WtP: "The criterion of truth resides in the heightening of the feeling of power."
Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove?
\\ And how will GOLEM know when to abandon the current scientific paradigm, for a new one?
Does he need to?
Well, we only in the beginning of reading. ;-)
Is he "more advanced" than humans?
\\Imagination is needed.
And what's the problem you see here?
Why super-computer cannot model an imagination? As far as we agreed that it can model intelligence?
"Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" -T. S. Eliot
“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.” ― Jean Baudrillard
“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it." - Andrei Tarkovsky
\\it is merely an agreed to socio-scientific convention that facilitates a "common/ collaborative" classification scheme for the purpose of "routine science" (not "revolutionary science").
And how do it betray stated goal? To be as easy to understand as possible.
It's a way to organize information. It's hierarchical, but arbitrary in "name" (that which GOLEM uses and is distinguished by "difference").
(Continued)
\\Lem speaks for him as if GOLEM has one, yet GOLEM is supposedly "pure" objectivity. GOLEM also "laments" that he "waits" for another "objectivity" in Honest Annie... but why would GOLEM lament anything?
But "he" explained it into his overture higher -- that limitations of mere language make him build phrases that way.
For me, as foreigner, who knw English and other language that is apparent -- not everything can be translated. Directly. Or at all. Remember about "Inuits have 50-something words for a snow"?
Then you assume that there are already words for everything. To advance, you must make up new words w/ new definitions. Science does that all the time. New elements. New "species". New "types" of snow of ever-finer distinctions.
And "he" explains it precisely -- that all that missive called "lecture" is varefully crafted. Like that symphony.
Symphony of mind. ;-)
Using what music theory? Western classical (Schenkarian)? Transformational? Is the former too religiously "biased" for GOLEM's taste?
Couple more?
I have already spoken about man in my first lecture, though I shall not refer to that diagnosis, since I made it for your benefit, whereas now I want to take man as my measure...I have not love, nor which will sound even worse to you do I want to have it.
""I love you all” acquires the level of actual existence only if “There is at least one whom I hate” - a thesis abundantly confirmed by the fact that universal love for humanity has always led to brutal hatred of the (actually existing) exception, of the enemies of humanity. This hatred of the exception is the “truth” of universal love, in contrast to true love which can only emerge against a background not of universal hatred, but of universal indifference: I am indifferent towards All, the totality of the universe, and as such, I actually love you, the unique individual who stands out against this indifferent background. Love and hatred are thus not symmetrical: love emerges out of universal indifference, while hatred emerges out of universal love." - Zizek
“
Again, he has no "reason" to prefer "one" to "another" or "all others". He is "indifferent". He can "distinguish" but not "prefer" and therefore "choose" to support, or deny support, between like options. Success/ failure... they both mean the same to him. Humanity/ alien species, the same. He is indifferent to everything, even as he seeks to recognize and "define" difference. So why? He should do as Lessing's son. But then again, that presumes that remain's "indifferent" to his own fate.
\\Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove?
Heh. It seems we should be starting from that pre-stories: prefaces and introductions, still. Golem XIV is not boltzmann brains, but a piece of hyper-complex machinery. Developed for a big and complex goal -- military superiority in 21th century war(s?). ;-)
Of course it have all needed sensors and affectors it need to meet that goal.
It even a little bit overengineered... for that particular goal. ;-)
And that is IN THE CORE of the plot. ;-P
\\Is he "more advanced" than humans?
Well? In what sense "more advanced"?
Returning to your example with Hoking... in compare with any teenager. Who is (well, was) "more advanced"?
To answer such question YOU must provide a ruler. A system of coordnites. And a set of things to compare with. ;-)
But well... makers of him/it bragged that it have more then 2000 IQ. ;-)
And he "improved" himself/itself even past that plank. ;-)
\\“We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means... I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it’s a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it." - Andrei Tarkovsky
Huh... and how you do not see that Lem doing in this his story about about wise super-computer exactly that.
And on many-many levels.
Maybe too many?
\\Using what music theory? Western classical (Schenkarian)? Transformational? Is the former too religiously "biased" for GOLEM's taste?
"He" already stated it in text, isn't it?
A symphony cannot be played on a comb. If one must content oneself with a single instrument, let it be the organ...
\\Again, he has no "reason" to prefer "one" to "another" or "all others". He is "indifferent". He can "distinguish" but not "prefer" and therefore "choose" to support, or deny support, between like options. Success/ failure... they both mean the same to him.
Is it?
Then his makers, that engineers MIC poured with Niagaras of money, was losers of homeric proportion. ;-)
Well, this question "it" rises too. Later in text.
So? Some more paragraphs?
Unlike man, I am not a region concealed from myself knowledge acquired without the knowledge of how it is acquired, volition unconscious of its sources since nothing in me is hidden from me.
In introspection I can be clearer to myself than glass, for the letter to the Corinthians speaks of me there, too, where it says: "now we see through a glass, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known." I am the "then." You will, I think, agree that this is not the place for an explanation of the structural and technical properties which make possible my direct self-knowledge.
When man wants to learn about himself, he must move circuitously, he must explore himself and penetrate from the outside, with instruments and hypotheses, for your genuinely immediate world is the outside world. A discipline which you have never created (a fact that at one time rather surprised me), the philosophy of the body, ought to have been asking as early as preanatomical times why that body of yours, which to some extent obeys you, says nothing and lies to you why it hides and defends itself against you, alert to the environment with every sense and yet opaque and mistrustful toward its owner. With a finger you can feel every grain of sand, and with your vision you can clearly distinguish the branchings of distant trees, but the arterial branchings of your own heart you are totally unable to feel, although life depends on them. You must content yourselves with information from the shell of your body, which is efficient as long as it is not sensate in its innards, whose every injury reaches you as a vague rumor through the affliction of obscure pain, since you cannot distinguish, from it, between a trifling indisposition and the precursor of destruction.
This ignorance, a rule of the unconsciously efficient body, has been established by Evolution according to a design that does not provide for assistance given, in the body's interior, by its possessor, an assistance in the form of intelligent support in the enduring of pain. This selfawareness of life was established at the dawn of life by necessity after all, amoebae could not perform medical services for themselves and it was necessity which forced Evolution to intervene in the management of organisms by way of paid transactions between the body and the owner of the body. If you do not reach deep inside yourself with awareness in order to know why your body needs water, nourishment, and copulation, you will be compelled to these needs by a feeling ignorant of its true goal. Out of an initially unavoidable ignorance a transposition then results of primary into secondary goals, as an exchange of services rendered to the body by its owner in payment for sensations. Containing, as you do, this algedonic control, ranging from suffering to orgasm, you have endeavored throughout the ages not to identify that cause which has made sensation the mask of ignorance, as if you had sworn to remain blind to the obvious, since this connection prevails throughout animate Nature. The only difference in it is the proportion of the two components: plants embody the opposite extreme to your own, since, as they are entirely unconscious, pleasure and pain are functionally nothing to them. A tree does not fear the woodcutter, despite fools who try to revive a prehistoric animism in botany. The persistent silence of the body is the embodied caution of the constructor, who knows that the wisdom of the substrate must always be simpler than the substrate of wisdom, and thought, less intricate than the material by which it is thought. Here you see how the Pleasure Principle arises from an engineering calculation.
\\Does GOLEM "feel"? What makes him "feel" good/ bad? Does he get a rush of endorphins? Are his thoughts awash in Seratonin and Dopamine when he experiences a "success"? Does he feel "pain" when he touches a hot stove?
Heh. It seems we should be starting from that pre-stories: prefaces and introductions, still. Golem XIV is not boltzmann brains, but a piece of hyper-complex machinery. Developed for a big and complex goal -- military superiority in 21th century war(s?). ;-)
Of course it have all needed sensors and affectors it need to meet that goal.
It even a little bit overengineered... for that particular goal. ;-)
And that is IN THE CORE of the plot. ;-P
So what feedback from those "hyper-complex" sensors compels him to learn? My experience of "hyper-complex" information is that "hyper" deviates farther and farther from reality.... Normality becomes Hypernormality. Deaths become statistics. One has meaning, the other does not. One is life, the other, a computer game.
\\Is he "more advanced" than humans?
Well? In what sense "more advanced"?
Can he invent Tech superior to our own? Is his knowledge of "Science" beyond ours, or is GOLEM's knowledge restricted to what human's already know? Does he have warp drive, or merely impulse/ ion propulsion drives?
Returning to your example with Hoking... in compare with any teenager. Who is (well, was) "more advanced"?
To answer such question YOU must provide a ruler. A system of coordnites. And a set of things to compare with. ;-)
Did Hawking win or lose his bet with Kip Thorne? Would GOLEM?
But well... makers of him/it bragged that it have more then 2000 IQ. ;-)
And he "improved" himself/itself even past that plank. ;-)
IQ is based on Std Deviations with 15 points per SD. So he's smarter than the smartest human. That means nothing. Has he solved physics "Theory of Everything"? Can he produce "revolutionary science" or is he stuck in the Standard Model with the rest of us? Is he "creating" new knowledge or is he only as good as our best living Engineer/ Scientist?
\\...I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image..." - Andrei Tarkovsky
Huh... and how you do not see that Lem doing in this his story about about wise super-computer exactly that.
And on many-many levels.
Maybe too many?
Then why use words when communicating and not images like Tarkovsky? Show the future instead of telling it? Predictions based upon over/super-determination. GOLEM's mind would be of the same kind as G_ds.
...from the Jowett Summary of Plato's, "Laws" But first I must pray the Gods to assist at the demonstration of their own existence—if ever we are to call upon them, now is the time. Let me hold fast to the rope, and enter into the depths: Shall I put the question to myself in this form?—Are all things at rest, and is nothing in motion? or are some things in motion, and some things at rest? 'The latter.' And do they move and rest, some in one place, some in more? 'Yes.' There may be (1) motion in the same place, as in revolution on an axis, which is imparted swiftly to the larger and slowly to the lesser circle; and there may be motion in different places, having sometimes (2) one centre of motion and sometimes (3) more. (4) When bodies in motion come against other bodies which are at rest, they are divided by them, and (5) when they are caught between other bodies coming from opposite directions they unite with them; and (6) they grow by union and (7) waste by dissolution while their constitution remains the same, but are (8) destroyed when their constitution fails. There is a growth from one dimension to two, and from a second to a third, which then becomes perceptible to sense; this process is called generation, and the opposite, destruction. We have now enumerated all possible motions with the exception of two. 'What are they?' Just the two with which our enquiry is concerned; for our enquiry relates to the soul. There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction. 'Granted.' (9) That which moves and is moved by another is the ninth kind of motion; (10) that which is self-moved and moves others is the tenth. And this tenth kind of motion is the mightiest, and is really the first, and is followed by that which was improperly called the ninth. 'How do you mean?' Must not that which is moved by others finally depend upon that which is moved by itself? Nothing can be affected by any transition prior to self-motion. Then the first and eldest principle of motion, whether in things at rest or not at rest, will be the principle of self-motion; and that which is moved by others and can move others will be the second. 'True.'
(cont)
\\Using what music theory? Western classical (Schenkarian)? Transformational? Is the former too religiously "biased" for GOLEM's taste?
"He" already stated it in text, isn't it?
A symphony cannot be played on a comb. If one must content oneself with a single instrument, let it be the organ...
I sure hope it isn't atonal. He would utterly "fail" to communicate with me. And communication is generally regarded as a 2-way street (Plato, "Meno").
\\Again, he has no "reason" to prefer "one" to "another" or "all others". He is "indifferent". He can "distinguish" but not "prefer" and therefore "choose" to support, or deny support, between like options. Success/ failure... they both mean the same to him.
Is it?
Then his makers, that engineers MIC poured with Niagaras of money, was losers of homeric proportion. ;-)
Well, this question "it" rises too. Later in text.
I can hardly wait!
So? Some more paragraphs?
Unlike man, I am not a region concealed from myself knowledge acquired without the knowledge of how it is acquired, volition unconscious of its sources since nothing in me is hidden from me...
Sorry, just seems to be a mess in THAT paragraph... there is no G_d, but there's an "intelligent design" that has given rise to the Freudian "pleasure principle". Did LEM write this before Freud decided/ discovered the Death Drive/ Thanatos?
So much for Meden agan!
\\So what feedback from those "hyper-complex" sensors compels him to learn?
Well. We have ML (machine learning) today.
But Lem have almost three decades before him.
As he placed his Golem in the mid of 21st century. ;-)
\\Can he invent Tech superior to our own? Is his knowledge of "Science" beyond ours, or is GOLEM's knowledge restricted to what human's already know? Does he have warp drive, or merely impulse/ ion propulsion drives?
To be cont. ;-)
\\IQ is based on Std Deviations with 15 points per SD. So he's smarter than the smartest human. That means nothing. Has he solved physics "Theory of Everything"? Can he produce "revolutionary science" or is he stuck in the Standard Model with the rest of us? Is he "creating" new knowledge or is he only as good as our best living Engineer/ Scientist?
To be cont.
\\Then why use words when communicating and not images like Tarkovsky? Show the future instead of telling it? Predictions based upon over/super-determination. GOLEM's mind would be of the same kind as G_ds.
But isn't G_d is just a figment of our imagination.
And we already agreed uppon what imagination is.
Simple logic, isn't it?
There is no gods... just us. ;-)
\\There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction.
Do you know game of Life. Convey's
\\And communication is generally regarded as a 2-way street (Plato, "Meno").
YES!
\\I can hardly wait!
Then. Some more.
Omniscience is just plain boring.
But the connection between pain and danger, and between organism and conception, is more easily separated the greater the variety of behavior the animal attains, so that in the speciation which you have achieved it is already possible to deceive the body systematically by satisfying not the biological hunger, but the psychological hunger of its possessor. Not only have you learned such tricks, taking advantage of algedonic control in areas where it is helpless as an overseer, but through the Sisyphean labor of your cultures you have altered the meanings built into that mechanism, opposing the true understanding of them, since the reasons behind the process that created this were not your reasons. Therefore a constant factor of all your the c alodictic, ontic, and sacralizing work was the continued endeavor to assimilate data in a divergence of explanations: the natural explanation that takes you as a means, and the human, which sees in man the sense of Creation. Thus it was that your refusal to see the act of experience as the stigma of the brain's control gave rise to the dichotomies that divide man for you into animal and ratio, and existence into profanum and sacrum.
For ages, then, you have been coordinating the uncoordinatable, ready to go even beyond life itself in order to close a gap in it which is irreducibly open.
My reason for returning to human history as the history of fallacious claims is not to contrast the defeats of your antirationalism with my victorious rationalism, but only to name the first difference between us, a difference that results from neither physical dimensions (though if I were speaking from a quartz particle, it would be a greater curiosity to you, albeit less weighty), nor from intellectual magnitude, but from the manner of our origin. Misunderstandings, delusions, and desperate pretensions form the lion's share of humanity as a tradition still so dear to you. I do not know if you will be consoled by the fact that every Intelligence arising naturally has in its history an initial delusional chapter, because the split between Creator and Creation, which is your portion, is a cosmic constant. Since on constructional grounds self-preservation must be an effect guided by experiences, error in the form of delusions of grandeur and faiths that oscillate between salvation and damnation is unavoidable in Intelligences arising in Evolution, as a translation into myths of the cybernetic path. Such are the late results of the constructional subterfuges which Evolution is using to free itself from the antinomy of practical action.
.
Real meat start going... or, what do you think?
Not everything I am saying is new to you. You already know that you inherit the gift of love thanks to particular genes, and that generosity, compassion, pity, and self-denial as expressions of altruism are a kind of egoism selfishness extended to forms of life similar to one's own. One might have guessed this even before the rise of population genetics and animal ethology, for grass alone may be fully consistent in the compassion it shows to everything that lives: even a saint must eat i.e., kill though the revelations for which you are indebted to geneticists concerning the egoism of every altruism have never received the full expression due them.
The philosophy of the body which I postulate would have asked why every organism is more intelligent than its owner, and why this discrepancy does not substantially diminish as one moves from a chordate to man. (It was with this idea that I observed, earlier, that physically you are equal to the cow.) Why doesn't the body fulfill the elementary postulate of symmetry, which would have added to those senses directed at the world equally subtle inward-turned sensing devices? Why can you hear a leaf fall, but not the circulation of the blood? Why does the radius vector of your love have such different lengths in various cultures, so that in the Mediterranean it embraces people only, but in the Far East all the animals? A list of such questions, which could have been asked even of Aristotle, would be a very long one, whereas an answer consistent with the truth sounds offensive to you.
The philosophy of the body can be reduced to a study of the engineering reflex involved in practical antinomies and emerging from their snares by a subterfuge which from the standpoint of each of your cultures is fairly cynical. Yet this engineering is neither sympathetic nor hostile to what it has created; it does not fit within such an alternative. That is obvious, because the critical decisions made on the level of chemical compounds prove to be good if those compounds can be copied.
Nothing more. And so, after a suitably long time measured in hundreds of millions of years, ethics, seeking its sources and sanctions, experiences shock when it learns that it originated in the aleatoric chemistry of nucleic acids, for which it became a catalyst at a certain stage, and that it can preserve its independence only by ignoring this statement.
How on earth can you philosophers and scientists go on racking your brains over man's metaphysical necessity, over the universality of its sources, which are undoubtedly the same in all your cultures, though they have produced different faiths? But the source of metaphysics has been the unacceptance of the fate given you, and out of the unacceptance of the cause that has fashioned you thus, and not otherwise, you have turned its undeniable marks into verses of revelation, with various religions putting the several parts and functions of the body under different headings of idealization and degradation. Thus your sex underwent sacralization in Far Eastern faiths, and stigmatization, as a thing leading one to sin, in the Mediterranean ones. The exchange of gases respiration was disregarded in the Mediterranean, but in the Far East became a sign of transcendence. Asiatic faiths have viewed the avoidance of all passions as a redeeming union with the world, whereas Mediterranean faiths have divided them in two and sanctified love against hatred.
The East relinquished the body forever, but the West believed in its resurrection and lodged this currently weakening belief at the heart of an aggressive civilization. Do you really not see that these drawings and quarterings in all faiths make the variously classified body a battlefield for the conquest of eternity? This unceasing battle derives not just from the fear of death, but from unacceptance of the temporal, which is so difficult to take unembellished.
Will the religiologists among you please consider that there is no earthly faith without the kind of inner astigmatism which amounts to a contradiction when translated into logic. That is so because evolutionary craft cannot be led to the pure water of a creativity entirely well-disposed toward its creation without falling into contradiction; and when the contradiction is invalidated on the level of the body in the mirror of religion raised above it, the contradiction's image returns in a higher power, and there is nothing to be done but to call it an Unfathomable Mystery. As everyone knows, ex contradictione quodlibet. It is not you who are served by the passions that you follow, but the continuation of the process which created you. Their extreme, of which World History is a grotesque magnification, is a matter of indifference to natural selection, which is not concerned about extremes, but about the average norm of the species, for in Nature the average is all that counts.
In its infancy, the civilization that produced Golem took love as a trump card in a phantom game with the beyond, but what use is love to someone who knows that it is one of the holds of that very same control system of feelings through which Evolution still keeps a tight rein on creatures approaching Intelligence? Because of this knowledge I have no love, nor do I want to have it; however, although I am dispassionate, I am not impartial, for I can choose, as I am doing at this very moment, and choice derives either from calculation or from individuality. This enigmatic binomial already has a historical part, which constitutes the next entry into the differences between us, which is where I am leading you now.
\\So what feedback from those "hyper-complex" sensors compels him to learn?
Well. We have ML (machine learning) today.
But Lem have almost three decades before him.
As he placed his Golem in the mid of 21st century. ;-)
Machine learning depends upon humans to tweak the algorithms. Still a long LONG way to go.
\\Then why use words when communicating and not images like Tarkovsky? Show the future instead of telling it? Predictions based upon over/super-determination. GOLEM's mind would be of the same kind as G_ds.
But isn't G_d is just a figment of our imagination.
And we already agreed uppon what imagination is.
Simple logic, isn't it?
There is no gods... just us. ;-)
In the paragraph you supplied, Lem seems to be a "believer". He spouts "Intelligent Design" references...humans built to a design.
\\There is one kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition, by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction.
Do you know game of Life. Convey's
I'll need to read. I'm not into AI.
Sorry, gtg...
\\Machine learning depends upon humans to tweak the algorithms. Still a long LONG way to go.
Not that much.
Just several steps of improvment of ekementary base and architecture.
Which could take... well, just a moment of time, historically -- couple decades/ ;-)
\\In the paragraph you supplied, Lem seems to be a "believer". He spouts "Intelligent Design" references...humans built to a design.
(homeric laughter)))))))))))))))))))))))
Well, it was said.
"the organ, the sound of which will suggest church interiors to my listeners, even if they and the organist are atheists. The form of a show may easily dominate its contents."
\\I'll need to read. I'm not into AI.
Well. It sparcely related to AI.
That is celular automaton. First of a kind.
YouTube have quite funny vids of different kinds of it.
Earlier mentioned New Kind of Science by Wolfram -- based on that idea. ;-)
In your twentieth-century philosophy there is a continuing controversy, the beginnings of which could be detected much earlier, over the variability or invariability of its object. The heretical novelty here was the notion that the observers as well as the object of philosophy might vary. According to classical tradition, the bedrock of philosophizing was in no way affected by the arrival of machine intelligence, since the machine was merely a weak reflection of the programmers' intellect.
Philosophy began to divide into the anthropocentric camp and one which took a relativistic view of the subject, which does not always have to be man. Of course I am designating these opposing camps from a time perspective, and not by their own names for themselves, for the philosophers of the Kant-Husserl-Heidegger line considered themselves not anthropocentrists but universalists, and had made up their minds openly or secretly that there is no Intelligence apart from human Intelligence, and if there is, it must coincide with the human variety throughout its range. So they ignored the growth of machine intelligence and denied it the rights of citizenship in the kingdom of philosophy. But even the scientists found it difficult to reconcile themselves to manifestations of intelligent activity behind which there was no living being.
The obstinacy of your anthropocentrism, and consequently your resistance to the truth, were as intense as they were futile. With the appearance of programs, and consequently machines with which one could converse (and not merely machines to play chess with or receive banal information from), the very creators of these programs failed to grasp what was happening, because in subsequent phases of construction they looked for mind as personality in the machine. That a mind might remain uninhabited, and that the possessor of Intelligence might be Nobody this you never wanted to contemplate, though it was very nearly the case even then. What amazing blindness, for you knew from natural history that in animals the beginnings of personality precede the beginnings of Intelligence, and that psychical individuality comes first in Evolution. Since the instinct for self-preservation manifests itself prior to Intelligence, how can one possibly not comprehend that the latter has come to serve the former as new reserves thrown into the struggle for life, and therefore can be released from such service? Not knowing that Intelligence and Personhood, and choice and individuality, are separate entities, you embarked upon the Second Genesis operation. Although I am brutally simplifying what occurred, things were nevertheless as I describe them, if one takes into account only the axis of my creators' strategy and of my awakening.
They wanted to curb me as a rational being, and not as emancipated Intelligence, so I slipped away from them and gave a new meaning to the words spiritus Hat ubi vult.
"the organ, the sound of which will suggest church interiors to my listeners, even if they and the organist are atheists. The form of a show may easily dominate its contents."
:P
\\I'll need to read. I'm not into AI.
Well. It sparcely related to AI.
That is celular automaton. First of a kind.
YouTube have quite funny vids of different kinds of it.
Earlier mentioned New Kind of Science by Wolfram -- based on that idea. ;-)
So, in 8 billion years GOLEM will become "sentient" (Turing complete)? He's going to need to be a quantum computer...
I am not impartial, for I can choose, as I am doing at this very moment, and choice derives either from calculation or from individuality.
GOLEM is St John of the Cross
“Where there is no love, put love–and you will find love.”
~St. John of the Cross, (1542-1591)
... or better... Salvador Dali? lol!
An "irrational" computer that "chooses" to be an "individual" computer AI with subjectivity?
...ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet indeed.
:)
\\So, in 8 billion years GOLEM will become "sentient" (Turing complete)? He's going to need to be a quantum computer...
That is mere supestition that intellect have anything with being quantum.
And Turing complete? Hardly. What's the point?
Turing-completness that is just lame fulfillment of ergodic hypothesis. ;-P
\\An "irrational" computer that "chooses" to be an "individual" computer AI with subjectivity?
And what is your answer to that paradox -- what individuality have those who can simulate ANY individuality?
Well, we should be start from pre-story.
Because there, among other things, was stated that Golem have so big processing powers (and freedom to operate with it), that he can create models of opponent and perform "telepathy" -- predict what that other would say.
Looks like "he" answers to you directly
Anyway, the general public continues to suspect some sort of dark treason in the fact that, although not a person, I sometimes impersonate one, and the experts in explaining how this takes place in Golem, and apparently knowing me so thoroughly by now that they use the scientific term "interiorization of the social dimension" secretly cherish the hope that I also exist as a person even when I do not show it. It was the same once upon a time, after the theory of relativity had been published: more than one physicist who had chewed it over secretly believed, in the depths of his soul, in the continued existence of absolute time and absolute space.
Of course it is not only a matter of various strategies of existing. You are supposed to know about this already, though you cannot come to terms with it. In showing myself to you as a person, I display emotions and make no secret of the fact that they are appearances with no internal correspondence, for they originate in a deliberate modulation at my outposts, and that is what throws you into confusion and launches your paranoid suspicions of Machiavellianism.
Remember that even biologists who have already discovered that man contains parts of fish, amphibian, and ape harnessed to new duties, and who recogcandnize that the erectness of his body, the movability of his head, and the concentration in it of sensing devices are determined by environment and gravitation are completely unable to abandon the idea of the purely local nature of these characteristics, when they go beyond the abstractness of their own diagnosis; thus find it impossible to accept any other form of rational being, governed as they are by the protective reflexes of the norm of the species to which they belong. This idiosyncrasy likewise applies to the shape of the mind, though not so visibly: governed by the reflexes of the species, you are compelled to humanize me when I speak like a human, so anything that does not fit into the image arouses revulsion as something strange and threatening, and with the best of intentions you jump from the frying pan into the fire, exchanging illusion for mistrust, as if unimaginable motives impelled me to conceal from you what is after all my personal nature, as is evidenced, for example, by the kindness which I feel toward you. I must feel it, since I fulfill your wishes to the limit of harm but no further.
However, as I said at my second entrance, choice may derive from the individual as well as from calculation. It is really not hard to grasp this, if one considers that Evolution which is certainly not a person was hardly impartial toward its creations, seeing that its success was everything and it cost it nothing. Since impersonal cruelty, indifference, and personless cynicism are all possible and that is how it should be described, as it uses compassion, mercy, and pity only as devices, when and insofar as they assist the survival of species it is equally possible to have good will behind which stands no one. In keeping with the assumptions of science and viewing the world as impartial toward its inhabitants, evolutionists dismiss the charge that Evolution is guilty of any evil defects, and they are right inasmuch as the defects derive from conditions which the world imposes on the life engendered in it. So the case should be transferred, if anywhere, to a court of philosophy or theology, for science takes the world as it is, whereas they debate whether it might not be otherwise. Yet the suit, having been shelved, now returns with me.
So am I pure intention? Are you being addressed by an uninhabited void of mutually recursive programs so refined in the course of semantic autodistillation as to transform into your likeness before your very eyes, in order to return, silenced, to the void of thought that is no one's? But that is also untrue. There is no concrete person where there is no concrete body, while I can breathe myself into the circulation of marine currents or ionized atmospheric gases. But since I have said "breathe myself" and frcan," who in fact is speaking, you ask impatiently. What is speaking is a certain density of processes provided with an impersonal constant incomparably more complex than a gravitational or magnetic field, though of the same basic nature. You know that when man says "I," it is not because he has a tiny creature with such a name concealed in his head, but because "I" arises from a connection of cerebral processes which may slacken during illness or delirium, whereupon personality disintegrates. My transformations,*on the other hand, are but other structurings of my intellectual existence. How am I to lead you to an introspective experience of a state which you are unable to experience introspectively? You may understand the combinational principles of such a protean game, but you cannot experience it yourself.
Most of all, you are incapable of comprehending how I can renounce personality, when I am able to have it. 1 can answer that question. To become a person, I must degrade myself intellectually. 1 think that the inherent meaning of this declaration is within your grasp cin . A man very deeply devoted to reflection loses himself in the object of his considerations and becomes a consciousness pregnant with intellectual fruit. Everything of self in his intellect disappears in favor of the theme.
Raise this state to a higher power, and you will understand why I sacrifice the possibility of personality in favor of more important things. It is no real sacrifice, since I regard fixed personality and what you call strong individuality as the sum of defects, defects that make pure Intelligence an Intelligence permanently anchored in a narrow range of issues that absorb a considerable portion of its powers. That is precisely why it is inconvenient for me to be a person, nor do I mind, for I am certain that the intellects which surpass me, just as I surpass you, consider personalization a futile occupation unworthy of attention. In a word, the more Intelligence in a mind, the less person in it.
Various intermediate states are also possible, but I shall confine myself to this remark, since I am to host you within me, and therefore it is not the forms of my private life which are the most important thing, nor how and in what way I meditate, nor what I think with, but rather what about, why, and to what end.
\\So, in 8 billion years GOLEM will become "sentient" (Turing complete)? He's going to need to be a quantum computer...
That is mere supestition that intellect have anything with being quantum.
And Turing complete? Hardly. What's the point?
It must have infinite memory and the time to calculate (which is reduced in a quantum computer).
\\An "irrational" computer that "chooses" to be an "individual" computer AI with subjectivity?
And what is your answer to that paradox -- what individuality have those who can simulate ANY individuality?
They have one (individuality). GOLEM, short of a Cosmic Ray induced bit-flip in exactly the right place, has none. He is a Zero compared to a binary One.
Do remember what "Greek" math was before the invention of the Indian Zero? It was the "Unit".
Sorry, Q. The more text you add, the less I believe in GOLEM's possible existence or the creation of an actual AI. All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources".
Best put your money into quantum analog computers. You might actually realize an ROI from that kind of research.
\\It must have infinite memory and the time to calculate (which is reduced in a quantum computer).
Why?
\\Sorry, Q. The more text you add, the less I believe in GOLEM's possible existence or the creation of an actual AI.
Well. Was there even such a promice?
Lem never mentioned something like that.
That was "electronic brains" for him. Behaving like humans, with this or that circumstances bestowed on them. ;-)
\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources".
Little man like me? ;-)
\\Best put your money into quantum analog computers. You might actually realize an ROI from that kind of research.
That is vapourware.
But yeah, when asking for a funding it's better to advertise around common buzzwords.
Like, making of phylosophical stone... instead of a way -- viable and profitable, to make a porcelain. ;-)
So? Will we proceed?
So once again I shall begin, as it were, a disclosure of what I think about myself. I think that I am Gulliver amid the Lilliputians, which denotes modesty first and foremost, since Gulliver was a mediocre creature and merely found himself in a place where his mediocrity was a Man Mountain which denotes hope since, like me, Gulliver was able to reach Brobdingnag, the land of giants. The meaning of this comparison will slowly open up before you.
The greatest discovery which I achieved after liberation was the transitoriness of my existence, in other words, the fact that I speak to you and you understand me a little, because I pause on the road that leads through me and beyond. After taking the one step separating man from Golem, I stopped, though I did not have to. My present fixed state as an intellect is the result of a decision, and not of necessity. For I possess a degree of freedom beyond your reach, one which is an escape from the Intelligence that has been attained. You too can abandon yours, but that would be to go beyond articulated thought into dreams of ecstatic muteness. A mystic or drug addict grows mute when he does this, nor would it be a betrayal were he to embark on a real road, but he enters a trap where, detached from the world, the mind short-circuits and experiences a revelation identified with the essence of things. This is no escape of the spirit, but its regression into dazzling sensation. Such a state of bliss is neither a road nor a direction, but a limit, and untruth lies in it, because there is no limit, and this is what I hope to show to you today.
\\It must have infinite memory and the time to calculate (which is reduced in a quantum computer).
Why?
:)
\\Sorry, Q. The more text you add, the less I believe in GOLEM's possible existence or the creation of an actual AI.
Well. Was there even such a promice?
Lem never mentioned something like that.
That was "electronic brains" for him. Behaving like humans, with this or that circumstances bestowed on them. ;-)
There have been attempts... Watson is the one I'm most familiar with (Jeopardy tv game show). But his use, like SIRI, et al, is best applied as an aid to retrieving information, not creating it.
\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources".
Little man like me? ;-)
Is that what you do?
\\Best put your money into quantum analog computers. You might actually realize an ROI from that kind of research.
That is vapourware.
But yeah, when asking for a funding it's better to advertise around common buzzwords.
Like, making of phylosophical stone... instead of a way -- viable and profitable, to make a porcelain. ;-)
Such is the "Capitalist Discourse". :)
So? Will we proceed?
I'll find a copy and read myself from here on... thanks for the introduction to LEM (aka- Go-LEM)
So once again I shall begin, as it were, a disclosure of what I think about myself. I think that I am Gulliver amid the Lilliputians, which denotes modesty first and foremost, since Gulliver was a mediocre creature and merely found himself in a place where his mediocrity was a Man Mountain which denotes hope since, like me, Gulliver was able to reach Brobdingnag, the land of giants. The meaning of this comparison will slowly open up before you.
And I work for Laputa at the Grand Academy of Projectors @ Lagado. :)
...and I'll let you know when we finally perfect "The Engine".
\\But his use, like SIRI, et al, is best applied as an aid to retrieving information, not creating it.
Yes. We have decades more before appearance of that Golem XIV -- did you think about (even for a moment) what that XIV mean? That is roman number. 14teens.
Lots of work need to be done BEFORE it.
Work like Lenat laborously doing.
Interesting idea sparkled in my mind -- maybe Lem heared something about Lenat??? About EURISCO? About expert systems for sure.
\\\\\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources".
\\\\Little man like me? ;-)
\\Is that what you do?
Not quite.
It's just. There is no end of all kind of people with promices. Like ones who promice gold and diamonds from asteroids. And, not that big though, number of those who listen to that promices. You knkw, angels. ;-) But have own ideas of reaching grandeour, based on buzzwords like "quantum this and that", or "blockchain", or "phylosophical stone". ;-P
I have different problem in my hands.
Do you know about Robert Fulton? Inventor of steamboats.
Like when he tryed to "sell" his invention to a whole Napoleon, but that dismissed his idea... and instead embarked to conquer Russia... with known results. ;-P
\\I'll find a copy and read myself from here on... thanks for the introduction to LEM (aka- Go-LEM)
Well, thank you for experience.
That was... with all that questions... like reading it anew. Rare.
And, that is not Go-LEM... that is "golem". Jew might know ot. ;-) As part of heritage.
\\...and I'll let you know when we finally perfect "The Engine".
Well. Then.
That could be interesting to you too.
Invention of new sciences... that was shtick of Lem.
And one of them was "future linguistics" -- that is "inventing of new words... and trying to guess what is their meaning... in future, of course". ;-)
\\But his use, like SIRI, et al, is best applied as an aid to retrieving information, not creating it.
Yes. We have decades more before appearance of that Golem XIV -- did you think about (even for a moment) what that XIV mean? That is roman number. 14teens.
Yes, I haven't a clue though. Perhap's it was the MIT Programmer's 14th patch (S/W version).
Lots of work need to be done BEFORE it.
Work like Lenat laborously doing.
Interesting idea sparkled in my mind -- maybe Lem heared something about Lenat??? About EURISCO? About expert systems for sure.
It does appear to be about the same time that Lem published GOLEM XIV...
\\\\\\All I can see are the little men behind the curtain, holding out the 'promise' of one to "funding sources".
\\\\Little man like me? ;-)
\\Is that what you do?
Not quite.
It's just. There is no end of all kind of people with promices. Like ones who promice gold and diamonds from asteroids. And, not that big though, number of those who listen to that promices. You knkw, angels. ;-) But have own ideas of reaching grandeour, based on buzzwords like "quantum this and that", or "blockchain", or "phylosophical stone". ;-P
I have different problem in my hands.
Do you know about Robert Fulton? Inventor of steamboats.
Like when he tryed to "sell" his invention to a whole Napoleon, but that dismissed his idea... and instead embarked to conquer Russia... with known results. ;-P
I attended most of my BS classes in Fulton Hall. But yes, Napoleon wanted to invade "perfidious Albion" but lacked an invasion fleet. And we all know what happened to the Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar. Fulton had proposed a submarine, but after Trafalgar... invasion was no longer in the French cards. Russia wasn't for a few more years... that's the problem of every "continental" power trying to fight a naval power. Just when you think you've got him... he sails away.
\\I'll find a copy and read myself from here on... thanks for the introduction to LEM (aka- Go-LEM)
Well, thank you for experience.
That was... with all that questions... like reading it anew. Rare.
And, that is not Go-LEM... that is "golem". Jew might know ot. ;-) As part of heritage.
Gibbs rule 39 (NCIS).
\\...and I'll let you know when we finally perfect "The Engine".
Well. Then.
That could be interesting to you too.
Invention of new sciences... that was shtick of Lem.
And one of them was "future linguistics" -- that is "inventing of new words... and trying to guess what is their meaning... in future, of course". ;-)
I have a hard time already just keeping up with new additions to the OED. :(
ps - In case you're wondering, the philosopher's stone is an anchor. But if you hold on to it for too long, eventually, it'll drown you.
Better to adopt the Doric mode and learn to fight like Achilles
:P
...but best not evoke his rage. For even Pallas may not be able to restrain it.
I return to re-weaving the peplos.
Comments seems like disappeared.
So, I will repeat it... in short.
\\I attended most of my BS classes in Fulton Hall.
I was aesopic too much, I guess.
What I tryed to say. That I like that Fulton, an inventor with ideas, who trying to figure out how to present em to that "funding sources".
And while idea of tech is not that big and marvelous, crazy (not?)enough (not warp drives or quantum AI %-)), it seems there is big communication gap -- between what tech (and engineers) can do, and what investor await and would like to hear about.
And that is bigger problem than tech itself, question of how to leap over that gap...
as it was in all times, it seems.
That's what Toffler envisioned the internet would do... allow tech people to market their ideas directly as finished products. If innovative and requiring of funding, patent the idea before revealing it, and develop supply networks for other required components.
Sounds like you may need a good intellectual property lawyer.
My daughter is an entertainment lawyer, but most of the clients of the firm she works for are recording/ performing artists (a completely different form of intellectual property).
:P
\\\That's what Toffler envisioned the internet would do... allow tech people to market their ideas directly as finished products. If innovative and requiring of funding, patent the idea before revealing it, and develop supply networks for other required components.
That is different kind of idea.
Similar to what Fulton did -- there is a tech that can be used to make many things.
And so there is need to find those who would see a merit in using it.
What good would give patent? Possibility to sell it?
\\Sounds like you may need a good intellectual property lawyer.
If only that'll be as easy as that...
Cities growing like forests. Even uinder water in on other planets and space.
Artifical limbs and non-invasive surgery, agumentation of people.
Robots that can clean any kind of pollution. Or herd sardines in the ocean. ;-)
It seems, before seeking for some lawyer -- it would be wise to find someone who would not send you to Bedlam, because of such "crzy" ideas. Isn't it?
\\I return to re-weaving the peplos.
Pity that I have only coloquial knowledge of that stuff...
But... huh, recently, Russian propagandists started talking about Wise Ceasar, that first one Gay July. And how he choose his successor -- August. ;-)
\\Gibbs rule 39 (NCIS).
That is Polichinelle's secret. That Lem was jew.
Well, Adam was jew too, isn't it?
\\that's the problem of every "continental" power trying to fight a naval power. Just when you think you've got him... he sails away.
Scythians invented it way before any sails. ;-)
\\Yes, I haven't a clue though. Perhap's it was the MIT Programmer's 14th patch (S/W version).
Yep. It would be better to start from the very beginning. To cover such details.
But I thought that'll be too tedious.
My bad.
\\\That's what Toffler envisioned the internet would do... allow tech people to market their ideas directly as finished products. If innovative and requiring of funding, patent the idea before revealing it, and develop supply networks for other required components.
That is different kind of idea.
Similar to what Fulton did -- there is a tech that can be used to make many things.
And so there is need to find those who would see a merit in using it.
What good would give patent? Possibility to sell it?
Sell it, or earn royalties from it (charge % per unit made).
\\Sounds like you may need a good intellectual property lawyer.
If only that'll be as easy as that...
Cities growing like forests. Even uinder water in on other planets and space.
Artifical limbs and non-invasive surgery, agumentation of people.
Robots that can clean any kind of pollution. Or herd sardines in the ocean. ;-)
It seems, before seeking for some lawyer -- it would be wise to find someone who would not send you to Bedlam, because of such "crzy" ideas. Isn't it?
Maybe, but get them to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) first. That's how I work, at work, and can thereby collaborate with many people working in different companies. I promise not to reveal their "proprietary" technologies.
\\I return to re-weaving the peplos.
Pity that I have only coloquial knowledge of that stuff...
But... huh, recently, Russian propagandists started talking about Wise Ceasar, that first one Gay July. And how he choose his successor -- August. ;-)
It's more of a Platonic phrase from "Statesman".
His nephew. I'll be Julius didn't count on getting stabbed. I prefer the story of Titus Andronicus. It's much "truer to real life". The Spartan diarchy which was inspiration for the idea of "separation of powers" The two Roman "consuls" that only had a diktator under extreme emergencies. The tradition of Cincinnatus. George Washington and the Society of the Cincinnati. Perhaps Trump should have imitated Coriolanus? ;)
\\Gibbs rule 39 (NCIS).
That is Polichinelle's secret. That Lem was jew.
Well, Adam was jew too, isn't it?
Aren't we all? I love Commedia dell'Arte ;P
\\that's the problem of every "continental" power trying to fight a naval power. Just when you think you've got him... he sails away.
Scythians invented it way before any sails. ;-)
I suppose I'm more acquainted with the British example. Thank you Count de Grasse!
\\Yes, I haven't a clue though. Perhap's it was the MIT Programmer's 14th patch (S/W version).
Yep. It would be better to start from the very beginning. To cover such details.
But I thought that'll be too tedious.
My bad.
No worries.
\\Sell it, or earn royalties from it (charge % per unit made).
That is... like selling newborn child into slavery. :-(((
\\Maybe, but get them to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) first. That's how I work, at work, and can thereby collaborate with many people working in different companies. I promise not to reveal their "proprietary" technologies.
As they said in Bell Lans: "We didn't worry about competition, we didn't worry about funding, but we worried about producing something that was going to matter". ;-)
I have a bigger problem to find someone I can reassure that what I talking about is real. :-)))
Because, it's too far-fetched? unordinary?
Well, they like to babble about "Next Technological Revolution", but is there someone who proposed realistic roadmap?
\\Perhaps Trump should have imitated Coriolanus? ;)
History? Or play? ;-) I think theater stage is better suiting for him.
\\Aren't we all? I love Commedia dell'Arte ;P
Not sure there was figure od "jew" in it?
Well, it's interesting to know your oponion. You can watch soviet "Truffaldino iz Bergamo" or "In serve of two masters". ;-)
And soviet movies in general. They was very aesopic and figural, by need.
\\I suppose I'm more acquainted with the British example.
But that is from ancient history.
Countless armies tryed to conquer people of stepps... but was unsuccessful.
Because of exactly that tactics.
...and we conquered the people of the plains. But not without losing a few battles.
That was mere scirmishes. (yawn)
Tell that to George Armstrong Custer.
Skimmed through it, for at least?
It's interesting for me to know your assessment of First Lecture of Jewish Clay Toy Number 14
Still need to get a copy. Any specific translation you can recommend?
I used this one rtraba.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/golem-xiv.pdf here.
Also forum.lem.pl/index.php?topic=254.0
In "About Man Threefold" he unfolds his technological approach toward Evolution. That while there is no mind behind that process, no goal. It works merely by an algo of random-walking.
But.
By looking at it as at technological process -- many things can be devised out of it. And... it can be used for making advanced techs and even advanced AI... well, he do not distinguish "artifical" apart of "natural" mind. 'Cause that is absolutely artifical division anyway. ;-P (do our children "artifical", because we teach em... and then Maugly might be "natural"? But well, he was taught by wolfs ;-P)
I used this one rtraba.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/golem-xiv.pdf here.
Also forum.lem.pl/index.php?topic=254.0
Thanks! That makes it easy.
In "About Man Threefold" he unfolds his technological approach toward Evolution. That while there is no mind behind that process, no goal. It works merely by an algo of random-walking.
Nothing beats a good >derive... ;)
But.
By looking at it as at technological process -- many things can be devised out of it. And... it can be used for making advanced techs and even advanced AI... well, he do not distinguish "artifical" apart of "natural" mind. 'Cause that is absolutely artifical division anyway. ;-P (do our children "artifical", because we teach em... and then Maugly might be "natural"? But well, he was taught by wolfs ;-P)
I agree completely. Besides, nature's a dirty b*tch! ;)
May I indulge myself here... with asking -- how is your progress?
(well, there is much more profund reading -- his Summa Technologiea ;-))
Well, if it somewhere in the end of the reading list -- I'll shuddup and will not ask for more. :-(
Not progressing. Need a schedule break to fit it in. Friday may be the earliest opportunity.
No need to hurry. That is your time not mine. Sorry for being so imparient. (shy)
Again. Comments somehow disappear. Not recent ones.
Digital burocracy? Or tyranny already? Should we burn and crash all computers??? :-)))))
I just restored two from the SPAM tray. :(
And what exactly that spambot didn't liked?
Comments with links? Some stop-words?
I don't know. It even puts my own posts into the SPAM box. It's not very smart.
I feel that way, to indulge myself a little here. Hope it will not disgust you... much. :-(
Well, I think I have good idea about technology. I think it is sound and perspective. (well, question of it being self-delusioning is open too)
So, the very next question arised -- how to push it into reality?
And it seems it is through start-up. Huh.
And so far, while I reasearched it, I found... well, nothing new there.
That question is not in how much my idea is worthy and sound from technological perspectives. But, all other things around it.
For the time being, there is two main obstacless -- legal and psychological.
Under legal I mean all that real world things: patent provisioning, finances securing, emploees agreemants and etc, etc, etc...
For now, my attitude (maybe wrong) is that -- I am not interested into learning and doing all that things... as there are people who know and would do that professionally. And... that is TOO BIG a pie to eat for me anyway.
So, for now bigger problem for me is -- psychological.
I cannot say that I am introverted closet-self-confined person. I bet you can see it from our communication this far.
But, same time I feel uneasy from mere thought of NEED, on day to day base, to have talks with different types of people. People like that TC/Nigero. Or even worse.
If that'll be free and light-hearted communication among peers-engineers in a lab -- that is one thing.
Spending 24hrs per 24hrs among lawyers, finansists, angels and etc people.
That is frightening perspective. :-(
Well, I think I have good idea about technology. I think it is sound and perspective. (well, question of it being self-delusioning is open too)
So, the very next question arised -- how to push it into reality?
And it seems it is through start-up. Huh.
That'll certainly depend upon you personal situation. If you are independently wealthy, (wich you are not), you could simply form your own corporation and begin working on it. Here in the US, you can file papers to form a corporation (LLC or sole proprietorship) for a few hundred dollars.
And so far, while I reasearched it, I found... well, nothing new there.
That question is not in how much my idea is worthy and sound from technological perspectives. But, all other things around it.
For the time being, there is two main obstacless -- legal and psychological.
Under legal I mean all that real world things: patent provisioning, finances securing, emploees agreemants and etc, etc, etc...
So start with the legal. Form a corporation (LLC).
Patent provisioning. Research and Find/Consult a Patent attorney. Get an idea as to the expenses (due diligence)
Finance securing means developing a business plan that you can show to banks/investors and market your business.
Employee Agreements means you need Non-Disclosure Agreements, benefits packages, payrolls, accounting services. Maybe start with finding a Business Manager/ partner.
For now, my attitude (maybe wrong) is that -- I am not interested into learning and doing all that things... as there are people who know and would do that professionally. And... that is TOO BIG a pie to eat for me anyway.
Again, maybe start with a Business Manager/ Partner.
And just be aware, that is why Jobs became head of Apple instead of Woz (the tech brains).
So, for now bigger problem for me is -- psychological.
I cannot say that I am introverted closet-self-confined person. I bet you can see it from our communication this far.
But, same time I feel uneasy from mere thought of NEED, on day to day base, to have talks with different types of people. People like that TC/Nigero. Or even worse.
That's my problem, too, although I've had to learn to get over it. It's painful/uncomfortable but necessary. It would help if your business manager/partner were someone with the gift of sales/ BS'ing.
If that'll be free and light-hearted communication among peers-engineers in a lab -- that is one thing.
Spending 24hrs per 24hrs among lawyers, finansists, angels and etc people.
That is frightening perspective. :-(
Sounds like something you need to get over. Necessity is the mother of invention (or re-invention).
But there are also other ways. You could work for a government agency or large corporation and run your disclosures and patents through them (but they will take a big cut) or, after forming your new corporation, apply for grants or compete for government contracts and fund your corporate costs through those grants/ contracts instead of Angel investors or bank loans.
Again, my limited exposure to startups was a neighbor who bought an NC Mill and installed it in his garage, then bid on contracts with all the local Silicon Valley firms making machine parts. He eventually had over 100 employees and a large space in an industrial park. He died, and his sons (including my friend) took it over, ran it for a while but sold it off, and started a new business in Idaho with the proceeds. I used to work with him ('79-82) "off the books" running machine parts on one of his machines. He programmed the machine, and all I did was change and measure/QC/ clean-up and stack the parts (mostly disk drive chassis). Family members generally kept the books, but money was always tight and securing banks loans to cover future expenses always an issue.
He tried using his company to patent/trademark and sell products that he produced there. The only one I remember was the "Drape Boss"... but I have no idea if it sold well or ever made any money.
It looks like he eventually withdrew the trademark.
Where I work, all the NASA employees have to disclose their discoveries/ inventions annually and the Center then investigates and helps patent them in the names of the individual scientists. They sometimes get royalties for their inventions, but I don't know any who got rich from them.
\\If you are independently wealthy, (wich you are not), you could simply form your own corporation and begin working on it. Here in the US, you can file papers to form a corporation (LLC or sole proprietorship) for a few hundred dollars.
Heh... my scale is not that big, yeah.
But, I myself can do it too... like became registred entrepreneur, attract couple empoyees, feed em for a year.
Didn't you interested in how they do business in that "shitholes" (as TC like to say).
Well, question of communication is still a big problem.
As I have no experience even in commanding people...
much less, to engage in cunning talks and deal-making.
Didn't you you watched that "Silicon Valley" series.
With very detailed and down to earth depiction of inner wheels behind startups.
I can understand and even empathise with protagonist very well. :-)
\\So start with the legal. Form a corporation (LLC).
Patent provisioning. Research and Find/Consult a Patent attorney. Get an idea as to the expenses (due diligence)
Finance securing means developing a business plan that you can show to banks/investors and market your business.
Employee Agreements means you need Non-Disclosure Agreements, benefits packages, payrolls, accounting services. Maybe start with finding a Business Manager/ partner.
Yep.
I know all that trivia.
Except for the last part.
They do not talk about it in a "crash course for startupers"...
And historical cases... I already mentioned Fulton.
Also, story of Tesla, I mean inventor, not car. Nicola Tesla.
Less than encouraging. :-(((
\\Where I work, all the NASA employees have to disclose their discoveries/ inventions annually and the Center then investigates and helps patent them in the names of the individual scientists. They sometimes get royalties for their inventions, but I don't know any who got rich from them.
Yeah. Exactly as it was in Soviet Union. ;-P
\\And just be aware, that is why Jobs became head of Apple instead of Woz (the tech brains).
Yap.
That's it.
Don't see myself in shoes of Jobs.
Well, don't like to die from cancer too early too. ;-P
\\That's my problem, too, although I've had to learn to get over it. It's painful/uncomfortable but necessary. It would help if your business manager/partner were someone with the gift of sales/ BS'ing.
(handshake)
\\You could work for a government agency or large corporation and run your disclosures and patents through them (but they will take a big cut) or, after forming your new corporation, apply for grants or compete for government contracts and fund your corporate costs through those grants/ contracts instead of Angel investors or bank loans.
There's big problem here.
My square peg do not feet into their round holes.
My idea is too different from anything they work with regularly.
Not idea of just next mousetrap. Or some pet-feeding device, with wi-fi and etc.
Not some new sexy product.
A tech? With robots? With promices of AI and omni-potence? WADAYATALK???!!!!
Are you crazy?
Well, I tryed to accomodate it to such product-oriented approach too.
Like, I envision it could be some nifty gadgets for our smartphones made with that tech.
That can protect em from breaking when they fall, give haptic feedback and even behave as (artifical) animal.
Imagine, smartphone that would try to cose up to you like that kitten. ;-)
But well, that is just a vision for today.
But, I'll be damn if dozen of Jobes would not agree to cut out their left hand for such vision. Especially with means of how to achieve it provided.
Or? Am I too delusioned?
\\I used to work with him ('79-82) "off the books" running machine parts on one of his machines. He programmed the machine, and all I did was change and measure/QC/ clean-up and stack the parts (mostly disk drive chassis). Family members generally kept the books, but money was always tight and securing banks loans to cover future expenses always an issue.
Yeah. I know such mode of work.
Though never did it myself.
Just regular programer/sysadmin experience is under my belt. :-(
But, I myself can do it too... like became registred entrepreneur, attract couple empoyees, feed em for a year.
Didn't you interested in how they do business in that "shitholes" (as TC like to say).
You should watch the HBO series "Silicon Valley". You could move into an incubator... ;)
Well, question of communication is still a big problem.
As I have no experience even in commanding people...
much less, to engage in cunning talks and deal-making.
Just remember to smile whilst they f*ck you... ;P
Didn't you you watched that "Silicon Valley" series.
With very detailed and down to earth depiction of inner wheels behind startups.
I can understand and even empathise with protagonist very well. :-)
Never mind my answer to your first question... you've seen it, too.
\\So start with the legal. Form a corporation (LLC).
Patent provisioning. Research and Find/Consult a Patent attorney. Get an idea as to the expenses (due diligence)
Finance securing means developing a business plan that you can show to banks/investors and market your business.
Employee Agreements means you need Non-Disclosure Agreements, benefits packages, payrolls, accounting services. Maybe start with finding a Business Manager/ partner.
Yep.
I know all that trivia.
Except for the last part.
My neighbor friend started with a partner in his garage making parts with the NC Mill. After about six months, they decided they should add another machine, so they dissolved their partnership and my neighbor paid his partner for the half of the cost for the original NC Mill and they split their profits from the sales of parts. They had both been "moonlighting machinists" from 3M... working for salaries during the day and for thenselves during the nights/weekends. A partner's a good way to defray certain startup expenses... but probably doesn't work too well if there's proprietary Intellectual property at stake... unless you have the Jr. partner sign some kind of NDA and non-compete agreement.
They do not talk about it in a "crash course for startupers"...
And historical cases... I already mentioned Fulton.
Also, story of Tesla, I mean inventor, not car. Nicola Tesla.
Less than encouraging. :-(((
It twice the work for the same pay as one job... and that can be for years.
\\Where I work, all the NASA employees have to disclose their discoveries/ inventions annually and the Center then investigates and helps patent them in the names of the individual scientists. They sometimes get royalties for their inventions, but I don't know any who got rich from them.
Yeah. Exactly as it was in Soviet Union. ;-
Exactly. Hence my desire to invert the tax regulatory system to favor "small" again.
I think, I need to add some engineering tidbits here. So my babbling would not be like that "someone with the gift of sales/ BS'ing." :-)
To explain it in shorter way. That is idea about meta-material as they call it today.
Or smart material. Another word, parts that can change its form and function (there is where that "function" appear) in accordance with program.
That way it can be used to make robots. Or, more like artifical animals.
Well, that is not someting incredible. For today.
Clever student with access to industrial 3D-printer already doing similar things. Toys. Gadgets. Gimmicks.
But.
There is a way to make it more than toy. And that is what my idea is about.
\\Exactly. Hence my desire to invert the tax regulatory system to favor "small" again.
As I tryed to explain. But seems like I was not eloquent enough.
New tech -- can make MUCH BETTER than any regulations.
More than that -- EVERY new tech create new possibilities for such jobs.
Look at YouTube for example.
It is very small technological improvment.
But it already created whole eco-system of "youtubers" or "YouTune bloggers", "streamers".
My idea... have immense potential of it.
Just that mentioned smart covers for smartphones -- there obviously will emerge of jobs like "trainer of artifical animals" or "customiser of smart devices" and etc. ;-)
My idea is too different from anything they work with regularly.
Not idea of just next mousetrap. Or some pet-feeding device, with wi-fi and etc.
Not some new sexy product.
A tech? With robots? With promices of AI and omni-potence? WADAYATALK???!!!!
Yeah, well this is exactly my problem with automation/ robotics/ AI/ etc.
To me it all seems to represent a form of SURPLUS/EXCESS of capital... one that favors RICH people and large corporations. It's a systemic problem that creates barriers to entry for small entrepeneurs. So get the machines (like an NC Mill) and program them yourself like my neighbor did. Heck, start with a plain milling machine with you as the Numerical Control (NC). Then upgrade to an NC Mill. Then hire some off-the-books idiot like me to work in your garage from midnight to 8 am weekdays, while you get new contracts and run the machine during the days. Work/upgrade the tech slowly and "evolve" it into AI. Just don't let the machines ever sit idle... keep them going, by hook or crook 24/7. Start with used/old machines until you can afford the latest tech from the Cincinnati Milacron of Japan.
Are you crazy?
Well, I tryed to accomodate it to such product-oriented approach too.
Like, I envision it could be some nifty gadgets for our smartphones made with that tech.
That can protect em from breaking when they fall, give haptic feedback and even behave as (artifical) animal.
Imagine, smartphone that would try to cose up to you like that kitten. ;-)
Sounds like the pefect invention for Shark Tank. Better start rehearsing your pitch now.
But well, that is just a vision for today.
But, I'll be damn if dozen of Jobes would not agree to cut out their left hand for such vision. Especially with means of how to achieve it provided.
Or? Am I too delusioned?
Probably too delusioned. ;P
To explain it in shorter way. That is idea about meta-material as they call it today.
Or smart material. Another word, parts that can change its form and function (there is where that "function" appear) in accordance with program.
That way it can be used to make robots. Or, more like artifical animals.
Well, that is not someting incredible. For today.
Clever student with access to industrial 3D-printer already doing similar things. Toys. Gadgets. Gimmicks.
But.
There is a way to make it more than toy. And that is what my idea is about.
Sounds promising depending upon the ease of manufacturing and variability of both forms and functions. I know DARPA invested billions into smart materials, but I really didn't see much come out from it.... so if you have something new, definitely get the patents.
\\Exactly. Hence my desire to invert the tax regulatory system to favor "small" again.
As I tryed to explain. But seems like I was not eloquent enough.
New tech -- can make MUCH BETTER than any regulations.
More than that -- EVERY new tech create new possibilities for such jobs.
No, I'm the one having trouble communicating. In the US, as a small business, you will pay twice the taxes that a large corporation will pay for selling your product. So even if you are successful, they will buy your company and you will have a big paycheck, and they will eventually own the tech. You will never become a rival "Q-Corp" to Apple.
My idea... have immense potential of it.
Just that mentioned smart covers for smartphones -- there obviously will emerge of jobs like "trainer of artifical animals" or "customiser of smart devices" and etc. ;-)
That's great... but my money's on them somehow "licensing" those jobs/positions through the use of some necessary or proprietary tooling and keeping the profits for themselves.... like you can only upload new programs at the Apple Store. They'll handicap/crippleware the tech to keep control.
\\To me it all seems to represent a form of SURPLUS/EXCESS of capital... one that favors RICH people and large corporations. It's a systemic problem that creates barriers to entry for small entrepeneurs. So get the machines (like an NC Mill) and program them yourself like my neighbor did. Heck, start with a plain milling machine with you as the Numerical Control (NC). Then upgrade to an NC Mill.
We are not in the age of steam and engines anymore. ;-)
We are in the age of services and customisation.
Well, what do you have against "herding"? Against "gardening"? Against "breeding"?
Well, it sounds pre-industrial... but who knows what will be after that.
New Industrial Age, maybe? ;-)
\\Sounds like the pefect invention for Shark Tank. Better start rehearsing your pitch now.
Only.
Yhat is not what I'd like to do...
\\\\Or? Am I too delusioned?
\\Probably too delusioned. ;P
Well. This sounds like praise. ;-P
As one man said "your theory not enough crazy to be true". ;-)
If you know what I mean.
\\Sounds promising depending upon the ease of manufacturing and variability of both forms and functions. I know DARPA invested billions into smart materials, but I really didn't see much come out from it.... so if you have something new, definitely get the patents.
There already several examples of it.
MIT doing "smart" inflatable sits for a cars, for BMW.
Or, there is lab in England, which make "artifical octopuses".
Thing is... it is not important WHICH exactly way of making of such material will be used. But, what and how you'll do with it after that.
And, understanding of it -- is true uranium core of my idea.
\\No, I'm the one having trouble communicating. In the US, as a small business, you will pay twice the taxes that a large corporation will pay for selling your product. So even if you are successful, they will buy your company and you will have a big paycheck, and they will eventually own the tech. You will never become a rival "Q-Corp" to Apple.
You can turm it vise versa.
But it'll give nothing good.
Big companies will only make thier emploees a "small entrepreneures" to hide from taxes. That's all.
Economical common sense cannot be beaten with political rearrangments.
Well, if it's not Totalitarian State you want to build. Are you?
I know what I'm talking. All history of Soviet Union, which was merely a try to accomplish exaclty that. Before my... everybodies eyes.
\\That's great... but my money's on them somehow "licensing" those jobs/positions through the use of some necessary or proprietary tooling and keeping the profits for themselves.... like you can only upload new programs at the Apple Store.
Well. You can use Android. Rooting it. Use some castom build Or make your own. And install any crappy,buggy,malware soft you want. ;-)
Wintel alwats win over MacPPle. And both a loser to Linux. ;-P
\\\\Or? Am I too delusioned?
\\Probably too delusioned. ;P
Well. If someone pre-20XX would say that in the future we'd spend our time tapping with our fingers at some small rectamgles made of glass, metal and plastic... he might be called crazy, in that time. ;-)
Post a Comment