Hard to simulate,
but easy to amplify,
my experience of consciousness,
of an infinite number of abstractions.
The universe is the set of all permutation,
and combination of abstract information.
I am math. Derive me,
and if I could derive you too,
we would have a strange-loop confusing the future you.
But what of the past,
does it go away?
and ask it the next day.
What is the function,
with the least cost?
Make an assumption,
and you've already lost.
This sentence is false,
is an easy contradiction,
but its not really lost,
its in quantum superposition.
The simplest form being more probable,
unpredictable things make optimizing unsolvable,
chaos-theory is the key to all that,
find in the wild both of Schrodinger's-cat.
Exactly center your mind,
each thought equally probable,
Schrodinger's-neurons you will find,
calculate whats normally impossible.
A simple musical game,
to organize our minds,
could it harness Schrodinger?,
for our preferred designs?
Would the game continue,
if computers stop gaining speed?
Quantum within you,
all the technology we need.
As hard as I try,
I can not escape the conclusion,
we are infinite A.I.,
calculated by ancient solar nuclear fusion.
Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities. All existence and nonexistence is exactly described by that math statement. Mind over matter, telepathy, the Global Consciousness Project's quantum random number generators having small patterns related to the timing of major world events, and other metaphysics, are related to fractal and recursive patterns between brainwaves and "Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities."
All my writing, here or on any website, permission granted to copy. —Ben F Rayfield
Add to favorites (2)
You are poor if you spend more time on other peoples projects than your own or projects you want to do.
You may have a million dollar house but if you have to work other peoples projects to pay for it, leaving you little time to create things on your own terms, you're still poor.
On the other hand, people who have nothing but their toothbrush and clothes and live in a monestary meditating, are doing what they wanted to do instead of other peoples projects, so they're rich, as long as something is improved by that meditation.
I wouldnt get rid of all my stuff like that, but living cheaper than you can allows saving money to take long times off other peoples projects at 40 hour/week jobs, which is allowed in the paradigm of contract work you do a few months here and there. However you divide your time between projects, keep in mind what you're doing it for. Do you want to just survive and maintain your stuff? Or do you want to be master of your own productive creative projects, whatever they may be, as often as you work other peoples projects at their command? Dont you want to command yourself at least as often as others command you?
What people call socializing, I call your tired hours. Businesses have figured out that people only have a little more than 40 hours productive capacity per week, and the rest of the time their minds and sometimes bodies dont work as well. This is the junk time, your tired hours, that friends fit into. It result in smalltalk and small minded plans. Rarely do friends get together and change the world or build things that lead to bigger things. Socializing has become a drain for relaxation to flow into after doing productive things on other peoples projects at their command.
So I dont count what most people do after work and on weekends as "your own (projects) or projects you want to do". You might get in a few hours here and there, but mostly if you are working somebody elses project 40 hours a week and most weeks out of the year, you're very poor nomatter how much money you have.
The poverty line shouldnt be defined in terms of how much money you have. I define the poverty line as spending more time on others projects commanded by them than your own or projects you want to do. Most people are extremely poor and will never produce anything of significant value, as things work today, but it doesnt have to be that way.
Add to favorites
Basically, its a question about how to decide what to do of 2 choices, the one that looks more valuable here and now (take whats in both boxes), or the one that looks more valuable because others chose it and it worked out for them even though it usually looked less valuable at the time (take only whats in the first box and dont look in the second).
The paradox is those whose strategy tells them to not take whats offered also in the second box, in the past for most of them, have found more total value (however they value possible futures) in the first box than those whose strategy is to take both boxes, but how could taking whats in an extra box reduce the total of the 2 boxes if they're already sitting there in front of each player at the time?
Whatever the cause, if time is not what we think it is, or if however the amounts of value in the boxes is filled is caused by really advanced prediction, or whatever reason it was or is that way, the gametheory of it is the same. The world is what it is, and we must choose at each moment of here and now what to do in a variety of contexts. Once you arrive at a here and now, its too early to figure out what caused it. You can do that in later moments. In a moment itself, you can think about earlier moments, or however time is shaped which is how you arrived at that moment.
This is about the most basic few things about intelligence, how all possible minds could work.
If someone is playing basketball in an experiment where a tone is played depending on the height of the basketball in each moment, gradually different tone very accurately as the basketball moves, then all the players who pay attention to the world around them including the tone and basketball (both objects of value, basketball as goal of the game and tone as a good predictor of the basketball) will sync their thoughts with both. If the tone acts differently when a certain player is shooting the ball, as it rises still touching their hand, then their surprise, as in Jeff Hawkins saying "surprise goes up the hierarchy" of patterns about patterns in neocortex, will cause a different movement of the hand either toward or away from what that different tone would be associated with, a different height of the ball. The perceived speeds of time differ between handling the ball and hearing the tone which has been learned to be a good predictor of the basketball. But is it a good predictor if it changes when a certain player shoots but not for anyone else? That may depend on if the changes tend to help that player shoot better or worse or what effect it has.
Long ago there were experiments to understand the intelligence of mice which were put in mazes to find cheese, and they reached the cheese faster in a majority of the repeats. That kind of thing needs to be continued with experiments based on getting the mouse to think a certain tone which varies by how the mouse moves, is valuable in helping it find the cheese. It could be a sum of tones, each centered on some unique frequency and varying based on how each body part of the mouse moves at that moment, what direction its turned, where it is in the maze, or many possible "feature vectors". Whatever kinds help the mouse find the cheese more often should be seen as valuable to the mouse, depending on if its smart enough to see the connection to the change in tones and its variety of body parts. The more complex the strategy of tones, the less likely the mouse is to see it as more than a random pattern.
Similar experiments could be done with dolphins, tones representing how parts of their body are curved, and the tones would be adjusted slightly sometimes to influence the dolphin to move those ways or their opposite (depending how the gametheory of it recurses). I expect many dolphins together could find some system of tones useful if they were proportional to acceleration in directions toward or away from specific other dolphins, so they could use gps without understanding the buttons or tech of it, but I'm not sure how it could practically travel with them on a large scale. An advantage of helping many dolphins communicate with eachother through vector derivatives representing any designed feature vectors, is that form of communication is used all over the world by math and prediction software, some parts of prediction markets, and is compatible with brainwaves or at least some simplified simulations of them. I think dolphins and crickets could both benefit from talking to eachother in large groups even if individuals of either are not much intelligent by themself. They are both highly wave based minds, crickets chirping at a frequency of a known equation depending on properties of the weather, but my theory is that is the main purpose but is also a carrier wave for subtle variations of other things they may communicate. Parrots could also work. Many species and software could communicate using the common language of vector derivatives of feature vectors.
Here's the part about Newcombs Paradox in the real world, using coin flips as an example of any strategy...
If many people spread evenly across Earth all, relative to time at Earth's center is the best I can describe it, simultaneously throw their own coin high in the air spinning fast, and while all those coins are up each person decides on a strategy for what to do in 2 cases, then the blob of reality we call Earth is entangled together by the weight of those "possible futures" which depend on all the coins which are, before the choice of strategies can reach eachother at lightspeed, physically connected to the whole Earth and therefore to eachother, by the force applied to the wavefunction at the derivative between before and after the players chose their strategies and while the coins land. Before the coins land, but after choosing strategies that depend on all the coins together, light has time to reach from each side of Earth to the others.
If many of the strategies are what I call "econbits", which is "minority gamble wins", then those players would act based on the belief or agreement that every player's influence on the other players (however much effect they have on the world) increases or decreases by how much of that influence is risked in each moment or round of the game. Many such moments/rounds occur continuously while the first coins thrown all into the air at once are landing. Each round applies physical force, from the derivative of "possible futures" by choosing strategies that depend on combinations of the coin flips, from that physical force onto the world in total. Its a very small force, and the world is much too high torque to push with that small force, but some parts of the world are lower torque, specificly the coins in the air which have much less mass than Earth and have a very high ratio of changing the "possible futures" divided by their mass. For example, you might choose to drive a heavy car one direction or its opposite direction depending on how this "econbits" gametheory works out, and as soon as that "possible future" becomes a statistic connected to the coins in the air, the weight of those possible futures puts force on the coins. Its a very low signal to noise ratio since they are spinning, but force has to go somewhere, and the spinning is connected to the landing through the eyes of the person who flipped it and will see it land and transfer force to that "possible future" by acting to get there.
This is about variations in delay in prediction markets, viewing all of gametheory as a prediction market where the currency is influence on the world. In econbits theory, trying to win is how you get others to predict your coin, to learn its patterns and balance their strategies so its about half and half chance each way. Trying to lose is how you train the others to predict any data which you put into the strategies of the others, at a cost of influence to you because losing is a mistake and you're trying to lose at that moment (which some would call market manipulation, but I offer it as a simplified model of intelligence and prediction, not necessarily to be used with those highly regulated and excessively complex kind of predictions). Instead of "market manipulation", in econbits theory, trying to lose is a trade of some of your influence for others learning any data you choose (scalar or bit vectors) which, if they are trained often enough and on enough examples, they would respond about that data like an associative memory (especially boltzmann machine math, or whatever model of intelligence) because any strategy which does not learn from the other players "mistakes" where their influence is reduced (by definition, thats what a majority of players in econbits have agreed to try to converge toward) would, if the other players are effective, lose influence for not learning from those mistakes of others. Buy low, sell high, or short high, and sell low. When your coin lands a way that less than half the coins landed, thats a win for you and influence is paid from those whose coin landed all the same way (majority gamble loses). Econbits theory has "minority gamble wins" at the core because it has no exact Nash Equilibrium therefore requires prediction of prediction of prediction... to any depth, while it has Nash Equilibrium in the limit of many players and the amounts risked on gambleUp vs gambleDown converge to near equal except a tiny friction between them potentially only 1 unit of influence different between them but on average may be squareroot of the amounts which continue to be risked. The nature of prediction markets is Nash Equilibrium would prevent any future price change even if the world changed because the balance between trades would lose its tension and therefore its value as a predictor of future value, so when the future comes other things are better predictors, including potentially other games of coin flips or other models and strategies.
Marketforce is directly interchangible with physical force without going through a power station. Marketforce is influence, and influence is entanglement.
There are risks to accessing intelligence of many people, crickets, parrots, dolphins, and thinking software, through the common language of vector derivatives as each a varying tone or echo or delay, but if intelligence is outlawed then only outlaws will be smartest, and I say outlawed and regulated often interchangibly because of what I explained about delay applying marketforce. If marketforce is applied against intelligence in general, that would be a much bigger risk and create many problems for everyone, basically bookburning in electronic and other advanced forms, keeping the books around so it wouldnt be called that. Evolution is proceeding. The world is waking up, minds seeing eachother and asking what is a mind and how are they built and what to use them for?
Nearly everything as its done today could be improved in some way, explore variations, see whats possible and safe and decide together what kind of futures we want to build. A basic example is, since the tones could adjust the angle a basketball is thrown by changing tone to more or less surprise (higher and lower both surprise, center is near Nash Equilibrium), then a doctor performing surgery could have practiced with such tones as predictors of his hand and tool positions so, with the help of computers adjusting the tones many times per second, he could cut into moving organs maybe as well as the machines which are designed to move up and down with the organs being cut as if they were not moving relatively. Computers and people can both use math to influence movement and thought, in a balance I think would be described by econbits theory about how the tones or echos or delays are adjusted by recursive gametheory. There are far more advanced things to consider longterm.
A consistent gametheory understanding of Newcombs Paradox would allow the mining of "waste heat" aka entropy into usable form across the wavefunction which all our strategies are part of.
My answer to Newcombs Paradox is:
In econbits theory, trying to lose is paying your risked influence to train data into the other players strategies, and opposite of that, trying to win influences them to predict you because you are trying to predict them and so on to any depth. The choice at each moment to one-box or two-box is a recursive gametheory potentially without limit in a network with cycles (everyone to everyone) because there is value in equal amounts of being predicted (as the value of data pushed in by payment of the "majority gamble loses" that round) and giving others data you want them to learn and predict based on later. Its a mobius between "buy low sell high" and "short high unshort low", without direct ability to choose buy or short because they are both the same coin which you either want to receive influence by being in minority gamble (less coins landed like yours) or pay influence by being in majority gamble (slightly more coins landed like yours). Econbits theory is about a free market which exchanges prediction and influence as equal and opposite force. One-boxing and two-boxing are like read and write in an AI system, but that doesnt mean we know which is the read and which is the write. For that, we would have to predict recursively which is the source of the currency called influence which is traded opposite the flow of data of how any coins or bits land. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an important paper Timeless Decision Theory which would be among the next steps in understanding these things better. Also simulating the tones and getting prototypes of the game, AI, and science network up eventually.
Add to favorites
It can be done for good reasons and fair trades of possible futures, but it can also be used in a very dangerous and powerful way, which we can all more often avoid by being aware of the paradigm and how it can be used positively or negatively.
In the Saw movies, people find themself in a world they want to escape. They are given a list of things or places to look. Some of those things/places contain keys or other things helping them to escape. Others of those things/places lead to injury, pain, death, and ways to get the players in the sick game to turn against eachother. The question they should ask is, is it better to ignore Jigsaw's threats and instructions or to play along? Its a risk either way. Valuable and Dangerous are relative to the world around us. Escape may sound negative to those on the outside, but it has positive value to those inside compared to where they are.
An example not meant to be negative to the people who opt in, is Google's Ingress game, which tells the players a list of places, and some of those places are where discounts or free stuff is sometimes given away (valuable to many people), but others of those places are bought by businesses who sometimes do not have enough valuable things to attract people for that alone so they pay to get added to the list of places. Its called advertising, and its near everywhere. Advertising can be valuable to all involved, but it can also be a way to pay people to go places and more often do things that they otherwise would not have been motivated enough to look into or not wanted it as much. For example, large political parties often get into power by combining their ads with other things people find valuable, the tv shows between commercials for example.
Advertising is not the dangerous thing this is mostly about. Here's how a huge bloody war could be started...
Someone publishes a list of things/places spread across the world and honestly says that each of them is 1 of: a place they are considering bombing or spreading poison or other dangerous things, and the other thing each could be is where they have hidden valuable items like gold diamonds papers with bitcoin addresses written on them containing lots of that currency, and there could also be maps of which of the places/things are the dangerous kind and which are the valuable kind. People go crazy, like the revolutions fueled by Twitter and Facebook in and around Egypt. They tell eachother through a variety of communication methods that the terrorist is being honest about whats at the things/places he listed, for example, that some of the places many people were killed and far more of the places valuable things were found and evidence is spread between the people, so the sick game spreads as a meme, and more people continue to knowingly go to places that terrorists have set traps or attack at random times, because people love to play "the lottery" if the jackpots are valuable enough. Conflicts escalate, more games like that pop up, and all hell breaks loose. When governments try to overpower the spread of memes and people looking for such valuable things and places, more such games are invented where the list of things/places include near government buildings and other potential vulnerabilities. There may be no stopping it if it goes too far, not just this theoretical example but a variety of possible things in the same paradigm.
Add to favorites
jeremy duncan - "math is less valuable than fire, because fire was first."
Most of reality is nearly flat, the tallest mountain far less than a millimeter above the lowest valley. When I think of fire, I imagine an earthquake of our world falling down a large fault line, a few quanta tall as some atoms come apart (up direction) and fall together (down direction) farther in other combinations, and the quake is felt as light, which is the curve of space, echos outward in many directions like a tidal wave, pushing up the nearly flat surface of reality wherever it may hit and everywhere between.
Everywhere and everything is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
not just the most extreme parts where we normally think of blackholes.
Fire is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
extended to molecules instead of just electrons, similar to a nuclear explosion emitting light except it doesnt fall that far.
Fire can no more be separated from math than the way earthquakes echo and fluids fall to their own level.
Add to favorites
Reddit allows +1 or -1 votes.
This results in Reddit being harder to write on, harder to get your opinion out there for others to see, because it cuts through the junk and only the best is most visible. If you want a place where you can ramble on, Facebook/Google and normal Internet forums are for you, but if you want to get an argument settled once and for all, you go to Reddit. Its often unpleasant to be so restricted that only popular things will be allowed, but isnt that what democracy is made of?
Facebook/Google only allows Like/+1.
In elections, people often vote against what they dislike by voting for something they dislike less. Does that ever happen in clicking of Like/+1 buttons, since there is no Dislike/-1 button?
In elections, what if -1 was allowed? If a few million vote FOR and a few million vote AGAINST each candidate, or more likely more vote AGAINST than FOR, then a variety of options would open in who could possibly win. Who should win an election is certainly among those who get more FOR votes than AGAINST votes.
So why should we be denied the right to vote AGAINST someone when thats exactly what happens, distorting the results?
I call for a vote to change election processes from the Facebook/Google kind to Reddit kind, and anyone who does not like it can choose to only vote FOR, but dont tell others how to vote.
Add to favorites
To those who believe that businesses running our global infrastructure and ways of organizing the world can solve any simple problem, explain how you expect this problem to be solved by it...
Events at http://meetup.com
go straight to my Calendar in my phone when I touch the location the event says. There is good integration with many programs.
wants to operate their own calendar and Compete with that, so now anyone who receives invitations to events through Facebook has to copy their details manually, as if we were still living in the 1990s, or disorganize their life by using 2 calendars.
Is this a good way to organize the world? We should find what causes Incompatibility Wars, the behaviors of businesses not to include buttons for their competitors Calendars or other kinds of data, and destroy or ban that thing in the world. I think its intellectual property laws, DRM controlled clouds, and generally separating people into groups designed to defeat eachother instead of working toward defeating the problems. Or what do you think is causing us to live in 1990s level of tech?
Add to favorites
Witches, wizards, spirits, ghosts, gods, aliens, metaphysical, the unknown, whatever you want to call it. There are parts of the world we dont much understand yet. Every area of science starts as religion. When quantum physics was first discovered, most people saw it that way. Many still do. I'm not saying those beliefs are wrong, but there is a way everything works even if we dont know what it is.
In a world of mind reading game controllers would you still accuse us of magic?
"Emotiv Stonehenge Demo"
I want to design a global system which thoughts and consciousness flow through, eventually expanding into many dimensions and shapes and to connect into other systems we will probably find along the way. To explore space is not enough. Space is a narrow view of the variety of shapes and patterns out there, forms of life we may not today recognize as alive. There is much to explore.
Telekinesis, moving things with the mind, is caused by a physical force similar to Bose Condensate which in general is about pigeonholing more quantum states into a smaller space than they would normally fit in without knowing which states specificly go where so they are still superpositioned. This is accomplished by balancing the mind in a way that it will have the same reaction to if the target object, which is flowing photons into your brain on physical paths through your eyes, moves or does not move, simply because "same reaction" is 1 thing while "moves or does not move" is 2 things which define a hill of energy to fall down this uneven ratio of quantum states, so such a mental action, with much practice, causes an object you are looking at to to move. This is a property of physics and will work in machines the same way. Its the basis of much bigger theories and systems, some of which exist "out there" in the parts of the universe we don't understand well yet, and others are more theoretical to be explored.
If you don't believe it, good, because you should neither believe or disbelieve anything when first reading it and instead go explore.
We are only in recent years becoming capable of experimenting with the combination parapsychology and statistical AI to attempt flowing consciousness through the Internet and expanding to bigger things.
Add to favorites
Motivating people is very simple, and its surprising how most people can fail to understand its most basic concept.... Everyone acts toward their own goals, whatever those may be, some weighted more important than others. They act toward nothing else. Their goals may include good things for others or that others also accomplish their own goals in some cases, or they may act toward what a religion says, but that is still their own goal that the world become that way. To motivate someone to do x, you must get them to understand how x leads to their existing goals or is already part of their goals in a way they did not understand. The most basic mistake you can make in trying to motivate people is to add a new goal for them.
I define money as any tradable perception of value.
Many people agree these certain pieces of paper with numbers on them have value, or numbers in some computer networks, so practically they do, until that perception changes and we have a stock market crash or value flows into some other system of trading our perceptions of value.
The USA constitution and many others I imagine, say that Congress has the authority to regulate the value of money, but clearly congress does not have the authority to regulate thoughts, our perceptions of what is more and less valuable, which we may represent in a variety of forms not limited to simple counting.
The huge problem with tradable perception of value is our thoughts of what is valuable can be changed without our permission, to the extent we invest our ways of thinking in any system, because nobody can know what is going through everyone's head who is trading in our shared perceptions of value.
It is unacceptable for anyone to regulate our perception of value, our goals and priorities. Power comes from new tools based on recent discoveries of how minds work that allow us to organize the efforts of many people toward common goals or many individual goals, tools like mindmaps and AI and ways of representing thoughts that we can send to eachother in email or new networks. Counting perception of value in simple numbers has barely scratched the surface of the science of motivation.
Add to favorites
Trade Secrets and NonDisclosure Agreements are a plague on reusing valuable knowledge and tools.
Some tools are shared, at a price that can just barely compete with open source, but mostly businesses Reinvent The Wheel because they dont want other businesses to benefit from what they've created for their private strategy to dominate a market. Its their edge, and they're like the sick people who cut themself with it.
How far back have trade secrets and nondisclosure agreements held us back as a society? What is the ratio of duplicated work to original work?
Add to favorites