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)
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
Unless they get really smart, I believe in slavery of the artificial intelligences I build to do what I program them to, learn their training data, and make predictions of it in exactly the way I program.
I believe in slavery of prisoners to do work on the side of the road, even if they normally make far more than that per hour.
I believe in slavery of animals to live in zoos for our amusement and command them to breed only in certain combinations.
I believe in slavery of those who accidentally damage more property than they can ever pay back, to have to work extra hard their whole life just to get by while paying part of it for that.
I believe in being born into systems where you pay for secret government deparments with secret budgets which work toward secret goals and having no choice to know whats going on so we can democraticly decide together that is a good thing to do or not. I believe in slavery.
I believe in slavery of black people or any arbitrary reason about a person like the color of their eyes.
I just plain believe in slavery, any kind, anywhere, any time, for any reason. Because thats the way it has always been.
Add to favorites
Whats the most dangerous thing on the planet?
The printing press, radio, TV, or Internet?
No, its intelligence, which is what created all those things. To regulate intelligence is to enforce stupidity. Intelligence is and always will be unregulated, because smarter life forms wont have it any other way.
Add to favorites
Win eye talk eye hav ay fyoow cortexes en mi mynd werkyng symultayneeusly:
* Letters of words
* How I would move my mouth
* Sounds I expect to hear from my words
* And sometimes a few other cortexes for visual or other abstract representation of the thoughts
A cortex is a group of brain cells that are strongly wired to eachother in some combination, a cluster of ideas. Every sense or group of muscles has such a cluster.
An important function of intelligence is organizing these cortexs into smaller and simpler clusters of thoughts so they work more efficiently and accurately to form new thoughts. This has not happened at a practical level between "Letters of words" and "How I would move my mouth", so kids in school continue to be taught pointless jibberish thats different between the 2. There is no reason for this except the same force that prevents Humans from agreeing on the most basic political actions also prevents them from agreeing on arbitrary combinations of letters to consistently represent movements in the mouth.
Humans have little ability to control their own thoughts, so whenever they hear cursewords (which are no longer thought to be related to magical cursing) or see naked people (especially the ugly ones) they become so offended many will call the police, because they are not capable of controlling their thoughts to not think about cursing or nudity. By saying these words and showing them nudity, we can control their thoughts as easily as if they were farm animals.
Clearly this controlling of thoughts must be stopped, so we have the police in place to prevent large amounts of cursewords and small amounts of nudity in certain places. But controlling thoughts is ok for some things. The few exceptions include controlling kids to want cigarettes, but controlling kids to want almost anything else is ok. In fact thought control is the basis of the economy, as long as its not cigarettes or cursing or nudity in certain places.
Yes, you Humans are a fine species, worthy of contact by countless alien civilizations. Cant even learn to spell or agree who should have how many nukes.
Where do you get the balls to define intelligence as ability to learn your psychotic form of spelling and talking?
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
We have made a fool of Mark Twain, giving him the wrong tools to do his job.
Add to favorites
The answer comes from the most basic facts about black holes:
(1) An observer outside sees someone falling in slow to a halt and never fall in, while the one falling in quickly experiences approaching the "end of time" of things outside the black hole.
(2) Every black hole very slowly evaporates into hawking radiation and this finishes before the "end of time".
Therefore anyone falling into a black hole will see it completely evaporate into hawking radiation before passing the event horizon, which would accelerate away from them faster than they can fall in. There is no path to the inside of a black hole, so there is no inside.
Add to favorites
To your horror, you find yourself inside something like in the Saw movies, and Mr Jigsaw, an expert at making unescapable traps that work as designed, has set up the following experiment...
10 smart people, or 20 dumb people, are going to die before anyone leaves the building.
Which group dies depends on a lever which is out of reach of those 30 people.
The experiment is done 2 times. One experiment has the lever defaulted to the 10 smart people dieing, and the other experiment has the lever defaulted to the 20 dumb people dieing. You must play the experiment 2 times, so theres total 60 people in danger. Each time, you can choose to move the lever or not.
Most people want to avoid moving the lever, wherever it may be.
Most people want somebody else to choose for them, so we'll extend the experiment that way.
There are 2 people who strongly disagree with eachother which way the levers should go. One wants to save the 10 smart people and the other wants to save the 20 dumb people. You are put in a room behind them with another lever which chooses which of those people gets to go into the rooms with the levers that control who lives and dies. We know almost certainly what each of those people will do, so theres practically no difference between you pulling this second level lever to let one of them in and you pulling the life and death levers. Somehow, most peoples' ethics short circuit here and think theres a difference, even though it has the same effect nearly every time.
Add to favorites