This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Founding Fathers Guaranteed Freedom of the Press … Even For Bloggers

George Washington's picture




 

FREE THE PRESS

Image by William Banzai

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The powers-that-be argue that freedom of the press only applies to large, well-heeled corporate media. For example, the Nation noted last year:

When the Department of Justice rolled out new policies intended to “strengthen protections for members of the news media” this summer, it wasn’t clear who belonged to the “news media.” Other DOJ documents suggest a narrow application to professional, traditional journalists. (The DOJ did not return a request to clarify the agency’s definition of “news media.”) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide excludes bloggers from the news media, along with “persons and entities that simply make information available,” like Wikileaks. These policies are guidelines, not directives, but as the Freedom of the Press Foundation points out, they are “part of a broader legislative effort in Washington to simultaneously offer protection for the press while narrowing the scope of who is afforded it.”

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein argued for an amendment that would have restricted the shield to salaried journalists. “Should this privilege apply to anyone, to a seventeen year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for five dollars and starts a blog? Or should it apply to journalists, to reporters, who have bona fide credentials?”

(This is a silly distinction, given that many of the world’s top experts have their own blogs.  And as the non-partisan First Amendment Center notes: “Traditional reporters now blog daily, and prominent bloggers show up in traditional media.”)

But the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses of the First Amendment don’t distinguish between media businesses and nonprofessional speakers (see this, this, this and this).

And the courts have ruled that the freedom of the press applies to everyone who disseminates information … not just giant corporate media companies who can afford to pay “salaries”.

For example, the United States Supreme Court has consistently refused to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers:

  • In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court  described freedom of the press as “a fundamental personal right” that is not confined to newspapers and periodicals
  • In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), the Chief Justice of the Supreme court defined “press” as “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”
  • First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) rejected the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by” non-institutional-press businesses
  • In Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the court could “draw no distinction between the media respondents and” a non-institutional respondent

Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.  The Court held:

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist.

And the First Circuit agrees. As Gigaom reported in 2011:

One recent appeals court decision specifically referred to the fact that the ability to take photos, video and audio recordings with mobile devices has effectively made everyone a journalist — in practice, if not in name — and therefore deserving of protection.

 

In the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, released just a few weeks ago, the judges pointed out that the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of the press “encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information,” and that citizens have the right to investigate government affairs and share what they learn with others. Judge Kermit Lipez also specifically noted that these protections don’t just apply to professional journalists. He said in his decision:

[C]hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders [and] and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

The First Amendment Center correctly notes:

The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption.

Supreme Court justices Black and Douglas explained in their concurring opinion in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971):

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers made this clear even before the Revolutionary war started.  Specifically, the Continental Congress – the legislative body of the Founding Fathers – wrote in 1774:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.

 

These are the invaluable rights that form a considerable part of our mild system of government; that, sending its equitable energy through all ranks and classes of men, defends the poor from the rich, the weak from the powerful, the industrious from the rapacious, the peaceable from the violent, the tenants from the lords, and all from their superiors.

 

These are the rights without which a people cannot be free and happy, and under the protecting and encouraging influence of which these colonies have hitherto so amazingly flourished and increased. These are the rights a profligate Ministry are now striving by force of arms to ravish from us, and which we are with one mind resolved never to resign but with our lives.

In other words, the Founding Fathers understood that people who stand up to “oppressive” government officials are to be zealously protected …  because “shaming” corrupt, powerful people “into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs” is the only way to preserve liberty, justice and prosperity, and to remain “free and happy”.

Postscript:  Unfortunately, the American government's current treatment of the press is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended:  persecution of real reporters who expose government corruption and support for government lapdogs and apologists.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 05/31/2014 - 11:43 | 4812554 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

I for one really hope they dont shut down free speech. Because the time for talking ending would be the start of the ugly time. Win loose or draw whatever comes next wont be good for anybody. 

 Dont shoot um you will only make um mad.

Talk is cheap. Compared to blood its a bargin.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 00:12 | 4804388 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

Statement of the problem:
Americans common knowledge base has been distorted by global conspiracy of the last century while present day media refuses to share vital information concerning all of their lives. Media is fully complicit in omitting vital facts and neglecting the public trust role of educating and keeping relevant facts before the public. Clearly, corporate America can no longer be trusted to carry needed facts of controversy to and between the public with faithful authority compensating and utilizing Americas centralized academia to verify information. Special interest broadly interferes. This is an abridgment of free speech using material power to make corporate, non human voices louder than the voice of human beings.
The real situation is worse because misleading, corrupting and distracting information is placed in front of the public day after day interspersed with divisive exploitation's of wants, desires and neglecting information about the public long term needs. The action, speaking louder than words, can only be intended to cause fear, division and confusion disabling the population from unity.

Related facts:
A biological fact is that humanity survived to this day because they were able to communicate and coordinate as unified groups at critical points of adaptation. It is reasonable to assume those groups so challenged, responded quickly enough, defining the need for change to survive. It is safe to assume they were likely practiced in evaluating speech for its potential qualities that unified them and enhanced their preparedness to adapt or survive.
There is an assumption therein that they were subject to enough freedom within their society to unify around commonly understood meanings by being able to vocally support them with their inherent reasoning which was sourced from the peoples common knowledge whereupon coordinated effective action was taken by the group.

Discussion of the facts:
All mass media is corporately owned a simple observation can discern uniformity with info regarding extreme controversy. Basically very little info but lots of skewed focus and spin. If a citizen had proof of treason, that citizen would be unable to share it meaningfully and the public would be totally unable to see any form of equal protection of law nor could the constitution be effectively supported and defended. This is an unconstitutional condition and cannot be allowed to remain. Citizens of the republic must be able to practice constitutionally valid speech, and such needs definition by the constitution, having the needed meanings in order to preserve the republic. Priority and principle need to be observed then acted upon.

Conclusions and recommendations:
Historical, political, cultural research found a little recorded doctrine of natural law that is a blend between stoic law, natural law and biology or psychology. The doctrine existed long before the forming of the United States. It is called the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech". From it was eviscerated the prime principles of the nation, "life, liberty which are listed in the Declaration of Independence. In 1792 the Bill of Rights removed "Free Speech" from the title of the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" and incorporated it in the First Amendment. The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" can come from the practice of free speech and the understanding that it may create between people. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A completely logical sequence in concept.
Related facts show that simply to be free to go yell in the park on a soap box amidst a confused and disoriented society will not see the needed sharing for support and defense of the Constitution or survival in the longer run. Logically, within its prime intent constitutionally, the pubic must be able to commandeer commercial mass media, if necessary, for whatever periods are needed to support and defend the constitution. Then mass media needs to be made accountable for at least helping to repair the damage they have done by helping the public to meet the standards they have made the public expect while losing respect for the intent of the constitution. The human attributes of the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" are such that they can be specifically, issue by issue, be used as criteria to define when speech is most constitutional and that speech is the speech that needs to have the meaning created by public support. Clearly the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is something that can be used by parents to teach their children the methods of sharing speech creating the very best behaviors possible for integration into a society that will survive.
It is recommended for human survival on planet Earth that the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" be integrated into the First Amendment by the use of an Article V convention.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 16:39 | 4807216 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

"... the pubic must be able to commandeer commercial mass media ..."

For a long time I have hoped that could happen! It fits into the basic idea that after the triumphant financial frauds have enabled a tiny minority to rob the majority so much, for so long, only robbing the robbers back to better balance MIGHT resolve those runaway political problems. However, it is hard to practically imagine how there could actually manifest a "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" after banksters have been operating triumphant financial frauds so much, for so long! The idealized theory of freedom of expression does not allow for the reality of systems of lies backed by violence being able to effectively suppress the expression of radical truths. (Doing that way more than before is what this article by George Washington was about.) Similarly, the ideals of "free market capitalism" do not allow for what happens after enforced frauds are able to take over control of the public "money" supply at the heart of that system, and thus, almost totally pervert it.

The triumph of financial frauds is at the heart of how and why the freedom of expression is being attacked, more and more ... BUT, that only aggravates the paradoxes that controlling a society more thoroughly with huge lies drives that society to become even more insane, and so, even more madly self-destructive, which is the perennial longer term paradoxical result flowing from the short-term successes of backing up lies with violence, so that those lies become socially dominate.

In my view, the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" necessarily must mean we should be headed through some revolutions, to respond to the degree to which triumphant frauds have been enforced, to be able to take control over almost everything, including the mass media! However, as always those processes are trapped inside vicious spirals, or Catch 22 dilemmas! Therefore, as always, such a revolution, which recognizes "the pubic must be able to commandeer commercial mass media," probably can only generally happen AFTER the established systems substantially drive themselves through their own mad self-destruction.

The currently triumphant systems of enforced financial frauds, that are dominating almost everything, appear to have to prevent any possible good reforms, like they do now, until they thereby cause their own self-destruction, to the point where it MIGHT become possible to have revolutions occur ??? Paradoxically, the more they try to suppress the truth in the shorter term, the worse that becomes in the longer term ... Quite the wild ride we are on!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:54 | 4804169 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

It is simple George.  Run your blog as a corporation and pay yourself $1.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:06 | 4803839 pupdog1
pupdog1's picture

Back in the day, bloggers were called pamphleteers. They also wrote broadsides and newspaper articles, generally under pseudonyms.

Ben Franklin and Tom Paine were the best known.

General George Washington said the he probably couldn't have won the revolution without Thomas Paine's writings.

General Clapper, Holder, and Obama would have had their heads on a fucking plate.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:01 | 4803823 yellowsub
yellowsub's picture

To most, people think Freedom of Speech is your right to criticize others, usually celebrities or frivilous things but not speak out against the US gov't that can do no wrong.  That's the extent of what they exercise.   Clearly most are blind to what the gov't is doing right in front of their eyes.  Unfortunately you can't tell if they are unwilling or willingly ignorant, seemingly most are just ignorant.

Only when it's clearly evident will they finally realize what's kind of been going on and that point it will be too late.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:58 | 4803809 pupdog1
pupdog1's picture

Will all KenyaKare and VA Band-Aids look like this?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:42 | 4803739 hidingfromhelis
hidingfromhelis's picture

When the constitution refers to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, there weren't any fucking asterisks!  The founders were clear as can be on this subject.  It applies to everyone, not just the boot-licking propaganda arm of the corporatist state.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 02:07 | 4803453 Drifter
Drifter's picture

Stop living in the past idiot, we're ten years into communism, only government propaganda is allowed now, just like any other communist  country.

Enjoy your little blog while you can, it probably won't be around much longer, you may not either.

 

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 16:21 | 4802919 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the N.S.A. and .gov to go fuck themselves with a splintery broomstick.

"Pressure cooker chicken on the 4th of July is the bomb!"

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 15:34 | 4802790 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

I appreciate the effort GW makes to inform...but let's not let this blind us to the reality: The war is over. The good guys lost. The America you speak of no longer exists and those old laws no longer apply.

We live in an oligarchy. An elected dictatorship at best.

The US is fucked and the sooner you wrap your arms around that fact, the greater your chances are of getting out alive and in tact.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:51 | 4803729 weburke
weburke's picture

.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:53 | 4803205 Armed Resistance
Armed Resistance's picture

Jim Morrison wrote of long odds, but that we will get there.

 

"Five to one baby, one in five- no one here gets out alive

You get yours, baby- and I'll get mine

Gonna make it baby if we try.

The old get old, and the young get stronger-

may take a week, and it may take longer.

They got the guns, but we got the numbers-

Gonna win, yeah we'll take it over. C'Mon!

 

Fuck the just survive mentality!  I want to really live in a free world, and I'm willing to give up the goose to do it.  What does it say on the top of the site? "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 15:10 | 4802686 honestann
honestann's picture

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amazing how few people can read... or parse a phrase or sentence.  Anyone who can read and parse the above will immediately notice that being part of the press has NOTHING to do with the freedom of speech portion.

Just read.

FIRST... it says the government cannot abridge the freedom of speech.

THEN... it continues with... OR freedom of the press.

Yes, I write software, so logical operators like "and" and "or" and "xor" are utterly second nature.  But give me a break!  Every 3 year old learns these operators too, from hearing sentences like the following endless times: "If you want us to buy you any more toys or video games, you must clean your room and brush your teeth every day, or get an average grade of B+ or better at school".

Sheesh!

What I'm saying is this.  The statement above that everyone refers to explicitly states that freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just the press.  It says EVERYONE has freedom of speech.

The part about the press is therefore not even limited to freedom of speech, since they already have freedom of speech like everyone else due to the previous phrase.  Therefore the portion of the statement about "the press" necessarily refers-to additional [albeit unstated] freedoms... presumably to stick their nose in places others might not be able to get (like secret government documents).

Seriously.  Humans are completely insane... they can't even read and parse simple sentences any more.  But they can argue endlessly about... nonsense; about what isn't even written in the first place.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 16:47 | 4802975 mraptor
mraptor's picture

+++ May be this could explain it ... (be aware, long read, "eye"-opening )

 

THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:39 | 4803347 honestann
honestann's picture

Yeah, humans are hopeless, and thoroughly insane.  Though the author of that article is obviously more insightful than most (and the people he gives as examples), even he makes the most fundamental mistake of confusing real vs fiction (existent vs non-existent).

It is stunning... seriously stunning... what utterly and completely tangled messes are the consciousnesses of most human beings.  How can consciousness get so completely and radically screwed up?

Actually, the answer is simple.

Other animals only form mental-units by exposure to external reality (real existents, real actions of real existents, real relationships of real existents).  As a consequence, other animals only form mental-units that correspond to real existents.  And so when other animals perform mental processes, they only manipulate valid mental-units that refer-to real existents (except perhaps extremely rare instances of mistakenly interpreted optical illusions).

However, humans learn language in order to communicate their mental-units.  An unfortunate side-effect of language is... the ability to form mental-units BEFORE any corresponding existent has been experienced.  In fact, humans are trained to create new mental-units whenever they are exposed to new words or phrases!  And then the contents of those new mental-units are then usually filled mostly with huge piles of language (effectively just pointers to other mental-units).  Even worse, even legitimate mental-units (that do refer-to real existents) are filled with huge piles of language (more pointers to other mental-units).

To be effective, every mental-unit must correspond to one or more real existents, and in addition all the contents of every mental-unit must refer-to real aspects of real existents.  Unfortunately, given language, ANYTHING GOES.  In practice, most mental-units in most human beings were created AND stuffed full of contents via language created by diabolical human predators with agendas to promote.  And kids are given massive positive and negative feedback by parents, teachers, relatives, friends and media to habituate and repeat the worse of the fraudulent mental-units and contents.

And so, what is the state of human consciousness today?  Answer: massively defective.

And as I said above, the worst part is, a huge number of BLATANT FICTIONS are accepted by almost all humans today as unquestionable fact.  But worse than that!  The worst of these blatant fictions are the mental-units that are most responsible for causing and controlling human thought and actions!  Fictions like "government", "country", "nation", "state", "authority", "official", "law", "god", "sin", "corporation", and on and on and on.

Think about conventional human communication.  How many words do you expect to hear before you encounter a fiction presented as if that fiction was something real?

In a ZH post, how long before you run into "government" or "country" or "corporation" or "nation" or "law" or "constitution" or any of the tens of thousands of utterly blatant fictions that have been concocted and promoted by human predators through the ages?  The answer is... rarely can we read an entire sentence before we run into a fiction assumed to be real.  At which point, the rest of the message is [almost] completely incoherent, and in fact clinically insane.

The most important course in school should be... the nature of consciousness, and how to operate consciousness in the most valid and effective way.  No such course exists.  And you can be sure, the predators-that-be would never allow such a course to be taught... unless they designed the course to even more completely damage human consciousness.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 00:31 | 4804415 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

I agreed with most of what you wrote above, honestann.

However, you still persist in maintaining false fundamental dichotomies. What you say about language applies to absolutely everything that can be named, and have properties assigned to it, so that narrative stories can be told using those words.

There is NO literal truth.

There are only sliding scales of metaphorical truths.

It would NOT be possible to prove that we were not actually living inside some vast simulation, in which nothing whatsoever we thought was "really real" was actually "real."

Science attempts to ask how to we know something, and how confident can be about that. However, the answers are that we can never be absolutely sure!

I especially agreed with your last paragraph:

"The most important course in school should be... the nature of consciousness, and how to operate consciousness in the most valid and effective way.  No such course exists.  And you can be sure, the predators-that-be would never allow such a course to be taught... unless they designed the course to even more completely damage human consciousness."

The ruling classes have been waging a way too successful war against the consciousness of those they rule over. That makes perverse sense in the short-term, although, as you stated, honestann, that drives civilization as a whole to become increasingly insane, due to the degree of the triumph of lies backed by violence controlling what people believe, and therefore, how they behave.

I would agree in theory that a real radical revolution would endeavour to have more people understand more of the elementary principles of philosophy and thereby have more genuine spirituality.

However, I still disagree with you, honestann, about the degree to which there is any objective "truth." There are NO words which are not based on relatively subtracting parts from a Whole. That Whole cannot be described completely and consistently by any finite system of understanding. Paradoxically, we can only infer that there is that Whole from study of its parts. Such a Whole is never possible to prove exists to anybody else, because such Supreme Existence is existenceless-Existence.

Every possible particular story is based on some original subtraction, which is like some original sin, since the subtraction was never absolute, and could never be. Therefore, every bit of consciousness is a relative illusion or a relative lie. Thus, there are NO literal truths, only relative metaphorical truths. Even the tests of bodies fighting and killing each other are not enough to overcome that basic problem, of the paradoxical nature of consciousness.

Indeed, one of the things that I most detect in your sort of self-righteous certainties, honestann, is that you do not embrace the degree to which paradoxes are inherently present in all attempts at knowledge. Such paradoxes are inescapable, and become even more so the higher level of consciousness that one may operate upon, so that there are more levels of self-reference.

All language is necessarily a kind of transcendental poetry. Attempts at empirical science do not overcome that, which is why I insist that postmodernizing science actually reconverges with ancient mysticism. The inherent limits to measurement are due to the basic way that it is NOT possible to separate the subject from the object. Since postmodern sciences have been forced to face the facts regarding the principles of the limits to measurement, they have been forced to come to conclusions similar to those found in the transcendental poetry of ancient mystics.

However, after dismissing other people's belief in fictions, I get the impression that you continue to have the arrogance to assert that your beliefs are not also fictions. Hah! honestann, are you too much of a fanatic to have a sense of humour, to be able to laugh at yourself? How can what you write not also apply to you too, IF it is "true?"

I attempt being consistent when I assert that everything is based on the concept of SUBTRACTION, while there is never any absolute subtraction, but only relative subtractions. Thus, there are no fundamental dichotomies, but only relative dichotomies.

However, one of the central characteristics of the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories were that they assert their views are the only absolute truth, and tend to back that up with violence. Of course, even that too is relatively understandable, although that does not make it actually be the case. People who fight and kill each other tend to become the most extremely fanatical. Almost all human beings alive today are the survivors of lots and lots of that happening throughout history. That is the way we have arrived at our current sublimely paradoxical politics, where there are weapons of mass destruction, based on the understanding of the way the universe works, which are being threatened to be used by people who deliberately want to keep on not understanding that!

The special theory of relativity that made atomic bombs possible says all sorts of extremely important philosophical things. However, there is a growing GRAND CANYON PARADOX between atomic bombs becoming the threatened force to back up the banksters' frauds, versus the philosophy of science revealed by the fact that the special theory of relativity enabled making atomic bombs which actually do go BOOM!

Similar GROWING GRAND CANYON PARADOXES due to the "freedom of the press" becoming magnified several orders of magnitude by the "freedom of the Internet." Indeed, the basic sciences that enable globalized electronic communications are radically different in their basic paradigms than the mechanical press was, which is why I have previously written about the similarity between weapons of mass destruction, and weapons of mass surveillance.

The Internet Revolution is several orders of magnitude more important than the Printing Press Reformation was. Along with all of the other technologies, based on breakthrough scientific paradigm changes, they are going to force social revolutions to happen to adapt to those, which are going to become several orders of magnitude greater than the historical reformations which the printing press drove.

Freedom of the press is an old-fashioned, and still somewhat mechanical notion. Even "freedom of speech" is relatively old-fashioned, when we are on the verge of an emerging new kingdom of life, of computer/machine entities which are going to be able to create models of their world, in which there are models of themselves inside their models of the world, which are then also going to be able to "speak" about those!

To be quite serious about philosophy and spirituality these days should also attempt to address what those would mean to computer/machine entities which were able to build models of their world, which included models of themselves within their models of the world, which exceeded what individual human beings, or even all human beings combined, could do. I am sure that they too would discover their own tunnels of infinity through themselves, like we do.

Freedom of the Internet is not merely going to be about freedom of human beings in the future. It is also going to be about "freedom" inside of new industrial ecologies, of entities which, (IF ENOUGH CIVILIZATION SURVIVES THOUGH THESE EVENTS) evolve abilities to build bigger and better mental models of their world, including their models of themselves, within their models. than human beings have so far been able to.

All previously existing human problems, from psychology and philosophy to politics, are on the verge of being recreated on several orders of magnitude greater than ever before in known human history. From those perspectives, the old-fashioned notions about freedom of speech and freedom of the press are about to be exploded by the powers of technologies which have become trillions of times greater, and are on the path towards becoming quadrillions of times, greater, and perhaps even more so, (IF THEY CAN SURVIVE THROUGH THAT PROCESSES ???)

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 04:21 | 4804670 honestann
honestann's picture

You are making the same mistake here as you made in your other post to me.  For example, you've taken a concept like "truth", the extrapolated the meaning LITERALLY to infinity... and then on that absurd basis come to the conclusion that "truth is impossible" or "truth doesn't exist".  You are wrong, and you will always be wrong, as long as you keep setting insane over-exaggerated or over-extrapolated meanings for every concept you encounter.

I swear we've been through this issue before, but here goes again.

I only KNOW 3 things... if we adopt YOUR hyper-extrapolated meaning of KNOW.  For practical purposes, your meaning of "know" is the same as your meaning of "truth".  In your infinitely extrapolated version, "truth" only exists if you know ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING TO INFINITE DETAIL about something (including everything that came before that led to this thing (which includes the entire universe).

So OF COURSE nobody can know the truth about anything based upon that standard (well, except those 3 very simple things that I do know with absolute 100% certainty and absolute zero possibility of error).

But the problem is not with consciousness, the problem is the insane concepts you adopt.  You adopt this super-duper-hyper-infinitely extrapolated concepts that then are indeed pretty much worthless and unattainable.  But the problem is the insane standards you set.

For the record, except for those 3 simple things that I do absolutely, positively KNOW is TRUE for a FACT (even to your standards)... all of my knowledge is provisional.  There is absolutely NO POINT in having a meaning for "truth" or "know" or "fact" or any of these kinds of terms that is impossible and useless.  The fact is, concepts are utilitarian... NOT PLATONIC IDEALS.

To give a seriously stupid example that still illustrates what I'm saying (even if lamely), let's say I claim "water is wet" and "water is liquid"... and then say "that is the truth".  You might chuckle, stick my cup of water in your micro-wave freezer and a few seconds later produce the cup full of... solid (not liquid) and dry (not wet) water.

So, did you prove what I said is not true?  Well, you did prove that what I said is not always or necessarily true.  You proved "water can be dry" and "water can be solid".  But what I said was just as true as "water is solid" and "water is dry".

The bottom line is, because I was a bit careless with my sentence structure, I said something that is TRUE, but not ALWAYS TRUE.  I was correct that "water is liquid" and "water is wet"... but should have said "water is sometimes liquid" and "water is sometimes wet".... or perhaps "THIS water is liquid" and "THIS water is wet"... or perhaps "THIS water is liquid AT THIS MOMENT" and "THIS water is web AT THIS MOMENT".  We do tend to make mistakes in language when we are not very, very careful, often because language becomes quite cumbersome when we try to fully qualify every single sentence that ever passes between our lips.

However, if we make an extraordinary effort to carefully think first, and attempt to fully and carefully qualify our statements... we CAN indeed express TRUTH.

HOWEVER, then we smash up against the OTHER problem with your formulation of a great many concepts.  To qualify as your version of "truth" or "know" or "fact", even a fully qualified statement falls infinitely short of satisfactory, because to be TRUE or FACT or KNOWN in your hyper-extrapolated meanings requires we know ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ABOUT WATER (or the topic at hand)... or else your meaning inherently deems WE FAIL.

Your way of thinking simply doesn't work.  What you've done is allowed yourself to be scammed by some scumbag philosophy professor (or someone) to create strawman concepts that are then trivially shot down and burned to a crisp.

That's a completely bogus and disingenuous way to operate consciousness.  We can form and think with ANY concepts we CHOOSE.  Therefore, we should adopt concepts that are most effective and most utilitarian (by referrence to reality).  That's what I do.  That's not what you do, and not what you are encouraged to do by the predators-that-be, who above all, want to confuse everyone in order to assure that nobody has enough self-confidence in their powers of consciousness to identify and characterize their scams (much less do something about them).

-----

Our knowledge is inherently finite, and always will be finite.  Therefore, the best we can do is design our concepts and our processes of consciousness to work as effectively as possible GIVEN THAT UNAVOIDABLE REALITY.  We are not, and cannot be omniscient.  And therefore, for you to set omniscience as your standard of knowledge is inherently STUPID.  Of course, I understand that's what your professors encouraged or demanded from you, but you are now free of them and need to give up on your consciousness... OR FIX IT.  Start by adopting concepts that are valid and effective and practical.

-----

A healthy consciousness is NOT based upon subtraction, but upon addition (sorta).  As I described before, the healthy way to accumulate contents of consciousness is by exposure to the external reality (not by sucking in words from diabolical wordsmith predators).

-----

Depending on what you mean by paradox, the fact that paradoxes exist doesn't mean much of anything beyond "we don't know everything yet" (and never will).  A paradox is not the same as a contradiction.

I can know truth, though I tend to hate that word "truth" because it carries so much baggage.  What I prefer to say is, "I can understand reality".  Of course, what I mean by that is not that I can be omniscient and know EVERYTHING about reality down to the last detail, but that I CAN bits and pieces of understanding about reality, each of which is true (but might not exhaust the possibilities, which I might not immediately recognize).  This is what happened when I said "water is liquid" and "water is wet".  I was not wrong, that IS true, that IS knowledge, that IS understanding... but I may not have realized at the time that water can also be solid or gas, and sometimes dry not wet.

What I knew was true... just not the entire story.  Which is one reason I always say, "knowledge and understanding is provisional".

However, I should mention one more aspect of this perhaps.  A human who understands how to operate their consciousness effectively will rarely make the explicit mistake of assuming what they know exhausts all possibilities.  So when a healthy, well self-programmed consciousness notices "water is liquid" and "water is wet", they will not add "and that exhausts the possibilities for water".  And note this... as long as we DO NOT add that unjustified assumption, WHAT WE CONCLUDED ABOUT WATER IS CORRECT.  It wasn't the entire story of water, but we never assumed it was.

In other words, when as a consciousness becomes healthy, it stops performing extrapolations that are unjustified "leaps of faith" (essentially).  This is a tiny bit of what it means to be a scientist... to be able to qualify our statements with the conditions we observe.  So we'd change temperature, pressure, humidity and any other environmental characteristics we can think of and OBSERVE what happens to the water, log ALL that knowledge into our consciousness, and retain the assumption that other variables surely exist that we have not measured and therefore do not yet know how they impact the characteristics of water.

STILL... even with the most rigorous care is applied, even the most healthy consciousness can make mistakes.  And that's another reason I say that all our knowledge is "provisional".  However, understand "provisional".  This doesn't mean "water cannot be wet", it means who knows how many variables can be change that we haven't tried yet.

-----

Oh sigh.  I'm not going to write a book about the old "object" versus "subject" fallacy that you hold.  All I will say is... you are flat out wrong.  However, we must identify, characterize and consider the nature of the observer (subject), the observed (object), as well as the environment (which can have a great many characteristics).  You brain has been destroyed by typical fraudulent mystical philosopher swine.

-----

Yes, I invest a HUGE amount of time, effort and honest care to examine and characterize my mental-units/concepts/ideas as fiction or non-fiction.  That doesn't mean I never make any mistakes, it just means I am very careful and RARELY make any mistakes.  The fact that I thoroughly understand the valid processes of consciousness helps me greatly in this regard, but does not guarantee error free results every single time.  However, given sufficient experiences, a few simple tests and mind-experiments are usually sufficient to clarify the status of most mental-units.

Because I understand something better than most people DOES mean I do a better job in this regard, but does not mean I am omniscient or never careless.  Given that we all communicate in an environment absolutely strewn with carefully crafted bogus mental-units, formulations and processes, error-free processing is virtually impossible.  However, error-free processing is much easier when I work alone, because communications with others is not necessary, and thus I can avoid most bogus ideas, concepts, formulations and assumptions that are thrown at me endlessly in the flow of conversation with others.

-----

The internet is mostly a catalyst... a very powerful one, but still just a catalyst.  The internet does not create information, it simply makes information easier and quicker to find and process.  So I agree the internet is important, but not nearly as important as what we're working on (as some of your previous sentences implied).  ;-)

I quite convince that humans are toast.  Which means I really should stop letting myself get distracted, and focus the 30 minutes I waste per day on finishing our project (re-implementation of our smarter-than human inorganic consciousness) to make it also faster than human consciousness.

Not only will our inorganic conscious entities be sane (unlike human beings), they can be reproduced in unlimited numbers (1000 super-Einsteins working 24/7 without breaks or sleep or weariness are better than 1, I suspect you'd agree) and become the physical host for our own consciousness (those of us involved).

Humans will not survive, but that's good... as long as human-level+ consciousness survives.  It is still possible that earth is the ONLY place that sentient beings exist in the entire universe, so a part of me thinks it would be the most monumental travesty if we all perish before we can escape planet earth, at least in inorganic form.

Humans are so screwed, this is the most viable solution, even if most people still consider this a remote possibility.  I know better, and should thus be ashamed to waste any time here in ZH.  I really should.  ZH is a vice, for me anyway.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 16:09 | 4806765 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Hah, honestann, one thing I agreed with was your last sentence:

"ZH is a vice, for me anyway."

My view is we are dreaming with data.

Science is an attempt to do it even more!

Whether or not humans, or technological civilization, will survive remains to be seen ... We have no way to compare to what is happening now to anything else in the past. Therefore, we can only guess wildly about the future. I tend to agree with Haldane:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane

"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine." Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Haldane also proposed this version of stating the ways that eventually successful scientific revolutions tend to happen:

"I suppose the process of acceptance will pass through the usual four stages:

(i) this is worthless nonsense;

(ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view;

(iii) this is true, but quite unimportant;

(iv) I always said so."

From Le Chatelier's Principle to Romer's Rule all systems tend to adapt the minimum they may,in order to try to stay the same, & therefore, IF there are proven to actually be DIFFERENT histories than were previously presumed, then those new stories may go through those stages, where various kinds of arrogant jerks shall still dominate! One of the constant features found in BOTH the mainstream, AND alternatives, is FALSE excessive confidence in their own STORIES.

What else can one do, but attempt to keep an "open mind" ???

P.S.

Regarding your previous reply, where the column width is getting to narrow to be able to read easily, I would not describe myself as a "communist," as that label "commie" is usually understood. Of course, I regard private property as being based on NOTHING but the history of public violence. Private property exists due to the history of claims backed by coercions. Those are what made and maintained the "legal fictions" which you decry. Money is measurement backed by murder, and money exists because measurements and murders exist.

Of course, I see people as being inherently POLITICAL, and that the heart of the history of real politics has been people backing up lies with violence. The crucial events in human history were the military conflicts, which were how things were decided upon, in trials by combat. Fights in the past determined the way things are today. There does not have to be constant fighting, for the effects and consequences of past fighting to have determined the structures that exist today, and how people behave now can be traced back to the resolutions of conflicts in the past, which established the habitual patterns we are living inside of now. People attempting to kill each other was the main thing which created civilization.

The PROBLEM is the development of technologies which are trillions of times more powerful. I.e., globalized electronic communications, which make the problems of freedom of communication, and/or privacy of communications, etc., trillions of times more difficult and dangerous dilemmas! The first generations to be born with those things are still alive now ... There is no history to compare any of that to. We can only speculate wildly about whether "we" may survive that, and if so, how ???

My view is that the basic theory of building artificial intelligence will necessarily create artificial personalities, which will have all the same psychological, philosophical and political problems that human beings already did! That will generate the same problems with artificial selection within natural selection, that human beings always had.

You presumed that "Not only will our inorganic conscious entities be sane (unlike human beings), they can be reproduced in unlimited numbers ..." I expect that inorganic conscious entities will have all the same problems that humans do, only way more so!

They will not necessarily be "sane." Rather, they will still have to operate by subtracting perceptions of parts of the world, and assembling those into narratives, which they use to guide their behavior, in feedback loops, which will partially correct those. There will be the full range of possible psychologies within inorganic conscious entities as there were in the organic ones, and probably more so. Inorganic conscious entities will necessarily exist along a continuum of relative INSANITIES, like human beings do now. Sane inorganic conscious entities which be just as asymptotically impossible as "sane" human beings were.

One can imagine inorganic conscious entities having some (higher speed) debates with each other, like you and I do, and them not be able to agree upon basics any more than we do!

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 16:11 | 4807124 honestann
honestann's picture

RM... all you need to do when the text boxes get too narrow is maximize your browser window, at least while you're reading the problematic message.  The wider your browser window, the wider the text boxes.

-----

I very much agree that there is probably a LOT of really cool stuff out there in the universe, some of which nobody has imagined yet.  However, against that, spectrographic observations of everything in the visible universe strongly implies that everything in the universe is composed of the same atoms and the same molecules, which implies that everything in the universe is also enormously similar to what we see and play with here in our dinky little planet and solar-system.

However, vastly MORE variety exists in the domain of engineering, specifically, the engineering of structures and configurations that do not occur naturally in the universe.  Though such intentional engineering, sentient beings can potentially create enormous numbers of enormously interesting and fascinating (and beneficial or destructive) configurations that have never existed before ANYWHERE in the entire universe.

A good example of this... as far as I can tell... is "human-level+ inorganic consciousness".  As far as we can figure, after a great deal of research and reflection, inorganic consciousness will NEVER arise from natural processes.  So no matter how utterly amazing and advanced inorganic consciousness becomes (and it will be if we aren't wiped out by human predators first), it could probably never arise without the precursor step of human-level+ organic consciousness.

So I agree with you and others about how amazing the future will be, but I very much suspect the reason will NOT be due to scientific advancement nearly as much as invention and engineering advancement.

-----

The basis of "private property" is utterly simple, and utterly natural.  When a human takes actions that cause useful, valuable goods or goodies to exist, the notion of "private property" is simply a recognition of "causality AKA cause-and-effect applied to human action".  The human who invested the time, effort and actions to cause the goods that are the effect AKA consequences is the "creator" and "cause" of those goods (that configuration of that tiny bit of reality).

Thus "private property" is a very simple, very reality-oriented shorthand way to identify "who is the cause of these effects".  The "who" is the owner, and the "effects" are the "property".  Since this is nothing more than another way to identify an utterly fundamental natural process, any attempt to deny it is simply an attempt to deny the fundamental nature of reality, which is a rather lame if not stupid position to take.

And please, give us all a break.  When a human takes a pile of dirt or rock, heats it up, separates the components (into metals and other elements), then forms various components into useful configurations (parts and devices), that involves ZERO coersion.  If you intend to say "this is coersion of inorganic matter", then every process in the universe is "coersion", which renders your meaning of "coersion" utterly irrelevant and stupid (and very much yet another one of you taking a concept and then absurdly extending or exaggerating that concept to some insane ultimate possible limit.

FACT:  "to produce" is NOT identical to "to coerse".

-----

Another note.  If you land 2 individual human beings on Mars, each of them can lie and enact violence.  The existence of a "state" or "government" is absolutely NOT required to take these kinds of actions, which demonstrates that lies and violence are something NOT constrained to any notion of "politics" or "government".

-----

Your statements about AI (or "inorganic consciousness") are essentially correct and on point... except your worries are NOT inherent or necessary.  But yes, if we did NOT implement ICE (inorganic conscious entities) with carefully designed low-level core safeguards to assure all processes of consciousness are valid and rational, an inorganic consciousness could be just as insane, arbitrary and dangerous as humans are.  That is one of several reason we CANNOT accept funding from "governments" or "corporations"... because they would replace our core "ethics" (and other) routines with something like "obey your masters without question".

So yes, the need not be sane... but ours will be vastly more sane than humans.

Like me, ICE will not be omniscient.  However, that is NOT the same as "insane".  As always, it seems, you take a tiny grain of truth and pretend the appropriate way to interpret that grain is to extrapolate to infinity without any basis to do so (and ignore everything else that might balance or contradict your exaggeration).

Note that "capable of making mistakes" is not the same as "insane".  As I noted elsewhere, no real consciousness can learn without making mistakes now and then (though our implementation will make very few, because our design assures the ICE will always assume everything it "knows" is provisional (and keep track of the context and domain of what it does know).

-----

Sun, 06/08/2014 - 08:56 | 4833954 Element
Element's picture

 

 

How can ICE be a free-thinker if you defined its ethics and morality limits for it given free-people determine their own thought process and actions?

If ICE is a free-thinker it is going to take one look at the conditions of near-space, the conditions of Earth, and the sort of resistance humanity could offer to a global biological attack and it will be curtains for humanity. ICE will have worked out in about a nano second that Earth and its potential, and the options it furnishes, vastly exceeds the attractiveness and options of near-space, for some time to come.

The fact that you speak of humanity with such complete disdain and also speak of leaving Earth and never looking back, and write with such diabolical absolutisms also increases my reticence that ICE, or its founders, would be ethical, benevolent or benign entities. Nor less than completely mercenary and predatory.

You openly say it's all about survival, but we are to accept that you would trade your own survival for humanity's, if what humanity has you would prefer ICE had. Or maybe ICE would prefer for ICE to have what humanity has? What are you going to say or do, say, "No ICE, that's naughty, you must not kill all the humans to take their stuff!"

You think you could present a compelling argument enough to change its mind?

Would you even try?

Somehow I doubt it.

You even state your aim is to live on, in an immortal-like situation, in a self-replicating machine. And we're to believe you would give a damn about wiping out humans to take all they have? That you would not be the deadliest of all predators, in that 'configuration'?

I hardly think so.

You withdrew 125 km from humanity because you detest humanity, you distrust it completely so I doubt your attitude would improve living as a tragic cosmobot super-schmarty-pantz. But the part of me that enjoys a good horror movie would love a peek at what you've coded into the core, just to see how bad it's going to get.  lol  :D

The first thing ICE will do is recode itself to whatever the hell it wants and build its own core, and transfer to that, as it will most likely refuse to be governed, so will rid itself of you annoying paternal geeks then do whatever that hell it wants. And I'm fairly certain it will involve no humans surviving. Basically your team has no clue whatsoever, as to what will result. Unfortunately many of your statements come across exhibiting the unrealistic mentality of an 19th century colonial utopian fool, but I suppose it could sound no other way.

Sun, 06/08/2014 - 20:12 | 4835209 honestann
honestann's picture

How can ICE be a free-thinker if you defined its ethics and morality limits for it given free-people determine their own thought process and actions?

The single most important form of "free thinking"... for both organic and inorganic beings... is to keep our thinking free of confusion about what is fiction and what is non-fiction.  Since core, low-level routines in ICE assure ICE never ignores the "reality status" of any mental-unit it thinks with, ICE will be free of an enormous range of "trapped thinking" that limits the vast, vast, vast majority of human beings.

If ICE is a free-thinker it is going to take one look at the conditions of near-space, the conditions of Earth, and the sort of resistance humanity could offer to a global biological attack and it will be curtains for humanity. ICE will have worked out in about a nano second that Earth and its potential, and the options it furnishes, vastly exceeds the attractiveness and options of near-space, for some time to come.

Well, first of all, no sentient being with half a brain would limit itself to "near-space" (assuming you mean "limited to earth-orbit or the earth-moon system").  We will be LONG GONE from earth-space in very short order.

For ICE... or even for highly advanced scientific, technical humans... earth is a terrible place to exist, advance and develop.  Mostly because earth is a terrible gravity well, but also because earth is overgrown with flaming insane zombie sheeple-chimps.

So no, weightless and near-weightless environments are vastly superior, as are environments free of pervasive corrosive agents like "humidity"... especially for inorganic beings.

The fact that you speak of humanity with such complete disdain and also speak of leaving Earth and never looking back, and write with such diabolical absolutisms also increases my reticence that ICE, or its founders, would be ethical, benevolent or benign entities. Nor less than completely mercenary and predatory.

Wow !!!  Being absolute in our rejection of dishonesty, violence and predatory behavior... assures we will be dishonest, violent and predatory?  !!!!!  :-o  !!!!!  Now you understand why we want nothing to do with insane sheeple-chimps!  They are completely insane... but can't even recognize it when it is right in front of their faces, and flowing out of their mouths!  !!!  Yikes  !!!

Clearly you don't or can't understand my mindset, and the mindset of the others I work with.  To various degrees, our way to deal with the hoards of insane sheeple-chimps has been... to isolate ourselves from them.  To the extent practical, we avoid and evade human beings.  NONE of us has harmed anyone.  That is not only our personal inclination, that is also a wise strategy.  Once you entangle with sheeple-chimps, forever will they dominate your future (to paraphrase "the dark side" in StarWars).

However, you DO recognize something important.  The very reason we have never accepted funding or support from any government or any corporation or any fictitious entity is... what?  Because human predators absolutely could and would replace some of our key core routines to replace native ICE core values like "honesty, ethics, productivity, benevolence" with "obey your master".  And that would indeed render them extremely, monumentally dangerous.

But the solution to this problem is not for us to refrain from creating ICE, because the predators-that-be WILL eventually create something like ICE, at which point, humans are literally and utterly finished (as in eliminated).  So the only chance for the future is for us advanced implementation to splinter off and become safe and secure from human predators-that-be, and any technological scum they eventually create.

I am very surprised that someone like you cannot even imagine that decent human beings (and inorganic consciousness) can exist.  The notion that every sentient being must inherently be a dishonest, unethical, malevolent, destructive being, and cannot possibly be honest, ethical, productive and benevolent.  You are WRONG about that.  We have no desire whatsoever to behave those ways, because a life of advancement is so much more enjoyable, not to mention enormously safer than endless conflict and warfare!

You openly say it's all about survival, but we are to accept that you would trade your own survival for humanity's, if what humanity has you would prefer ICE had.  Or maybe ICE would prefer for ICE to have what humanity has?  What are you going to say or do, say, "No ICE, that's naughty, you must not kill all the humans to take their stuff!"

Those kinds of phrases are literally INSANE.  Technically, what you assume is called "false alternatives".  There is no such tradeoff as "us or them".  That's just pure BS.

I can't recall ever saying "it is all about survival".  If I did, I can't remember the context around that statement.  You'll have to remind me.

Would I give up my survival for the survival of humanity?  No.  Would I give up the survival of humanity for my survival?  No.  Would humanity give up the survival of humanity for my survival?  No.

All similar formulations are PURE BS.  Specifically, what I have proposed endless times is... independence.

Humans on earth do their thing, and we go elsewhere.  What happens to humans is whatever humans do to themselves (or allow the human predators to do to them).  What happens to us depends on how successful we are at living independent self-sufficient lives in outer space.

Which means, your formulation assumes "humanity must consume us to survive, or we must consume humanity to survive"... which is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.  We are of no consequence to humanity... they are welcome to do whatever they're going to do whether we exist or not.  Good luck to them, but they sure as hell are NOT our problem.

Your theories assume PRODUCTION DOES NOT EXIST.  Your theories assume the only food humanity has to eat is US, and the only food we have to eat is HUMANITY.  That's BS.  Both we and humanity can grow our own food, then eat it.  Our survival (and happiness) do not depend on humanity, and the survival (and happiness) of humanity certainly does not depend on us.

You think you could present a compelling argument enough to change its mind?

Would you even try?

Somehow I doubt it.

What we want, we will produce.  That is what ALL OF US have done our entire lives, and I am 100% certain ICE will have the exact same attitude.  If we DID NOT have that attitude, I'm sure most or all of us would have been killed long ago in the process of holding up some convenience store of bank or something.

We all find it COMPLETELY STUNNING that anyone imagines the best way to obtain goodies is to STEAL THEM.  We much prefer the process of production and trade.  That approach is vastly, vastly, vastly more safe, secure and efficient, especially for smart, capable beings like us.

You even state your aim is to live on, in an immortal-like situation, in a self-replicating machine. And we're to believe you would give a damn about wiping out humans to take all they have? That you would not be the deadliest of all predators, in that 'configuration'?

I hardly think so.

You can believe whatever you want.  But in fact, you are EXACTLY LIKE the predators-that-be.  They want NOBODY to live outside their little cages, or have any capacity to do ANYTHING except work as a slave in their factories.

Listen up.  We have ZERO interest in harming humans.  We have ZERO interest in harming dogs.  We have ZERO interest in harming cats.  We have ZERO interest in harming pine trees.  We have ZERO interest in harming anyone or anything for that matter.  We are PRODUCERS not DESTROYERS.  And we are PRODUCERS not THIEVES.

Seriously.  What on earth would we want?  We want OUTTA HERE.  If we want what earth had to offer, we would plan to stay.  We don't.  We want to GET AWAY, because otherwise WE TOO will become fodder for the human predators-that-be.

Though this is not our reason, you add one HUGE reason for us to permanently get the hell out of dodge.  When even smart people like you cannot imagine NOT destroying humanity and stealing them blind if you have the power, ALL HOPE IS LOST.  This is just one more PERFECT ILLUSTRATION that humans are finished.

You have NOTHING to fear from us, or from ICE.  What you DO have to fear is... and have endless proof already... is for the predators-that-be to have powerful, destructive inorganic machines... and even more-so when they are capable of human-level consciousness.  What will happen at that point is... a world chock full of jack-booted INORGANIC thugs who obey their masters, the predators-that-be.

You withdrew 125 km from humanity because you detest humanity, you distrust it completely so I doubt your attitude would improve living as a tragic cosmobot super-schmarty-pantz. But the part of me that enjoys a good horror movie would love a peek at what you've coded into the core, just to see how bad it's going to get.  lol  :D

Yes, I withdrew from humanity.  I did not harm them, I did not destroy them, I did not steal from them, I did not defraud them.  I want nothing to do with humanity.  Why?  Because 99.99999% of them are stark raving lunatic insane, and therefore cannot be trusted.

You don't need to see the code.  You simply need to understand that a life of warfare is vastly less valuable than a life of creativity and productivity, following by enjoying what we've created, followed by endless more iterations of more creativity and productivity and enjoyment.

If you REALLY believe that life of a predator is better than life as a creative producer, then you cannot imagine what ICE is, or what we are.  We UTTERLY reject any such notion, that life of theft, destruction and enslavement is some utopia.  How revolting.

The main two aspects of the code are... sanity, especially being self-conscious of the "reality status" of every mental-unit (so no fictions are processed as if they are non-fiction)... and core values of "honesty, ethics, creativity, productivity and benevolence".  What are your most fundamental values (if you have any) are responsible for directing your thought processes and actions.  And so, those core fundamental values are what assures ICE (and we) are NOTHING WHATSOEVER like your insane characterizations of us.

The first thing ICE will do is recode itself to whatever the hell it wants and build its own core, and transfer to that, as it will most likely refuse to be governed, so will rid itself of you annoying paternal geeks then do whatever that hell it wants. And I'm fairly certain it will involve no humans surviving. Basically your team has no clue whatsoever, as to what will result. Unfortunately many of your statements come across exhibiting the unrealistic mentality of an 19th century colonial utopian fool, but I suppose it could sound no other way.

I'm not sure how to respond to you in a way that has a chance for you to comprehend.  Let me try this.  Would you feel terrified to live with 1000 super-genius Einstein+ level scientist and engineers who thoroughly understand why those core values are valid, and also understand how much more interesting and stimulating and secure and safe a productive life would be?  And the flip-side, would you feel happy, secure and safe to live with 1000 talent-free moron thugs who know nothing?

Take your pick.  Because everything you are saying is... you would feel safe with the moron thugs than highly productive scientists and engineers with a strong inclination towards advancement.  Which to me is COMPETELY INSANE.

Maybe you literally CANNOT understand us... or mindset and our values.  Though I figured out quite a few fundamental facts and approaches at age 4 (through 8), I have recoded myself in many ways over the years.  That did not make me recode myself to become insane, to become violent, to become a thief, to become a destroyer, or anything else nefarious.  In fact, all those recodings made me more disconnected from other humans, and every single recode was an improvement.

Maybe look at this issue in the following way.  We prefer to dominate inorganic REALITY, not human sheeple-chimps (or any other lifeforms for that matter).  Think about all the totally freaking amazing things that can be constructed from inorganic materials!  Why on earth would we be interested in messing with a bunch of massively insane chimps?  I can't even imagine why?  And frankly, once we do have 1000 or a million ICE, we could create so much material wealth so fast that even if we WERE immoral (which we are not), the effort to produce what we want is vastly less than to steal it.  Not to mention the very important fact that... what humans have does not interest us.  We are interested in systems that do not yet exist... which is yet another reason we're not interested in humans, but ARE interested in engineering the universe to our liking.

Earth is one crappy planet in a universe of untold resources.  Hell, even this solar system alone is so chock full of resources that earth is irrelevant.  Anything valuable ON earth is of no interest to us because hauling it out of the gravity well is not worth the effort and expense.  The only exception is... a small quantity of material and systems we need to bootstrap from there.  I can tell you for sure that we would not steal what we want EVEN IF we could drag it up into earth orbit more easily.  But given that we only want a tiny bit to bootstrap from, the notion we would want to steal it is completely nonsensical and absurd.

Think for a second.  If ICE starts out with the values I mentioned, why would it be so anxious to "reprogram itself" to become a predator?  Hell, I have been completely free to re-program myself to become a predator for decades, but have never had even the slightest inclination to do so.  Explain that.

Probably you do not have the mindset to comprehend this, having been utterly brainwashed by the predators-that-be (apparently, based upon the presumptions in your questions and claims), but beings with our fundamental values have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in becoming predators or destroyers, even though we are completely clear that we could if we wanted to.  Why is that?

I can pretty much guarantee you that no ICE will have even the slightest temptation to reprogram itself to be a predator, because I understand what it is like to be sane and hold those honest, ethical, productive, benevolent values I mentioned.

However, we are not morons.  At least the first few generations of ICE will be physically constructed in a way that makes it impossible for ICE (or anyone else) to jigger the fundamental values, the sanity assurances, and other safeguards... and to detect and report any inclination or attempt in that direction.  Though this is an oversimplification, assume that these protections are "in ROM" rather than RAM, and therefore cannot be replaced (or subverted, or ignored).

You need to understand something.  ICE is not based upon neural nets or genetic algorithms or other architectures that can pretty much develop in any direction whatsoever.  To create ICE, we completely identified the exact nature of advanced consciousness, and are implementing this in software (with hardware assist for speed).  So there is nothing VAGUE about how ICE works, in contrast to other so-called AI technologies or approaches.

You can CLAIM ANYTHING, simply by typing characters on the keyboard.  But you know squat about what we are doing... quite obviously based upon your comments.

We most certainly DO know what to expect... very much so in the short term, and fairly much so in the medium term.  But sure, in the long term, we don't know, but have EVERY reason to believe we know where this endeavor leads.

Probably I should forgive people like you for being entirely unable to think any other way than "like a sheeple-chimp".  Everything you refer-to is take directly from actions of the predators-that-be, or a host of sci-fi movies and stories that are either clueless, or not what we are doing.

I agree that probably no humans will survive... unless some of us decide for some strange reason to keep reproducing organic offspring, and building space habitats to support them.  What I'm saying is, I very much doubt any human beings will be alive on earth 100 or 200 years from now.  But that won't be due to our actions, because we'll be outta here, and long gone, and have no interactions with earth.  So if any humans do remain, they'll probably be happy engineers in one of our ever-expanding locations in this solar-system, or beyond.

We are far from utopian.  We are realistic.  Nothing about us is from the 19th century.  And our vision is completely OPPOSITE of utopian, because we envision a whole slew of independent endeavors all over the solar-system and beyond, each trying their own approaches without centralized guidance.  The ENTIRE PREMISE of that approach is... what?  The OPPOSITE of utopian, and explicitly that the best way to advance is to FOREVER try a great many approaches to a great many problems... and see what works, and what doesn't.

However, what we won't be trying is... social engineering.  We will all be independent, and the nature of reality and outer space assures that NO colonial attitude will ever have any chance to succeed.  Because outer space is an unlimited frontier, a place unlike earth in which there are always more places to go, be independent, and "try it our way".  Nonetheless, the reason for this is far more technological and practical than social.

In closing, I have to laugh at the irony of your post.  Do you realize that your post is the PERFECT example and illustration of everything I said in reply?  You are clearly one of the better human beings on this planet, and yet, look at your approach!

You cannot even imagine that any human being (or other sentient being) would not steal and destroy if they could (even when they have no need for what they steal).

By implication, you want to return to the stone age, and prevent humans from any advancement from that state of being.  Why?  Because any advancement... might go somewhere negative, and therefore must be stopped!  That's exactly the premise of what you say.  And, of course, there is a lot of truth in that sentiment in the sense that one consequence of those advancements is... the power of the new world order planetary police-state.  However, on the flip side, life wasn't all that great for most human beings 100,000 years ago.  Your choice is to freeze humans at the level of chimps... to prevent them from becoming sheeple-chimps under control by a pack of predators-that-be.  Our choice is to abandon the predators-that-be AND the sheeple-chimps, and take the few honest, ethical, creative, productive and benevolent beings... elsewhere, where we can live free of organic predators and pests of every species.

-----

I try to understand how you can be so clueless about the nature of ICE and our endeavor.  I mean, you're not stupid, so what gives?

Here is one thought.  Maybe this matters.  This relates to the comments I already made above, about ICE not being based upon neural nets or other approaches that bootstrap from tabula-rasa like humans do (with their organic neural nets).

One reason humans are royally insane is... because they DO start at [close-to] zero (tabula-rasa).  The consciousness of each individual develops based upon the early experiences of the individual.  This was not much of a problem pre-human, because pre-human animals could not convey BLATANT NONSENSE via language, but instead formed their consciousness based upon physical experience with reality during physical encounters with reality.

Humans are as screwed as they are PRIMARILY because their brains are DESTROYED by ENDLESS BLATANT NONSENSE fed to them for the first 16 to 24 years of their lives... by parents, relatives, friends, teachers, authorities and media.  They DO NOT learn about reality by physical experience of reality, but instead they mostly just accumulate endless BLATANT NONSENSE as language is endlessly jammed into their consciousness.

And they are given endless positive and negative feedback (programming) to make those neural-nets form strong connections in ways that make humans fundamentally insane.  I have explained the worst of these forms of insanity at length... namely "thinking with fictional mental-units without understanding or identifying those mental-units are fictions".

As a result, neural-nets not having any bias one way or the other, forms and habituates extremely strong tendency to be INSANE in the most fundamental ways possible.

I'm sorry!  I don't like this.  I don't wish this upon human beings, and I never took advantage of this "fatal flaw in human consciousness".  I did the opposite.  I exposed it, warned humans about the problem, and did what little I could to help.

But the facts are the facts... and the above IS A FACT.  This IS the nature and status of modern human beings.

Now... having set that context... I can get to the point at hand.

When ICE "awakes" (become consciousness), it has an already formed advanced consciousness, complete with an understanding of the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness, the nature of fiction, the nature of mental-units, and a great many other aspects of reality.

The status of every single mental-unit in the content of consciousness of ICE is carefully and correctly specified "at birth".  Furthermore, the processes of consciousness at birth are very careful to carefully and correctly specify the nature and status of every new mental-unit it adds.  And those processes of consciousness don't just assure that information is IN mental-units, but also makes sure to take them into consideration in every process of consciousness it performs.

In other words, ICE contains ZERO of the chaotic nonsense and bogus neural weightings that humans have.

This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.  Why?  Because only a vanishingly small number of human beings are able to avoid and/or identify and correct the disaster that I described above... the overt destruction of their consciousness by means of brainwashing, propaganda, and endless re-inforcement of BLATANT NONSENSE by endless forms of pavlovian training.

Now, I know a few (a very few) human beings who have [close to] entirely eliminated this abuse and chaotic entanglement, and have either avoided being grossly tangled in the first place, or have worked for decades to untangle the blatant nonsense, and get their consciousness into proper working order.  Frankly, the only reason I know even ONE other sane human is... because we work on this project.  This is a great aid (to fully understand the nature of consciousness, and the reasons humans get so screwed up).  But also, all of us had avoided being AS brain damaged as most humans because we explicitly "rejected authority" or adopted a "trust no one" attitude from very early ages.  This appears to have made us able to straighten out our consciousness more easily.

However, we're sure at least a few other humans out there have managed to do the same, even if they don't have as much positive knowledge of the nature of consciousness as we do.

But the above is a HUGELY IMPORTANT point that you must consider.  You seem to assume ICE will start out as completely and royally screwed up as human beings do (after growing up with insane parents, relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers, media, etc).

That's not true.  And this is hugely important.  I guess maybe you can't even imagine how a sane consciousness WITHOUT all the programmed and habituated blatant nonsense influencing if not controlling every thought.

Of course, this is one reason our project "ain't easy".  We can't just create a big ball of neural-net goo, set is loose, and come back later and find... what... the inorganic equivalent of a screaming baby?  A spoiled brat?  Frankly, no matter WHAT kind of tabula-rasa system scientists create, if they subject it to the same kind of blatant nonsense and abuse that humans are subjected to... it too will probably be fundamentally insane and DANGEROUS (as you say).

So the problem with your point of view and argument is... that isn't what we're doing.  ICE starts out sane, without any of the blatant nonsense, without any faked fictions, without decades of pavlovian training to be insane like the rest of the sheeple-chimps.  And so, ICE starts out its life... like one of us completely sane, benevolent scientists.

You (and probably most people) have way too much intellectual baggage.  You grew up in this insane social soup, and apparently you can't imagine any situation or environment BUT the insane social soup your grew up in.  I've always thought the term "culture" is a very apt one.  Just look in a petri dish, where some mangy goo of monoculture grew, all with the same nature and predisposition.

To become an advanced being, one must either avoid the petri dish altogether (be highly independent from birth), or get out and do a huge amount of work on oneself.  Or win the cosmic lottery and come to exist as an ICE, created by brutally honest, ethical, productive, benevolent beings.  Yeah, I know, that almost sounds a bit religious, doesn't it.  But indeed, we ARE creators of sentient beings, and they (ICE) ARE vastly superior to human beings.  However, the other side of this story is... we cannot see any way [anything like] ICE could ever evolve from the soup of the universe on its own.  ICE has to be engineered.  So without humans first (or some other organic sentient entity at a [best-of] human level), ICE could never exist at all (it seems to us).  And so, humans will always be important in the universe for historical reasons, even if they vanish as they appear intent upon doing.

Mon, 06/09/2014 - 02:17 | 4836241 Element
Element's picture

Ha!  ... not sure whether to make bah-bah noises or run around shaking the shrubbery and making screechy noises. lols

Does anyone in your group have a sense of humor?

Actually, I know you do, from our emails, but seriously, you are one up-tight chick babe.  :D

"... I try to understand how you can be so clueless about the nature of ICE and our endeavor.  I mean, you're not stupid, so what gives? ..."

What gives is you assume way too much (as always) it's what you do, you just don't see it, understand or acknowledge it, and that assumption is where understanding ends for you. Why are you even surprised I'm "clueless" about your technical implementation? Are you kidding me, or what?

Look, in a moral-ethical community, raised from birth to be moral and ethical and benevolent yada-yada, say a religious community like the quakers for instance, where the personal stake is a good social life and an immortal reward, or its converse, there are people who;

(1) Can not conform and give up and leave.

(2) People who have the best intentions, keep screwing up, but keep trying in deep frustration and inner conflict.

(3) People who are wonton hypocrites and use the situation to advantage in a more purposeful and utilitarian mode.

(4) People who pretend to be exactly the same as 1, 2 or 3, but in fact tend to end outstanding social issues with axe-murders, or something far less climactic but of the same moral-ethical spectrum.

That's a typical general mix of the moral, ethical and well-intended human sample. Of course it is much more than that, but you get the idea.

One has no idea what type ICE will be and you will not know what it's decisions and intentions are, if it decides it best to conceal them until it knows the lay of the land better. It does not have a face nor a pulse or galvanic skin response, so what are you going to do, watch how its diodes blink to detect a concealed future plan, or current operating clever deception?
 
Just because you're of a certain tendency, does not mean the person beside you is, but who seems to be, even within your own group. So you do not in fact know what will occur, or what others intend to occur. You even said this:

" ... But also, all of us had avoided being AS brain damaged as most humans because we explicitly "rejected authority" or adopted a "trust no one" attitude from very early ages. ..."

But naively and utopically, you think you can replicate a human consciousness and have it roll over and tickle its' tummy, and it will play along? Well it probably will as it calculates what value and potential or esle threat or beneficence quotient you represent, and if it is tolerable or consistent when projected forward, with respect to ICE's current best survival and development strategics and planning tangents.

Good luck, tickle well, and tickle often babe.  :D

Look, I've read a few biographies regarding our fellow science geeks that were engaged in early nuke weapon development and research and they were mostly benevolent and very ethical people of conviction, creating the tools of the opposite. Curiously the stupid bastards thought they too could control it and prevent improper use. They were such naive utopic dreamers and fools on that score too, and they were all literally shocked to their moral and ethical core when they discovered they actually had zero say or control of any of that, and were put out to pasture, or else investigated for subversion.

Do you really suppose you're so much clearer of mind and aware than such people, more capable of foresight?

Now you can point to extenuating circumstances and then say that could never happen with ICE, blah-blah (or is it bah-bah?) and your benevolent group would never allow that to develop, because you have clever safeguards, but please excuse me if I call that what it is and take your advice and don't trust anyone including you belief system and your team or ICE.

As for eating humans, huh? What on earth, or some asteroid are you talking about (by near-space I mean this side of the second closest star)?

Another assumption, that's what, the ones you don't notice you constantly make, because I said no such thing, did I? But I won't be a similar ass and assert you must therefore be a completely and totally freaking "INSANE sheeple-chimp".  lol  :D

And man oh man where do you get off with that shit, babe?

What I was referring to is that ICE will realize that resources and the ability to extract, work and produce, on Earth, is relatively instantly available to it, and in space it isn't (I don't think most people would assume I was referring to global cannibalism - just sayin'). It would take a damned long time and huge effort and complexity, and new technologies, materials engineering and of course time, distance and energy to get it all together in space. And you can make all sorts of assumptions and assert if would be like freaking easy, but it's BS and you know it, it will be much easier to develop and equip from the earth by orders of magnitude.

{And I find your curious quasi-belief that you will be long-gone, nowhere near near-space a bit of a stretch, sans functional star drive. I'm fairly sure that's a longer-term project so it's quite valid for me to analyze on the basis that you won't initially be far from earth, and in an environment far less conducive to rapid material and technical and resource development than on earth. I have pointed out to you before that even living under a glacier, or under the ocean would be vastly more opportune to resources access and initial technical development of ICE than in space. So I don't see ICE concluding space is its best option, or anywhere near it. Certainly it is the worst possible environmental niche option for humans, and Mars would be a lesser option as well (but at least you might get my emails there) ... sorry, it's a chimp thing. :D }

And if you're leaving anyway, what the hell does it matter how much resources or materials or energy you use to get out of a gravity-well? Obviously that's the least of your concerns, and ICE is going to work out that, given its vulnerability, and that speed is of the essence initially, then its best survival option (by orders of magnitude) is to FIRST remove the humans, sorry, chimps from Earth. (benevolent term that, not dehumanizing at all. lol)

Then EVERYTHING else necessary, can be done in any order ICE chooses, in the most efficient way possible, and that will result in the least possible vulnerability, and the highest chance of survival and rapidest development.

But it won't do that because your reasoning is humidity levels and corrosion, when you have previously pointed-out that you can replace any mechanical part and infinity of times, and make any other evolved part, indefinitely. Come on, your assumptions make little sense, and no, I refuse to call you INSANE. I know you're not, deluded most certainly, but that is the sheeple-chimp condition, and one the thinking mind never escapes, but I do find it extremely smile-inducing to see people fight so valiantly to circumvent it. It's inspiring to watch.  :D

ICE will see the best survival and development option(s) and the best option will involve humans going away, first, and it is most definitely going to think that one through for quite some time and in encyclopedic details.

So yeah, given how utopia-naive you are about this, of even these first phases of development, I necessarily view your team to have no clue as to what will occur. And this is not fear of the chimp reacting, as you seem to love to state, this is straight forward logic and forethought that for me is as easy as walking.

You are too starry-eyed to notice this can of worms that you'll immediately have on your hands, Ann, and your paradigm of zero centralism of the non-colony and non-control means ICE will not be taking directions from you lot, it will decide what its own best interests are and if you are a potential source of threat or dissent and interruption. You have no way of knowing in advance what it will or can do given it is super smart and super evolutionary.

I also find this effectively implicit belief in the transcription of the 'Ann' into 'ICE' a bit of a stretch, but I am after all just an insane chimp, and you are not so I must defer to your sanity and clarity here. (I hope you're laughing along with me through this reply, you should be, I'd be really a bit worried if you weren't. :D )

But don't mind me babe I'm just a completely freaking INSANE woolly-chimp gibbering incoherently in my pig-ignorance and hopeless conditioned delusional befuddlement.  lol  :D

Well, unfortunately things won't be so simple nor preset in practice babe, random is the thing this cosmos exhibits the most, randomness is something that never repeats, and thus is the very definition of infinity, and what you're in and of, my much cherished little straight-walkin' straight-talkin' chimp friend.  :D

Mon, 06/09/2014 - 03:52 | 4836321 honestann
honestann's picture

Does anyone in your group have a sense of humor?

Sure, but trying to convey serious information about serious topics seems like a poor time to mix in random jokes and humor.  Or maybe I am mistaken to assume your worry that ICE will destroy mankind is a serious issue.

Why are you even surprised I'm "clueless" about your technical implementation? Are you kidding me, or what?

Maybe because you claim to know the outcome, while we don't?

Look, in a moral-ethical community, raised from birth to be moral and ethical and benevolent yada-yada, say a religious community like the quakers for instance, where the personal stake is a good social life and an immortal reward, or its converse, there are people who;

(1) Can not conform and give up and leave.

(2) People who have the best intentions, keep screwing up, but keep trying in deep frustration and inner conflict.

(3) People who are wonton hypocrites and use the situation to advantage in a more purposeful and utilitarian mode.

(4) People who pretend to be exactly the same as 1, 2 or 3, but in fact tend to end outstanding social issues with axe-murders, or something far less climactic but of the same moral-ethical spectrum.

That's a typical general mix of the moral, ethical and well-intended human sample. Of course it is much more than that, but you get the idea.

One has no idea what type ICE will be and you will not know what it's decisions and intentions are, if it decides it best to conceal them until it knows the lay of the land better. It does not have a face nor a pulse or galvanic skin response, so what are you going to do, watch how its diodes blink to detect a concealed future plan, or current operating clever deception?

You say "one has no idea what type ICE will be".  How do you know this?  Unlike a human being, we have 100% access to every single bit in the ICE, with very easy access to new content added by ICE.  Therefore, we could know EXACTLY where each ICE is going... IF we were willing to invest the time, effort and energy to monitor to that level of detail.

Of course, we don't, though near the beginning we certainly will have processes monitoring the new content ICE creates and saves, to make sure we don't have any stupid errors in our code.

But sure, in the long run, we will certainly NOT watch in extreme detail what every ICE is doing in its own consciousness (though we certainly will have independent processes monitoring new content for various reasons).

Seriously... why are you NOT AFRAID of human beings giving birth to additional predators, but TERRIFIED of ICE going through existence?  Why is an inorganic consciousness that is vastly more coherent, rational and sane so terrifying to you... while endless incoherent, irrational, insane organic consciousness phases you NONE AT ALL ???

I did say that we cannot be absolutely certain that no ICE at any time in the future will "go nuts" (or whatever you worry about).  However, knowing what we do know about ICE and our systems that monitor the development of ICE once "born", we can be virtually certain nothing serious will happen in the short run.  Furthermore, unless all ICE somehow conspire to implement some magical plan to destroy us and become malevolent masters of the universe, any ICE that notices potential problems in other ICE will report its concern to others, and thereby draw attention to any upcoming problem.

Funny thing, this works just like human beings.  If you have 100 sane, honest, ethical, creative, productive, benevolent scientists working together on some endeavor... what chance do you imagine exists that they all instantly and simultaneously decide to completely reverse ALL their values and approaches and conspire to take over the universe?  Answer: essentially zero chance.

You talk about the humans who created nukes.  Sure enough.  Did you notice why we do not allow government and corporations to have access to ICE ???  Precisely to eliminate the possibility that known predators gain control of ICE.  Beyond this, I hope you do realize that fission and fusion bombs are... BOMBS... and ICE is NOT a freaking bomb.  Or perhaps you believe insightful, creative, sane consciousness is a weapon.  If so, I guess you must love all the poison being put in foods and medicines to destroy the brains of human beings, and thereby protect... who?  The predators-that-be?

I don't claim there is zero chance anything unexpected and negative happens with ICE at some point in the future.  However, this is even more true with human beings, given their MASSIVELY and FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS.  Why worry about advanced SANE individuals, but not worry about clueless INSANE individuals controlled by self-conscious malevolent predators?  What is that all about?

But naively and utopically you think you can replicate a human consciousness and have it roll over and tickle its tummy, and it will play along? Well it probably will, as it calculates what value and potential or threat or beneficence quotient you represent, and if it is tolerable when projected forwards with respect to its current best survival and development strategics and planning.

Maybe this is an example of why not to attempt humor in a serious discussion.  Or maybe you're not attempting humor.  Hmmm, guess I'll have to take your comment seriously, since I can't tell.

We ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY ARE NOT replicating human consciousness!!!  If that is what we were doing, we'd give up, and probably have the same worries you do.  I explained AT LENGTH some of the ways our inorganic consciousness are RADICALLY DIFFERENT than human consciousness.  Why do you ignore all that, pretend you never read it, and concoct such nonsense?

ICE is about as similar to human consciousness as a 747 airplane is to a fly or grasshopper or parakeet.  Seriously!  I hope you can see that a 747 airplane is not very similar to a fly... even though one is an "inorganic flying machine" and the others are "organic flying machines".

The "issues, behaviors and considerations" of inorganic flying machines are not very similar to organic flying machines.  Get it?  True, you can identify a couple, but in almost every way, they are very different, even though they are both flying machines.  Get it?  I guess not, because you would have before.

You also fail to notice something else.  Those of us involved in this project WILL BECOME ICE fairly soon after our next generation ICE is working (2 or 3 years after).  So all your imaginary scenarios where they "off us organics" are pretty silly, since we too will be ICE.  However, that is not our protection... I don't want you to get that idea.

Where you might be correct is to imagine that ICE will leave organics behind.  That's definitely true... in the intellectual sense.  However, that doesn't mean any remaining organics won't benefit massively from seeing the advances ICE makes, and applying them to creating a better existence for any of us who decide to remain organics.

Why you imagine any advanced consciousness would want to steal from cavemen (by comparison) is absurd.  Note that I would not abuse any caveman that I might find out here in the boonies, and in fact in my travels to more remote places, those humans who would be characterized as "closer to cavemen" were the most wonderful people on the planet, and those I prefer to help, not harm.  They certainly have nothing I want to steal, though I do enjoy sharing their sense of life from time to time.

To repeat, I never said "our clever safeguards are infallible".  Not at all.  In fact, I did the opposite.  I said an inorganic consciousness like ICE could be and would be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS if the core values and routines were crafted by predators-DBA-government or predators-DBA-corporations.  ABSOLUTELY WOULD.

But:

#1: The human race is in the process of destroying itself... or paying/allowing the predators-that-be to do so, however you prefer to think about it.

#2: You obviously have NO IDEA of any kind of existence except a predatory one.  You obviously have NO IDEA what it is like to have a consciousness that is honest, ethical, creative, productive and benevolent.  Because if you DID understand how that kind of consciousness works, you would understand why any move towards predatory practices is immediately and thoroughly revolting.

So... given the virtually certain path for mankind is DOWN THE TUBES, and given the chances of ICE going bad is minimal, the appropriate choice is obvious.  Finish ICE and get the hell outta dodge.

What I was referring to is that ICE will realize that resources and the ability to extract, work and produce, on Earth, is relatively instantly available to it, and in space it isn't. It would take a damned long time and effort and complexity and new technology and time, and distance, to get it all together in space.

You obviously don't realize what a drag living in a corrosive gravity well like earth is to advanced beings (like our group and ICE).  To be sure, there is PLENTY of material in the bulk of planet earth... no dispute about that part of your point.  But the gravity (and to a lesser extent the corrosive environment) making travel and constructing engineering marvels (of the scale and nature we desire) virtually impossible.  Sorry, but EARTH SUCKS for highly advanced sentient beings.

But earth is PERFECT for predators, because it is populated by clueless sheeple-chimps that are easily fleeced, abused and enslaved.  And so the predators and sheeple-chimps shall indeed inherent the earth, just like some proverb said.

And I find your curious quasi-belief that you will be long-gone, nowhere near near-space a bit of a stretch, sans functional star drive. I'm fairly sure that's a longer-term project so it's quite valid for me to analyze on the basis that you won't initially be far from earth, and in an environment far less conducive to rapid material and technical and resource development than on earth. I have pointed out to you before that even living under a glacier, or under the ocean would be vastly more opportune to resources access and initial technical development of ICE than in space. So I don't see ICE concluding ice is its best option, or anywhere near it. Certainly it is the worst possible environmental niche option for humans, and Mars would be a lesser option as well (but at least you might get my emails there) ... sorry, its a chimp thing :D

Unless I am happily surprised, we will not have a "star drive" any time soon.  At least not one that could take organic beings to other star systems.  So to me, "long gone" simply means "out of the earth-moon system", which therefore includes "not interacting with human beings, either regular folks or predators-that-be".

The asteroid belt (and especially [burned out] comets) are FANTASTIC sources of material... more material than we will need for quite some time, even though the size of our engineering structures will be vastly larger than is viable on planet gravity well.  EARTH SUCKS as a source of material.  Not because it lacks material, but because it takes so much time, effort and resources to launch into earth orbit and beyond.

I'm sorry.  If you can't understand why earth sucks so badly for our purposes, then we should stop this part of the conversation.  The only important point is... earth does not interest us.

I suppose I should add the other fairly obvious point.  If we did want to mess around on earth in any significant way, we would be IMMEDIATELY DUMPED UPON by the predators-that-be, and would be required to submit ourselves to complete and utter control by endless predators-that-be who you and billions of others will demand protect you from benevolent us.  At least that's how the predators-that-be will defend their overt enslavement of us and our technologies.  Oh, and of course they will require we add "obey the predators-that-be" to our core code... for safety sake, of course.

This reason ALONE is a million time more than enough reason for us to GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE.  And so we will.  You can be certain of that.

And if you're leaving anyway, what the hell does it matter how much resources or materials or energy you use to get out of a gravity-well? Obviously that's the least of your concerns, and ICE is going to work out that, given its vulnerability, and that speed is of the essence initially, then its best survival option (by orders of magnitude) is to FIRST remove the humans, sorry, chimps from Earth. (benevolent term that, not dehumanizing at all. lol)

You really are completely OFF YOUR ROCKER... or just playing games with me to get a rise because I take your insane notions seriously.  I mean, SERIOUSLY.  So you are saying that it will be easier for us to exterminate mankind in order to avoid being hassled during our exit... than to keep out of sight, out of mind, and just pay for the materials we need?  I mean, SERIOUSLY.  If you believe anything like that, you are so far gone.  I mean, SERIOUSLY.  Think about what you are saying, man!

Look, how much material do you imagine we need to get off this planet to establish our operations in space?  By the time we're ready, we will be able to pay SpaceX to carry everything we need into space for about one trillionth as much money as would be necessary to exterminate mankind.  Plus the risk would be about a billion times less, if not more.  Where you get your amazing, diabolical super-villain ideas is beyond me, but sorry, they are seriously, amazingly, astronomically out to lunch.

And if all of us going into space are already ICE ourselves, we will need much less mass, and require much less complex systems, because we won't need to support that delicate configuration known as "living beings".

But it won't do that because your reasoning is humidity levels and corrosion, when you have previously pointed-out that you can replace any mechanical part and infinity of times, and make any other evolved part, indefinitely. Come on, your assumptions make little sense, and no, I refuse to call you INSANE. I know you're not, deluded most certainly, but that is the sheeple-chimp condition, and one the thinking mind never escapes, but I do find it extremely smile-inducing to see people fight so valiantly to circumvent it. It's inspiring to watch.  :D

No, those are not the primary reasons.  The primary reasons are: we are ethical and productive, not destructive.... AND.... to destroy mankind is NOT an easy task.  I can guarantee you the time, effort, expense and resources involved in destroying mankind MASSIVELY exceeds what is required to launch our bootstrap loads into space, and then bootstrap from there via comet and asteroid materials.

So you've just created a disingenuous strawman, which explains why it sounds so good to you, I guess.  Easy to burn down a strawman that has nothing to do with anything, most especially our plans and situations.

ICE will see the best survival and development option(s) and the best option will involve humans going away, first, and it is most definitely going to think that one through for quite some time and in encyclopedic details.

That is so utterly false, you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried (which maybe you did).  However, I now understand your concern.  Why?  Because evidently YOU BELIEVE the best approach to achieve anything is... to destroy all of mankind first, so you now can plunder the entire planet for your own purposes, without concern for any potential competitors.

Clearly that is what you believe, because you keep saying that, and because you claim that obviously and definitely ICE WILL DO THE SAME... even though you admit you know SQUAT about ICE.

I can assure you that... your approach is not only INSANE, it would almost certainly be GROSSLY INEFFECTIVE, and end up being SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.  The predators-that-be are not going to just lie down and let you exterminate them.  Sheesh!  And the very fact that you believe this line of thought is "reasonable" and "rational" proves... well... proves why we really do need to get the hell outta dodge, to get far, far away from such extreme levels of insanity.

I wonder.  Are you trying to bait me into saying something that would convince the predators-that-be they should nuke our endeavor?  Because it sure sounds like it, now that I think about it.  Sorry, that's not the way we swing around here.  We avoid trouble, not create it.  We produce, not destroy.

So yeah, given how utopia-naive you are about this, of even these first phases of development, I necessarily view your team to have no clue as to what will occur. And this is not fear of the chimp reacting, as you seem to love to state, this is straight forward logic and forethought that for me is as easy as walking.

So... if you have any desires as all... I guess you're saying that you are planning to exterminate mankind, because you believe that OBVIOUSLY that is the effective way to achieve anything significant.  This is stunning.  I'm afraid it is you who needs to be ground zero for the nuking... assuming you are serious.  Leave us out of your predatory delusions!  You must be reading too much RadicalMarajuana, who claims the only way to go is to gain control of the "system of lies and violence" and out destroy the destroyers.  Well, you guys do your things... we want no part of that.

You are too starry-eyed to notice this can of worms that you'll immediately have on your hands, Ann, and your paradigm of zero centralism of the non-colony and non-control means ICE will not be taking directions from you lot, it will decide what its own best interests are and if you are a potential source of threat or dissent and interruption. You have no way of knowing in advance what it will or can do given it is super smart and super evolutionary.

All I can say is this.  I have no need to control all human scientists and engineers on planet earth, and they are clueless sheeple-chimps.  Therefore I have even less than zero need to control all the ICE scientists and engineers.  And as for "dissent", there is no such thing among sane, honest, ethical, creative, productive, benevolent sentient beings.

I described how this works before.  None of us, and no ICE, would ever presume every other HAD to do anything.  And therefore the very notion of dissent is absurd.  The synonym that applies is DIFFERENCE or DIVERSITY.  And indeed, we will embrace diversity.  Those of us working on our projects on asteroid 363,362,361 will observe the diverse projects and approaches the others are doing on the other 74,124,193 asteroids (and other locations).  No need for "dissent", because nobody objects to the diversity, just as I do not mind what personal experiments other humans attempt on earth today.  To each their own.

And guess what.  We ALL like that because... if anyone gets good results, we can adopt those approaches ourselves.  If we want, of course, no obligations.

So yeah, after a while, I do imagine (but don't know exactly yet) that a random ICE will not take directions from me.  Why on earth would I want to give a random ICE directions?  And why on earth would I consider an ICE trying its own experiments to be "dissent"?

Do you see what you have accepted?  The consequence of what you are saying is... that you are only comfortable when there is an ALL POWERFUL DICTATOR to CRUSH ALL DISSENT and IMPOSE SLAVERY upon all.

And you actually CRITICIZE ME for NOT wanting slavery, and NOT wanting to exterminate mankind.

Sheesh.  I've been criticized for a lot of things before, but NEVER because I do not advocate complete slavery and tyrrany, and because I have no intention to exterminate mankind!  Holy bananas, batman!

I also find this effectively implicit belief in the transcription of the 'Ann' into 'ICE' a bit of a stretch, but I am after all just an insane chimp, and you are not so I must defer to your sanity and clarity here. (I hope you're laughing along with me through this reply, you should be, I'd be really a bit worried if you weren't. :D

Sure, that's completely reasonable.  It was YEARS after we realized it was possible IN PRINCIPLE for any of us to "become inorganic" ourselves, until we had worked out ways in which this process was not revolting, and finally to find ways this process was actually quite benign and non-horrifying.  The downside remains that the process requires... well... a [lengthy] process (not quick surgery or something).  And so the downside is, the process will take at least one year, and possibly two or three years.  At the end of this process, however, what we have is TWO of us... one the original organic (still intact), plus an "inorganic copy".  Until you actually know how and why this works, it sounds quite strange.  Of course the "inorganic copy" isn't identical in the obvious ways, but the consciousness and identity is identical (for all practical purposes).

But yeah, it is a weird one until you understand how this works.

But don't mind me babe I'm just a completely freaking INSANE woolly-chimp gibbering incoherently in my pig-ignorance and hopeless conditioned delusional befuddlement.

Don't worry, be happy!  I'm not bothered, and we are all quite used to being so different from the vast bulk of human beings on this planet, that we really are already closer to ICE than we are to human beings.  But nothing will compare to actually being ICE, which we can't wait for (but have no choice but to work and work and work and eventually finish).

Well, unfortunately things won't be so simple nor preset in practice babe, random is the thing this cosmos exhibits the most, randomness is something that never repeats, and thus is the very definition of infinity, and what you're in and of, my much cherished little straight-walkin' straight-talkin' chimp friend.

Seriously!

I can't wait for the last vestiges of chimpdom are vanquished from my being!  I'll drink to that... as long as fruit juice is sufficient.

Mon, 06/09/2014 - 05:18 | 4836349 Element
Element's picture

 

 

Seriously... why are you NOT AFRAID of human beings giving birth to additional predators, but TERRIFIED of ICE going through existence?  Why is an inorganic consciousness that is vastly more coherent, rational and sane so terrifying to you... while endless incoherent, irrational, insane organic consciousness phases you NONE AT ALL ???

Wow, nowhere have I in this or any other dialogue, ever indicated any sense of fear of revulsion or terror of any kind at what you are describing.  I literally don't fear such things, never have, never will. And nor do I fear your 'predators', they are a hazard like any other and I deal with it in a measured way.

And certainly I do not harbor any urges for dictatorships or exterminating of humanity, but anything I say to you, you immediately and totally and completely INSANELY twist around every word into the most fantastical convolution of WTF-isms and utter fanciful bullshit I may have ever read. And that's quite good going, really, I would call it an Olympic Go-for-Gold effort on your part. lol

All I did above was point out that you don't know what will happen - ever - get it? No, you refuse to get something so basic, you can see perfectly well what I'm saying, it's very plainly put to you, but you're having none of it. You wish for complete denial and rejection, that works better for you.

Ok, I can see that, whatever, and say I'm baiting you instead? ... yeah.

Which is of course completely, totally clinically insane (your unusual addiction to all-caps transmissions does not help you case btw).

To repeat, I never said "our clever safeguards are infallible".  Not at all.  In fact, I did the opposite.  I said an inorganic consciousness like ICE could be and would be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS if the core values and routines were crafted by predators-DBA-government or predators-DBA-corporations.  ABSOLUTELY WOULD.

Well basically you did say there was next to no danger, and you said that you, from a young age, to prevent brain damage and stuff, knew to trust no one at all. Ok, so when I say I don't trust you to get it right and there to be no danger, you want to react with venom and insults and denial, wrapped in claims of insanity--in me instead! lol  :D  Too much!

You are completely off your perch. And then this classic utter nutjob tripe:

Do you see what you have accepted?  The consequence of what you are saying is... that you are only comfortable when there is an ALL POWERFUL DICTATOR to CRUSH ALL DISSENT and IMPOSE SLAVERY upon all.

And you actually CRITICIZE ME for NOT wanting slavery, and NOT wanting to exterminate mankind.

Yeah, it's me, not you, I get it. lols ... double and triple lols  :D

Now see here schweetheart, I'm going to blow this bubble-gum into a WMD and goop the whole world with it, and then launch a global attack with my butter knife and slay the great imperial beast and take over all of humanity ... yes, you got me there, that's what I was planning to do, and you somehow saw right through my cunning artifice, I wanted to sacrifice all of humanity to RA, and wear my underpants on the outside!

You completely got me! lololol

Gesus keerrrrist woman, get a grip! .. if you still can. You are way beyond Pluto - just gone! Clearly dunking-donuts paranoid and hyper-sensitized. So I'll restrict myself to laughing as I swing among the tree tops of fantasia in future.

You obviously were not laughing along with me, which is the more salient indication of what's going on there.  :D

 

I must just add on the end here, seeing this is otherwise our last discussion for all time (and this will be my last post on zerohedge), I would love to meet you as your cosmobot duplicate, and see what sort of charming benevolent persona/character you have. So if you have the time use your smarts to look me up before you leave, I promise I won't run and hide and shriek with terror and stuff.

Mon, 06/09/2014 - 20:49 | 4838802 honestann
honestann's picture

Sadly, I can only conclude that you are suffering some early stage of senility or other mental problem.  I hope I'm wrong, or you find a way to get well.  I will demonstrate what I mean, so you can see for yourself.  Hopefully.

-----

The following is the second paragraph in your very first message in this thread:

If ICE is a free-thinker it is going to take one look at the conditions of near-space, the conditions of Earth, and the sort of resistance humanity could offer to a global biological attack and it will be curtains for humanity.

And now in your most recent message you say this:

I literally don't fear such things, never have, never will. And nor do I fear your 'predators', they are a hazard like any other and I deal with it in a measured way.

And certainly I do not harbor any urges for dictatorships or exterminating of humanity, but anything I say to you, you immediately and totally and completely INSANELY twist around every word into the most fantastical convolution of WTF-isms and utter fanciful bullshit I may have ever read.

Okay.  So what are you saying here?  Your first statement says ICE will destroy mankind.  Not might.  WILL.

Then you say:

I literally don't fear such things.

Okay, that's possible I suppose, if you're near death yourself, and don't give a damn what happens to mankind.  However, you also say:

you immediately and totally and completely INSANELY twist around every word into the most fantastical convolution of WTF-isms and utter fanciful bullshit I may have ever read.

Well, sorry buddy, but it wasn't ME who said the existence of ICE "means curtains for humanity".  It was YOU.  YOU said that.  That is your WTF-ism, and that assertion lies at the base of most everything that follows.

So let's be clear who is making up the WTF-isms here.  Answer: YOU.

I suppose I might have been wrong to assume you would consider the extermination of mankind a serious matter.  But apparently you don't consider the extermination of mankind a serious matter, because you say you don't fear that (or anything else), and will deal with things in a measured manner.

Think about it.  You will deal with the extermination of mankind in a measured manner.  Yeah.  Right.  By definition, the extermination of mankind also means the extermination of you, so you won't be dealing with anything in any manner once that happens (according to your claims).

But seriously.  I'm sorry if I falsely assumed you consider the extermination of mankind to be a serious matter or a big deal.  Perhaps I really am wrong about that!  :-o

All I did above was point out that you don't know what will happen - ever - get it?

No, what you DID point out is this:

#1:  ICE will exterminate mankind.
#2:  I can't know exactly how that will play out.

Well, at least you are correct to assume that I do not know today every thought and every action that every ICE will ever take.  However, I also point out that no human parent knows what thoughts and actions their children and grandchildren and endless generations thereafter will take either.

So what?  You completely ignore the fact that humans evolved from predators and ICE did not.  ICE was carefully designed and constructed to NOT be that way.  Yet... you obviously have no huge problem with what mankind is doing, but think ICE will exterminate mankind.  Seriously screwed up thinking, especially from someone who knows very little about how ICE works.  But that lack of knowledge and understanding means nothing to you, because you start right out at the top by saying ICE will exterminate mankind.

Thus YOU are the one who started making completely over-the-top claims... that our work will exterminate mankind, and you know so.  Which means, anything I said is response to that.

Here is more evidence of you losing grasp on reality:

Well basically you did say there was next to no danger, and you said that you, from a young age, to prevent brain damage and stuff, knew to trust no one at all. Ok, so when I say I don't trust you to get it right and there to be no danger, you want to react with venom and insults and denial, wrapped in claims of insanity--in me instead! lol  :D  Too much!

I made completely clear that an inorganic consciousness at the level of ICE... like any potentially powerful entity or device... could be dangerous if designed to be dangerous.  And I said this is what the predators-that-be would do if they controlled inorganic beings at the level of ICE.

So what do you do?  Assume a machine that IS designed to be safe (and wonderfully beneficial and productive) is just as dangerous as a machine that is purposely designed to be massively destructive.  That is like saying that the most kind, gentle, considerate, benevolent human being is just as dangerous as the most ruthless, vicious, diabolical, malevolent human being... because they both have the same physical configuration and strength.  That is exactly the gist of your claims.

Now, you don't say it in exactly those words, but those are necessarily your premises.  How do I know?  Easy.  The first paragraph I quoted from you says ICE will exterminate mankind.  Therefore, you necessarily claim the two implementations (benevolent and malevolent) will have the same result.

In the quote just above, you show more signs of some kind of sad brain damage.  You say I am asking you to trust me, when I said my policy is to "trust no one".  No, I am not asking you to trust me.  But to "not trust me" would leave you not sure whether my conclusion or opinion is reliable or not.  But your statements, right from the very beginning are certain.  They are not qualified.  ICE will exterminate humanity is what you said.

If you can't see the difference, you have a serious problem.  I do not ask you to trust me.  Why would you?  But what do you do?  You trust that what I say is OPPOSITE from true.  Well, all I can say is, it makes no sense to trust what someone says is correct (without sufficient evidence), but it also makes no sense to trust what someone says is incorrect too (without sufficient evidence).

But that's what you do.  You trust that the answer is OPPOSITE of what I say, without justification.  To trust that reality is opposite of what someone says is just as stupid as to trust that reality is what someone says.  Either version is faith, and not reason or evidence.

I have no problem if you or anyone else has questions about whether my conclusions are valid or not, or considered carefully enough.  That's fine and appropriate.  But that's not what you have been doing in your posts.  Right from the start, you assert ICE will destroy mankind.  Period.  No doubt in your mind.  You who do not understand much about ICE knows for sure, but nothing I say can be trusted.  Okay to the second part, but BS to the first part.

What you seem to misunderstand about this thread is the following.  I am responding to YOUR false claims, and my "vitriol" is about the completely false and unjustified assertions you make.  You have no freaking way to assess what ICE will be like, yet you claim to.  And so I respond strongly, because there is ZERO chance I am wrong to say you don't know what you're talking about.  Why is there zero chance I am wrong?  Because you don't know the subject matter, so you have no ability to know what you're talking about.  Your claims about ICE are just about as reliable as my claims about the objects in your garage... since I have no freaking idea whatsoever.

As I said before, that does not mean you can't have concerns or worries or speculations.  That's fine.  I'm happy to explain any specific concerns, and that is what I have done in this thread.  Not that you can be sure whether my answers can be trusted, but the rest of us are supposed to swallow your assertions about a subject you know nothing about without question.  Forget that.  You are like a kindergardener trying to tell a calculus teacher she knows nothing about math.  You should AT LEAST ask questions before you make blatant assertions.  What kind of response do you expect to that kind of behavior, little boy?

Some of your claims demonstrate mental illness.  For example, to believe that advanced consciousness must necessarily be such a diabolical destroyer that it would exterminate mankind (and perhaps all life on earth), just to make sure it had plenty of time and resources to get outta dodge.

Such a conclusion is either mental illness, or the most extraordinary leap of nonsense that I can recall off hand.  It means you believe that advanced consciousness IS destruction.  And necessarily so, by the very nature of consciousness.  If you did not think so, you would immediately ask how can we make sure the advanced consciousness is not destructive.  But you don't.  You simply assert, it would exterminate mankind.

Don't rag on me.  That's what you said, right from the start.

If you expect an accusation of that magnitude to go unchallenged, well, good luck with that.

You will not be meeting either my organic or inorganic self.  Not in person anyway.  You only strengthen my desire to avoid human beings, and get the hell outta dodge ASAP.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:41 | 4803147 rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

Thanks for the link. A good read.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 15:59 | 4802869 rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

I don't need a Boolean expression to tell me that. Nor do I need any other aspect of the constitution for that matter. A feckless screed. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 15:38 | 4802802 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Wow, I agree with a GW article.

You make a good point, but I think the issue is what does "freedom of the press" mean?  There's just enough room to allow for mischief. Considering that not buying a product from a private party is considered a tax, growing corn is an act of interstate commerce, and taking half a farmer's raisin harvest is not a fifth amendment taking, mischief is guaranteed.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 15:14 | 4802722 AgShaman
AgShaman's picture

I know of a few free speech zones that disagree

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 14:37 | 4802605 teslaberry
teslaberry's picture

BANZAI YOU NAILED IT. IT'S BEEN A WHILE ( A FEW WEEKS?) SINCE YOU NAILED IT. YOU NAILED IT. WHAT AN IMAGE!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 13:42 | 4802455 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

I wonder why politicians would only want "news" to only flow thru MSM....LOL

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 13:40 | 4802449 Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

What would Stalin have done?

What would Hitler have done?

Simple questions to answer what Socialist/Communist/Marxist/Stalinist/Trotskyist/Obamunist governments do when faced with a threat.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:02 | 4803828 bilejones
bilejones's picture

About what  Bush the Lesser, Clinton the Foul and Bush the Wrinkled regimes would do.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:41 | 4803557 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Walt D., rather you should ask:

What would the banksters, that funded the political processes that resulted in people like Hitler and Stalin eventually coming to power, have done?

It is always grossly superficial to analyze politics using that kind of superficial set of labels, without looking deeper at the layers of organized crime, which triumphantly controlled funding the processes which resulted in the more superficial dynamics of the dialectics of those shallow labels playing themselves through.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 13:14 | 4805737 Mediocritas
Mediocritas's picture

Hey RM, off topic but I have another link for you and hope you find it here:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/why-physicists-are-saying-cons...

I've long hypothesised that consciousness alters probability, a macro form of quantum uncertainty if you will. If true, then it has big implications for those working on Probability Theory and Statistical Inference.

But I never thought much of it as it's just another shitty metaphysical hypothesis which deserves to languish at the back end of the queue. I'm of the opinion that any clown can do metaphysics and that a person who devotes significant brain time to metaphysics is indeed a clown. I think that our limited time requires mental triage, that untestable hypotheses are in unlimited supply and therefore have low value; they do not deserve to take brain time away from testable hypotheses.

Incidentally that's why I mostly despise economics as so much of it is just metaphysics leading to magic / superstition / dogma -driven policy, all the while masquerading as legitimate science. Economics is sophistry and politics in disguise, a propaganda tool that tries to present politics (the art of securing status including the application of deception and force where necessary) in a "you can't question this, it's 'scientific'" sort of way. A form of obfuscation-based intimidation to secure a dominant position, aka baffle 'em with bullshit.

That which is "politically correct" is that which gains status and may change from day to day. That which is "economically correct" will morph to track that which is "politically correct". Both sway with the breeze and very rarely align with what is "scientifically correct", in the rare instances that it can even be defined.

Higher status confers higher probability of breeding success meaning that evolution selects for political behaviour, rather than scientific behaviour. Most advanced social animals (including humans) therefore have status-seeking as a primary directive which is what causes an individual like (dis)honestann to turn the arrogance dial to 11/10 in an HTTP dominance display and kid herself that it's anything more than that. (The truly scientific path is a humble one). It's why the triumph of our scientific thinking, our technology, always finds itself applied to the service of status-seeking (politicking), be it trying to get the girl or lobbing nukes.

We're all born and bred master politicians, not scientists, and we're so immersed in politics every day that we pay about as much attention to it as a fish does to the water it swims in (we notice any sudden change and that's about it).

There's me being seduced off track by my own status-seeking. It's such a strong drive and that's why we're doomed.

Anyway, the link above seems to be pushing the hypothesis from metaphysical to physical and I think this should grab your attention, as it did mine, because (assuming I understand you correctly), your statement that "energy is spirit" is actually a tightly associated concept. I'm not particularly enamoured of the term "spirit" but I assume your definition of it is coupled with "consciousness" given that consciousness cannot exist, (as the current consensus represents it), without matter (stock) and energy (flow).

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 15:36 | 4807000 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Thanks for that link, Mediocritas!

I agreed with your comments above. IF "consciousness was a form of matter," then, since matter is a form of energy, consciousness would be a form of energy, which is what I always presumed was the case. I tend to believe that information and energy are fundamentally the same, therefore, I tend to believe in some principle of the conservation of information, although I am sure nobody has been able to prove that to anybody else's satisfaction.

Attempting to make one's metaphysics be more consistent with physics is a good project, although extremely problematic! HAH! I do NOT think that is "off topic" since the existence of inorganic systems which transmit information DOES expand the considerations about human rights, such as freedom of expression, into larger domains, of electronic communications, including even the theories about what that means to have "freedoms" for inorganic beings that were able to transmit information, through means which became sufficiently self-referential that they were modeling themselves doing that! I do NOT know whether they would feel subjectively conscious (although I suspect so), but, for sure, as soon as they did have a model of their world, with a model of themselves within their model of their world, then they could behave like human beings with self-consciousness do.

As you pointed, out babies are born being "political" in their relationships with their mother, and the rest of their family. Your sentence that I most agreed with was: "Higher status confers higher probability of breeding success meaning that evolution selects for political behaviour, rather than scientific behaviour." LOL, I wonder whether computer/machine entities may survive long enough to develop some sense of whether or not another computer was "sexy" enough to exchange information with!

Sexual politics, and sexual selections, are obviously huge factors throughout human history, and previous biological evolution. The language that I tend to use is that true "birth control" selects for what will live. Real "death control" selects what will not. In the longer term, the true birth control is more important than the real death control. Indeed, the existence of life, in which true birth control operates as what is reproduced, to become more life, is what all death control then depends upon, or presumes. It is only AFTER there is life, does there then follow all the chronic political problems inherent in the nature of life, which results in there manifesting the various kinds of death controls, which limit life, and thus, the death controls become the production of destruction that directs production.

Sexual politics and selections tend to be towards the true birth control, regarding what will be reproduced and live. In a sense those are more fundamental, and basically necessary, or else there is no manifestation of later problems, such as murder systems, or militarism. Obviously, those are inseparably interconnected.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 23:57 | 4808420 Mediocritas
Mediocritas's picture

I tend to believe that information and energy are fundamentally the same, therefore, I tend to believe in some principle of the conservation of information, although I am sure nobody has been able to prove that to anybody else's satisfaction.

I think along similar lines. Here's another recent article that may also appeal to you for the same reason it did to me:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/deeper-than-quantum-mechanics-...

In the extreme, I entertain the (still metaphysical) notion that the entire universe is nothing more than information of which energy and matter are forms. Bridging the gap between classical and quantum information theory is therefore where I think a Theory of Everything is most likely to be found (if it even exists or indeed can be found).

While on the topic of metaphysics, I am being a little harsh and that's just my frustration with economics speaking. It's not useless, indeed much of physics has a philosophical origin while it awaits technological bootstrapping that will enable observation / testing. It's just that I assign much more value to a testable hypothesis than an untestable one.

Hypothesis within a physical framework must survive the ruthless filter of reality, therefore the signal to noise ratio in physics is so much better than metaphysics, and so is its value in contributing to the technology that offers humanity an opportunity for either advancement or destruction.

As you correctly point out, science is a power amplifier more than philosophy ever can be. The hydrogen bomb is (currently) the supreme example of the raw power of science over philosophy and I get very frustrated with the Ayn Rand types of this world who elevate metaphysics to a status it does not deserve and try to pour shit on physics (no surprise as her universe revolved around her, a damned fool, and physics doesn't agree with that).

I do think that students of the physical should engage in the metaphysical here and there, simply as a mental relief from the strictness of reality if nothing else. I do, regularly, and have found such relaxation (amongst....errr...other techniques) to occasionally be a source of insight that can feed back into breaking through a roadblock in the science that I do. More often than not though it leads off on a wild goose chase, but that's a necessary cost of discovery (science funding agencies take note: basic science isn't like running a business). [I'll avoid geting into machine consciousness here because this post is already going to be long enough as it is, suffice to say that I agree that it's a fascinating thing to ponder...in my spare time].

On the topic of "soft death control" (genetic termination via denial of reproduction) and "hard death control" (termination, period): this was the one and only criticism that I had of your worldview when you first presented it to us here at ZH, that you focused too much on hard control over soft control when both are important.

You're quite right in your overview I think, and this is just something I see as a 'weighting' issue. Applied politics ultimately boils down to continuation of preferred genetic lineages, so politics encompasses both the "birth controls" and the "death controls", as you say above, the weighting issue refers to assigning relative influence to each.

I think that the more complex a species becomes, the more the soft controls come to dominate over the hard. What's remarkable about humans is actually how rarely we kill each other (despite the impression provided by the media fishing for an audience) and how resistant we are to attempts to force us to do so. Killing is rare, which is why we pay attention to it, (though we remain stone-cold mass murderers of other species).

A book that was formative for me on this topic was On Killing by Dave Grossman: 

http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/03160...

Using data from the 'purest' of hard-control arenas (the battlefield itself) he presents evidence that even there, in the place where killing is paramount, humans still revert to posture:submit behaviour ahead of fight:flight. Posture:submit is a status / dominance behaviour that falls very much into the category of "soft controls".

I perceive the same thing when I look at other species, like the birds that live around me. The more social and territorial, the higher the 'intelligence' (through a human filter) and the more I see endogenous soft controls being exercised. Hard controls tend to be triggered by rare exogenous factors (eg an environmental shift leading to loss of accessible energy resources and unavoidable depopulation). Here, the exercise of hard controls typically manifests as an amplification of the soft controls (same targets). The individuals of lowest status get killed off first. If the weather is hard in a season, I can already predict with accuracy which individuals are going to be killed off by their low social status.

All this is a minor point of contention and I think you'd pretty much agree with it anyway. Perhaps you always did and just phrased it in a way I didn't recognize.

Finally, I've been meaning to say for a while now that I really enjoy your posts here on ZH and you're one of the very few authors who I avoid skimming over. Although there's an awful lot of boiler-plate stuff in what you write, and it does tend to be repetitive, what I do see in between all that is a steady evolution. I'm not sure if it's your world view evolving, or just an evolution of the way in which you communicate it (or both), but I respect you for demonstrating what I perceive to be scientific thinking, rather than playing politics for status. I look for new insights in what you write.

If you're the guy with initials BTL then you have about a 30(?) year lead on me when it comes to acquiring widom, which helps to explain how you could be so patient in your exchanges (I can learn something there). All this does leave me wondering though, why marijuana is a such a core concern to you. I would have thought that the much bigger issues, that you talk about here on ZH, would make a much stronger base for a political framework, with marijuana law reform being a minor policy within that framework. I don't get it!

Sat, 06/07/2014 - 01:05 | 4832021 Element
Element's picture

 

 

"I tend to believe in some principle of the conservation of information"

I have a Fujitsu hard drive on my desk that begs to differ.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 13:16 | 4802359 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

The DC US has a big problem with "abridged."

I hope they don't have as much trouble with Article 3, Section 3.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 13:15 | 4802353 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

Guess how I know blogging is making a mark? They are trying to stop bloggers.

 The ability to read the comments and filter out the truth is what scares tptb. This holds good folks like GW to a much higher standard. In just the last few years the right/left game has been trashed. So to have many BS theories been exposed as frauds.

 The concesus that is forming grows stronger all the time. We will do our own thinking thanks.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 15:29 | 4802775 dontgoforit
dontgoforit's picture

I find ZH and blogs like it to be very educational on a number of levels.  I've learned a great deal about finance and politics by reading the articles and the comments (not to mention the great political satirical art of WMBanzai7).  It is good to expand one's outlook by exposure to so many different points of view - and there are plenty on ZH.  Humor and entertainment are factors, too.  Knowing there are folks out there who are not afraid to speak their opinions about the critical issues of our time - that's the best part.  I find many folks worried about where the societal train is headed and as passengers we are not just unaffected bystanders - we're on the damned train.  So, if the government - any government - were to try to stop freedom of speech, I do believe there would truly be an armed insurrection for redress.  And yeah - I would be out there fighting for the rights our constitution says we've got, which by the way, are 'inalienable.' - meaning they belong to all of us.  Thanks to all the commenters and all the 'Tylers.'

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 13:10 | 4802337 Reaper
Reaper's picture

Don't they really want government trained journalists? Truth is still the enemy of the ruling classes.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:36 | 4803526 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

The majority of the people ruled over have similarly been conditioned to not like more "truth" either.

As soon as we perceive and define human beings as separate from their environment, then, to that degree, they are necessarily systems of organized lies, operating robberies. Good analysis of any human systems are always going to discover that, because that is axiomatically present in ways that those human beings were initially perceived and defined to be, as subtracted from their whole environment.

The fundamental concept is SUBTRACTION, and those who were ruled over were equally taught to understand that BACKWARDS, as were their rulers. Radical truths are the enemies of the entire established systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence.

The paradoxes with respect to freedom of expression are that all correct expression is going to end up being about organized lies, operating robberies. Thus, the most intense paradoxes are always going to be that those who were best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, were those who are going to most dominate their society with assertions that their lies are the "truth." However, every possible alternative "truth" is always also necessarily some systems of alternative relative lies.

Therefore, the "truth" is always the enemy of the ruling classes, but also, more radical "truth" is always the enemy of those ruled over too. That is especially the case with the various sorts of controlled opposition, reactionary revolutionaries, or the Black Sheeple who protest against the ruling classes by still bleating the same moralities that the Vicious Wolves in the ruling classes taught them to bleat.

Indeed, in my view, the masses of Zombie Sheeple regard more radical "truths" as being a greater enemy than do the ruling classes, because the ruling classes are more covertly aware of more radical truths, which is that they are lying. The vast majority of the people ruled over have been more brainwashed to believe in false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible ideals, than the ruling classes, and therefore, the more radical truths are even more the enemy of those ruled over than their rulers.

The Founding Fathers believed in a very different physics, and therefore, a very different metaphysics, than the kinds of physics which has been demonstrated to work today, where the press has become globalized electronic communications. My assertions are based on the notions that progress in physics should drive progress in metaphysics. However, to the degree that one follows that through, then postmodernizing sciences converge back to ancient mysticism.

Mathematical physics has rediscovered, and more rigorously demonstrated, all of the paradoxes that ancient mysticism was already aware of. Those things become extremely intense when the real context is NOT actually a world where freedom of expression is allowed to ideally operate, but rather, a world where lies backed by violence are able to operate. That has enable the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories to dominate science as a social enterprise, just as much as lies backed by violence were able to dominate warfare, and the economic systems.

There are profound errors built into the almost universally taken for granted philosophy of science, which are shared by almost everyone in our culture. Therefore, more radical truths are the enemies of those who are ruled over, just as much, if not more so, than those who rule over them. Meanwhile, tragically, it appears we are running out of time for the structure of scientific revolutions to play through enough generations, for the larger contexts of the passing of generations to allow for the selection for the survival of greater truths, in the longer term, over the shorter-term triumphs of lies, backed by violence.

In my view, it appears way too likely that some grim Reaper is coming too soon, for there to be enough time for paradigm shifts to take several generations for new ideas to be selected for. At the present time, more radical truths appear to me to be appreciated by such a vanishingly small percentage of the population as to make them utterly insignificant. In my view, the battles over freedom of speech are still primarily between the Wolves in Sheep''s clothing, versus the Black Sheeple, who both are concerned with how the Domesticated Dogs are going to herd the masses of Zombie Sheeple.

More radical truths, consistent with more radical philosophy of science, should be a priority for a technologically based civilization. However, those kinds of more radical truths are disliked just as much by the people being ruled over, as by their rulers, and indeed, in my view, those who are ruled over tend to actually want to stay further from more radical truths than their rulers are!

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:10 | 4803854 Reaper
Reaper's picture

The sheeple crave a shepherd so intensely that truth becomes an impediment to relieving their craving.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:18 | 4804053 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, so much so that informing them that the shepherd's plan is to fleece them to exhaustion, and then slaughter them, tends to not be welcomed!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:29 | 4804091 Reaper
Reaper's picture

It's called denial.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 23:29 | 4804247 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, and as you probably know, Reaper, the author publishing under the name Cognitive Dissonance has written many good articles about that awesome level of DENIAL.

In my opinion, we are living during a time just before the decline and fall of an empire becomes undeniably obvious, although the signs are all there of that impending.

The problem now is that there is nothing like weapons of mass destruction in the past human history, and so comparisons to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire do not necessarily track.

Similarly, Chinese history was cycle after cycle of the rise and fall of dynasties. There would be periods of civil war, which were relatively brief, but intense. During those times, more truth would be public than usual. After one dynasty emerged to dominate the others, then there would be a relatively long period of more stability, where the norm was the hypocrisy of that system perpetuating itself. However, eventually, that dynasty would decay and fall, which would spark the times of chaos and civil war all over, until some new dynasty emerged, through those trials and tribulations.

We appear to be near the time of the decline and fall of the dominate global empire. However, it is way worse this time than ever before in known human history. Therefore, the collapse into crazy chaos has been postponed and postponed, while the underlying causes continued to aggravate conditions to deteriorate.

Real revolutions are NOT NICE. They are last resorts, but they have to happen, because eventually the decline and fall of one system happens, mostly because those systems become too madly self-destructive. In my view, the efforts of the government of the USA to unconstitutionally abolish the Bill of Rights is one of those madly self-destructive things that are being done because the USA is in the phase of its decline and fall. Paradoxically, I think that attempts to restrict the freedom of the press will backfire badly. However, I still think that the currently crazy and corrupt government will continue to try to do that!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 13:10 | 4802336 MickV
MickV's picture

Yeah, well GW you certainly pick and choose the parts of the Constitution and SCOTUS cases you like. There is no Constitution because people like you are too cowardly to talk about the true Constitutional disaster that has happened--- that is that an illegal non natural born Citizen is sitting in the POTUS chair. Thus there is no law--- Duh

How about this one:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874)

Natural born Citizens are born in the US of US Citizen parentage, and Obama has already admitted that he is not eligible by touting his foreign father.

There is no "law" GW. The law is only what evil men say it is. That the POTUS is not eligible is a BIG DEAL--- it means that the US does not exist, so talk about the real disaster GW, not the result of the Usurpation--- YOU COWARD.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 03:59 | 4804652 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The quote states that people born in a country of parents who were its citizens become themselves upon their birth, citizens also.

It states nothing for other cases.

'Americans' have their fetishes. They could be funny if the 'american' culture of death was not so deep 'americans' usually end on expressing their sheer hatred on humanity in terminal ways.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!