Bringing intelligence to America

Great Debates
161

“I’m also interested to know if humour (essentially, I suppose, welcomed deliberate deception and wilful temporary delusion) will be able to find a place in your new regime.”

My regime? I think that all behaviors which focus on certain principles are the only behaviors which derive any value from systems of rationality; and conversely which systems only derive rationality. It’s a bit like the butterfly wing-flap in Chile affecting the weather in Antartica…

A joke one place; kills someone, somewhere else.
People who want to tell jokes, basically torture others
People who don’t, invent things.
I tend to think it’s that simple. There are still numerous ways that someone can operate inconsistantly without ever laughing; yet the mechanism of laughter itself (while amusing) is a function of ignorance; and inversely expressed with: consistency.
The question is, “Do I think everybody should be or needs to be consistent?”

My answer is, “No”
You don’t have to be anything.
However, if you plan to comprehend how to understand even a few simple things in relation to the external world, and not be an absolute hypocrite; with no logical reason to do, think, say or recieve anything at all from the perspective of rationality; there are certain things you must do.

You don’t have to do anything, but once you choose to do something; you do have to engage in very specific behavior to allow that to occur. I will be quite frank. Living inconsistently is easy; I personally consider it retirement - and I see people claim it from the time they are children, not cognitively progressing from the cognition of infancy. It takes a lot of work to comprehend “this”; most of that work is in the form of existential discipline which most would consider a form of martyrdom.

In actuality; this process is the only aspect of us that accomplishes anything ‘human’. It’s what puts the T.V. and the remote in your hand; how one uses those tools determines how well they understand the properties which allow one to even interact with them in existence. It also determines whether someone is picking up the torch and continuing the work, able to push the envelope of rationality; or if they slouch into the welfare system which is pleasure and cognitive space given the time to form from the hard labor of rationality. I personally think that the human race is so far from an existential retirement; that people who do laugh would probably commit suicide if they had any comprehension of its impact on negating not only their own; but all of human value and progress.

If you want to build a particle replicator; or omni-scient AI your going to need to be much more logically consistent than to laugh.
Laughing doesn’t solve “meaning of life” problems - logically, it invokes a suicide solution to all actions of the beholder.

I do act counter-intelligently to this degree:

I don’t believe that people have to do anything, in and of itself.
However, I plan on taking the time to document how to discipline logical consistency. If it is well enough designed, it will be undeniable to even one person for any circumstance. I think the burden is in my favor, because I don’t believe it possesses a corruption. Someone can always bribe a human being with $300,000,000 to say “I don’t believe it at all”… the standard of truth is that it applies so much existential pressure that this degree of corruption is impossible; and as such the truth with be undeniable and impermiable to the extent that it is translated.

For those who can’t understand the language or conceptual framework; reasonable doubt is always afforded for their potentiality of decision making capability.

-Justhink

162

Bummer. There goes my primary way of dealing with the universe.

**

As long as we’re making unsupported assertions, I’ll suggest that more suicides have been prevented by laughing than caused by it.

163

“”“As long as we’re making unsupported assertions, I’ll suggest that more suicides have been prevented by laughing than caused by it.”""

(on unsupported assumptions) Laughter brings about existential suicide; without disabling the body. You can kill rationality and maintain the body from the welfare of systems devised rationally to allow the process. This would be considered ‘insanity’ to the extent that it reduces to being an existing person who states that “nothing exists” as their primary belief. That which continues to flow to them, is considered irrational distribution - for to suggest otherwise is not funny; as rationality is defined as only having one conclusion.

-Justhink

164

Justhink said:

(My bolding)

In other words you plan to start from the known and progress into the unknown (which is what I said, no?).

But you don’t don’t need to test every single possible logical statement. Eg it is possible that eating grass will cure the common cold. I daresay there have been no exhaustive scientific tests to see whether eating grass cures the common cold.

The point is: we don’t need to test it because we can make an educated guess based on what we know about grass and what we know about colds.

I tend to agree with this insofar as it relates to Jim Carrey.

I have often wondered about this myself. Gorillas in the wild just tend to laze about picking leaves off the trees when they feel peckish. Humans seem to be the only type of great ape that see the need to work constantly. But then I suppose we have a restless brain.

165

Well, it’s going to be a pretty bleak place, this rational world of yours Justhink; you’re talking about a plan to reduce complex, beautiful (and there can be beauty in assymetry) and sometimes contradictory individuals to nothing more than machines that blandly process logic but will be incapable of actually enjoying its benefits. What is the point?

“Enjoyment is irrelevant, humour is irrelevant; you will be assimilated.”

Feh! not today, thank you.

166

Oh I forgot to ask you Justhink, when you say:

Are you talking about Meme Theory as propounded by Dennett, Dawkins etc?

167

I wondered that, or if he is subscribing to some theory about ideas being (disembodied)entities in their own right.

168

I still don’t see why you keep banging on about certain behaviours that equate to stating ‘nothing exists’; you have thus far completely failed to clearly explain how you can make this link. Please try again.

169

““Are you talking about Meme Theory as propounded by Dennett, Dawkins etc?””

Those names keep coming up again. I disagree with applying evolutionary constructs to ideas on the basis that ideas seek universal fitness. Ideas aren’t concerned with surviving; they’re concerned with existing at all.

They solve Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be” by applying
“To do or not to do”. I don’t think that thought itself is worried about it’s own survival; I see no reason for it to shrug

To address Mangetout: Our recursive abstraction process is caused by a symbiot that filled the gap of a cut loop of autonomous metabolism of meaning; such that it was collpased as a resource. When the loop was cut, it was do or die for us as the resource of meaning externalized; we recieved a ‘second stomach’ in the form of a symbiot with its own metabolic system which relies upon our body to subsist as much as our bodies now rely upon it. Humans are not as instinctual as other animals; a genetic loss which evidenced the efficiency of this relationship, by completely severing the internal mechanism for meaning metabolism, and making our bodies dependant (focused) upon the needs of the symbiot - at times more-so than our own metabolic system which preceeded it and still coincides with it.

-Justhink

170

““I plan to start from the very first thing humans beings can know;””

“In other words you plan to start from the known and progress into the unknown (which is what I said, no?).”

Mmmm… sort of. I see knowledge as ‘known’ already, just not excavated and held. I’ve already stated that I believe rationality is a closed system. It’s to articulate that I’m remembering the known into the unknown, while always being engaged in the unknown. It’s not as simple as stating: “You start with the known and progress into the unknown.” There is an aspect of memory to take into account here. My next sip of orange soda is a step into the unknown, as are all proceeding events. Memory offers a ‘shield’ into the future that circulates from the past. Sentience literally uses its own cognitive space as proof of its ‘fitness’; the extent to which its ‘shield’ of consistency radiates out from an epicenter with no discernable future with which to focus. This process invariably collapses the types of time perceptions required to discern between that which is known and that which is a ‘lack of known’.

““The point is: we don’t need to test it because we can make an educated guess based on what we know about grass and what we know about colds.””

I’m under the impression that we won’t be required to test for these things to know them if we just do the work. I was doing some searching last night on the topic of philosophy and found an interesting site that seems to claim a basic unabridged reference to the subject. What interested me, was the statement that philosophy has only uncovered three axioms to date; from its entire system. Well, it didn’t take me very long to realize why…

The very first axiom was: the existence of existence, existence is absolute. This integrates a God concept into secular logic!
You can’t parse a string of values from a primary axiom that doesn’t have a value; but rather is ambiguous in a unified sense.

There is a very good reason that I’ve always used “difference” as the primary axiom - it describes something that everybody agrees upon; it is a tangible value, and as such allows for a progression of axioms to effectively be built upon it.

“”"""""“There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness.”""""""""
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/

If existence exists is an axiom, it’s not anywhere near the first ten or so; I have good reason to believe that this first axiom is collapsed into: “It could be true, but since this, this and this is the case - it is impossible to be meaningful; ever.” These systems exist in logic, and this axiom is an excellent candidate for one of those forms. (God happens to be one of them) I found numerous errors in this site which I feel compelled to correct in writing, by running the proofs and detailing the system just sitting there one layer down.

-Justhink

171

To put ‘difference’ into an axiom that links it to something else:

-----Without difference, everything and/or anything must be nothing at all.-----

THAT can be built upon, and it basically sends a middle finger to the first axiom of philosophy, as this site defines it.
It is an axiom which preceeds Aristotle’s Law of Identity; a law which itself requires an update from how this site presents it.
It struck me as obvious why this site actually declared the non-existence of God with the “rock that can’t be lifted” argument.
The first axiom doesn’t even give this logic the ability to discern between what exists and what does not exist.
God does exist. The question becomes a matter of HOW, rather than contemplating on whether or not God does exist.
Existence exists, sure; but using a universal to prove a universal? That’s religion. The “rock that cannot be lifted” argument places no sentient pressure on God in a moral and consistent means; it will not escape evasion. One common comment is:
“Why would God want to make a rock he cannot lift?” This disproof suffers from the corruption embedded into the first axiom, and as such places no tangible pressure upon God as a being or concept.

-Justhink

172

“”""""""“I still don’t see why you keep banging on about certain behaviours that equate to stating ‘nothing exists’; you have thus far completely failed to clearly explain how you can make this link. Please try again.”""""""""

There are behaviors that can be expressed which negate their own reason for expression. As such, they violate axiomic principles used to discern rationality in this life. One cannot violate an axiomic principle without declaring “nothing exists - there is no meaning to anything”; that’s how they are constructed. The work that went into finding them relies on this principle.

I suppose that a mapping is in order to really establish why every hypocrisy and inconsistency falls back on an axiom. What I’m more interested in (after the mapping is documented) expressing is how to use this mapping process to detect irrationality and spew out rationalities in order. The first accomplishment will be a collapse of moral opinion, the second will be a collapse of invention, the third a collapse of knowledge. These can be mapped so efficiently, as to render a reseource from them impractical.

-Justhink

173

Thank you; I am now convinced that you are taking the piss here and not attempting be unbderstood in any way. See ya.

174

“”"""“Thank you; I am now convinced that you are taking the piss here and not attempting be unbderstood in any way. See ya.”""""

Are we working on the OP, or my opinions in general? This is my opinion on the self-abstraction ‘extraction’ process. I summarized, because I have explained it in depth in other threads; I figured you’d remember from the summary, what the ‘unzipped’ version was.

Animals that don’t self-extract themselves, cannot sense an efficiency for using their own lives as a tool. The primary capture for this mechanism (IMO) is the ability to abstract ones negation of ‘effort for sustainence’ to achieve a goal. It is literally the birth of meaning, as the other dynamic which emerges is the ability to use your life positively towards a goal. The ability to abstract our own suicide as ‘accomplishing something’; lets us “live for something”. Without the concept of suicide, we would still be like every other ape. Suicide is an abstraction process which cuts the loop of the autonomous processing of meaning.

You know how your heart beats automatically, instead of you being required to “pump” it every-time? That is internal - it is an autonomous system (automatic). The loop for it’s meaning is infinite!!! There is no external resource being processed or metabolized through conscious abstraction here. Humans can actually externalize this automated process; though the danger of externalizing the nervous system is evident by the vast amount of attention required to maintain yourself. Human chemistry can be consciously tweaked against the brains default setting of how to distribute resource. You can literally send all your adrenaline our at once; or force all your white blood cells into a specific area at once. The practice of this extraction process requires a carefully meditated environment that is isolated; where the data is sealed. This is observed in some primitive tribes and some buddhist monastary’s; it has also been evidence in cases of captured ‘wild children’ that were released at the point of autonomous survivalism embedding. Upon re-introduction; these humans possess sheer obliviousness, and resistence to heat and cold from what we would consider practical or even sane.

When this infinite loop is cut, a metabolic system of resource conversion must emerge to fill the gap in order to keep the organism alive; or else it falls into existential collapse.

This is what the indentured system I talk about is… the indentured system is the bridge which allows us to abstract our own meaning without falling into existential collapse.

The indentured system is what filled this gap when the loop of infinite (autonomous/unabstracted/internalized) meaning was severed. It is only infinite in so much as we cannot percieve it; or effect its activity with our perception and tool making abstraction.

The indentured system metabolizes conceptual structures as food to keep us alive!!

Our biology has become so dependant upon the efficiency of this extraction; that humans require the longest period of companionship before becoming autonomous beings than any other animal. We are quite literally stripped of instinct down to the bare essentials - which are enough to make us annoyed enough to bother with any of this. We don’t have enough instinct to actually survive without living a very long life learning how to re-automate parts of our indentured system.

It takes years and years to learn survivalism, as a study and an art. The ability to practice survivalism depends on the resource that any given human has which has been pre-mapped by humans already. Our mapping is externalized!!! This metabolic system of ‘instinct’ is externalized for us!! Nature does NOT do this work for us; that is what allows us to abstract ourselves.

-Justhink

175

This abstraction which allows us to veiw ourselves as symbols to map externally is on a scale in nature. Some animals are closer to abstracting suicide than others; to that degree, we consider them more ‘intelligent’. Everything that we map as ourselves in relation to external symbols that are used to record autonomous process into TEXT which can be learned; is a result of the abstraction of suicide. To the degree that we consider ourselves rational is wholly indebted to the abstraction of using our own bodies as a tool of efficiency to solve a problem.

I imagine someone else could speak more authoritatively on the subject of vitamin metabolism - and externalization of this process over-time. My understanding is that the appendix used to break down other nutrients to allow us to create our own vitamin C around 10,000 years ago. Our body no longer has a conversion process for vitamin C production, and as a result we are REQUIRED to find it as a resource in that which specifically holds it. The metabolic system for vitamin C has been externalized in humans.

-Justhink

176

In relation to the OP, our primary indentured system was extracted from the abstraction of externalized meaning; Meaning as a resouce. To the extent that the concept of suicide is integrated with the primary indentured system is the degree to which it is intelligent, more pure, more advanced. The Japanese tradition of embedding suicide into the primary indentured system as an external value allowed a small series of islands to effectively Westernize itself much more quickly than even ‘western civilzation’. The current indentured system used in western civilization is not as advanced as the one used in japan; as the one used in Japan is not as advanced as indentured systems we can now structure trhough having had articulated and externalized the actual process of its construction. This does return to the point of intelligence and counter-intelligence in-so-much as the autonomous indentured system is not concerned with rationality so much as it’s concerned with efficiency. An autonomous indentured system (seperated from its source of suicide externally) does not have enough existential pressure being applied to ‘rationality’ in order for it to remember or even care that rationality exists. I would suggest that the primary indentured system is designed to aviod integrating suicide into the logical structure which it allows; by always applying a misdirection when ever possible.

The source abstractions are:

You don’t have to do anything
You don’t have to believe anything
You don’t have to believe what you do
You don’t have to do what you believe

Advanced indentured systems apply these source abstractions to every idea that the indentured system is processing externally.
This is what allows us to draw lines of simile between our thinking and external reality; to the extent that our mapping accurately reflects phenomenon, and is not confused with the mere evidence of our survival or existence as proof.

-Justhink

177

I’m curious. What is the source of your information about the Japanese and their cultural beliefs re: suicide?

178

“”“I’m curious. What is the source of your information about the Japanese and their cultural beliefs re: suicide?”""

The emergence in Japans popular culture of its national reserves of this indentured system in 1800’s selected it from an already embedded ritual of much earlier samurai principles. They basically already had the system sitting there, well mapped, and they used it. I have never seen anything in my reading of western society which uses the logic of suicide to define rationality, or rationalization to anywhere near the degree that this type of system was expressed in an established national cult like samuraism. Westerners basically cannibalize their existential value without dying; and rely upon the autonomous indentured system to exersize this form of control - i.e. “nobody will really commit real suicide, so we’ll just get away with not acting consistently with the process which designs the things we use.”.

That is the western political bluff. Unfortuantely, it is also a counter-intelligent application of the indentured system; and leaves it very vulnerable to psychological warfare.

The sense of relating ‘honor’ ‘face’ and ‘ego’ towards ones own existential value; by translating it in a logicaly consistent means with suicide is definately a step in the right direction. It is a system of personal responsibility for violating Aristotle’s Law of Identity. Western culture uses the metabolism of contradicting this law, for proof of righteousness

““This is what allows us to draw lines of simile between our thinking and external reality; to the extent that our mapping accurately reflects phenomenon, and is not confused with the mere evidence of our survival or existence as proof.””

Using this ‘western’ system of intelligence; creates incredible existential pressure on intellient aspects of society, and uses numbers to seize the ‘inventions’ procured from this pressure; and apply them counter-intelligently. I see this as a serious vulnerability; as much of the national identity becomes compelled by the proof of something just because they exist or were able to do it, and/or survive. That is a property that the autonomous indentured system uses for efficiency. This property however, severs the selective advantage of the link established to abstract rationality. I don’t see how the system will survive counter-intelligently for long. The biggest danger I see is with applying this degree of existential pressure upon an entity which will invariably develop the resistance to group seizure by creating technology advanced enough to protect rationality within one individual; so that it becomes inseperable with that persons desire of what to do with it — it is an advanced form of ‘patent’ that I see evolving. There is a chance that such an individual will simply destroy existence; to destroy counter-intelligent aquisition.

-Justhink

179

It was used as propoganda during the WW’s (the Japanese samarai cult values). As a system though, it shows the distinct superiority of the suicide grafted indentured system to that of the Protostent ethic of the: (‘sanctity of life’, while cannibalizing its rational value). The Japanese didn’t have this counter-intelligent mechanism embedded into their indentured system. They lost the war only to the extent that Western Civilization had already built its own technological institutions; rooted back many centuries. Japan didn’t have the poluation devotion, national resource and infrastructure to break through the 2000 year encryption process of the west. Again, numbers beat through a more rational application of logic. I don’t see how this pattern can continue into the emerging future… ‘something’ is going to destroy to this counter-intelligent application of resource accumulation. I’m not sure if the process will spread so far that selection simply dumps someone who destroys the entire intelligent population just to extract counter-intelligence. I’m not sure how counter-intelligent a person who has unbreakable encryption within themselves can be. To the degree that they can be counter-inteligent at all… I would assume that they would simply eliminate all intelligent life within their perceptual veiw.

-Justhink

180

“”"""“I’m curious. What is the source of your information about the Japanese and their cultural beliefs re: suicide?”""""

It was used as propoganda during the WW’s (the Japanese samarai cult values).

I maybe didn’t articulate that the cultural dissemination to bring this idea to ‘glory’ was by-in-large a propogandic tool of the governing body there during the WW’s. That’s what I meant by this. The ‘cultural value’ was tampered a bit to that extent. The existence of the system itself does signify a cultural difference, in which concepts were used to process information through the indentured system (what gives the society meaning).

-Justhink