Somebody in the INTJ group of Facebook asked a question "What is Life?"
I copy-paste my answer here, in case you find it interesting.
If we take an abstract perspective on the history of the Universe as we know it, we can see that there is an inherent capability of this "construct" (the Universe) to increase its organizational complexity. From a soup of matter, to revolving galaxies, to planets of different types, to chemistry on the surface of the planet, to organic chemistry, to single-cell organisms, to plants & animals, to mammals, to homo, to homo sapiens sapiens... arriving at the epitome of evolution and complexity... the human brain.
This is the single most complex organ/system in the known universe.
So if you're still with me, and you accept that from our observations of known history till now there is a clear trend inherent in the laws of the universe to produce increasingly more complex organizations, then... life is simply the latest "vehicle" of this Law towards further increases in organizational complexity.
If at some point in time humans discover true Artificial Intelligence and manage to create superbrains that surpass in complexity our own (and can network themselves, and never die, etc), then the latest vehicle in the progression of organizational complexity of the Universe will cease to be Life and will be something else (e.g. the self-improvement of undying-and-thus-non-living AI).
Tuesday 6 August 2013
Wednesday 3 April 2013
Noesis Theory explaining scientific research
I read today in Scientific American about a new research for mirror neurons & hatred.
On the one hand it is very encouraging to find out that Noesis Theory explains most of the discoveries in the area of the brain... In fact, I could have predicted the outcome of this research beforehand, just by using Noesis Theory. It is also useful for me, because I learn about the proper scientific terms for some of the mechanisms I have described.
So I learned from this research the term of "mirror neurons" which in NT terms is the product of affinity. We get pleasure from some patterns and they are stored in our brain as extensions of ourselves (increasing the "affinity" between us and them), thus these neurons will reflect with a varying degree (which depends on how much pleasure they have provided to us) pleasure and pain of others towards us. In other words, any pattern that gets linked with us with the mechanism of affinity can be called a mirror neuron.
As a direct result of what I mentioned above, and a hint for future research for Scientific American: any memory neuron can become a mirror neuron, just because any type of pattern can possibly offer us pleasure and thus be linked with affinity.
The only disappointing thing from the comments above is that although Noesis Theory seems to have great value and potential (it explains scientific research before it even gets done), due to the fact that it is not well known yet, it cannot be utilized by the scientific community to set a proper framework for all cognitive functions and better direct our research.
Let's hope that this will change in the future.
On the one hand it is very encouraging to find out that Noesis Theory explains most of the discoveries in the area of the brain... In fact, I could have predicted the outcome of this research beforehand, just by using Noesis Theory. It is also useful for me, because I learn about the proper scientific terms for some of the mechanisms I have described.
So I learned from this research the term of "mirror neurons" which in NT terms is the product of affinity. We get pleasure from some patterns and they are stored in our brain as extensions of ourselves (increasing the "affinity" between us and them), thus these neurons will reflect with a varying degree (which depends on how much pleasure they have provided to us) pleasure and pain of others towards us. In other words, any pattern that gets linked with us with the mechanism of affinity can be called a mirror neuron.
As a direct result of what I mentioned above, and a hint for future research for Scientific American: any memory neuron can become a mirror neuron, just because any type of pattern can possibly offer us pleasure and thus be linked with affinity.
The only disappointing thing from the comments above is that although Noesis Theory seems to have great value and potential (it explains scientific research before it even gets done), due to the fact that it is not well known yet, it cannot be utilized by the scientific community to set a proper framework for all cognitive functions and better direct our research.
Let's hope that this will change in the future.
Sunday 3 February 2013
Birth date of maximization of pleasure idea
I was browsing through my notes and studying the evolution of my thought process and when in particular the basic idea of Noesis Theory (maximization of pleasure / minimization of discomfort) was born.
The first entry is in Feb 14 2006:
(...)
The first entry is in Feb 14 2006:
(...)
Το θέμα όμως είναι......... Τί είναι αυτό που θα κρίνει την
επιτυχία ή αποτυχία της διάσχισης?
Ελπίζω μονάχα να μην είναι τόσο πεζό όσο αυτό που φαντάζομαι
και ο άνθρωπος να μην αποδειχθεί απλά μια μηχανή που υπακούει στις ορμόνες του
και επιθυμεί να μεγιστοποιεί τα ευχάριστα συναισθήματα και να
ελαχιστοποιεί/αποφεύγει τα δυσάρεστα.
Another entry that showcases this as a fully developed idea was at 22/07/2006:
Είμαι σίγουρος ότι πλέον ο άνθρωπος είναι ένα ον που προσπαθεί να μεγιστοποιήσει την ευχαρίστησή του μέσω της κάθε σκέψης και της κάθε απόφασής του.
So somewhere in the spring of 2006, the foundation of Noesis Theory was put in place.
Saturday 2 February 2013
About racism
First of all racism is a natural derivative of the human brain function, due to affinity. Our brain is trained to spot similarities between things that are close to us, and if those things bring us pleasure they increase the affinity and we consider them as a extension of ourselves. When we have built such an affinity with these patterns, it is natural to be able to spot differences with people that are widely divergent from those familiar to us patterns. This mental separation can manifest into indifference, aversion, snobism or even racism.
You'll notice here that I'm using the word racism with a more gentle connotation that usual, i.e. not implying acts of hatred or severe discrimination. For me, racism as an unavoidable product of our mental processes, is just a strong sense of personal differentiation from others.
Now the question is: does racism exist even today and in what form? Well, as you would imagine the discrimination in casts of humans is still here, mostly because as we said it is an derived from an inherent feature of the human brain. And the way it appears today is in my opinion via the financial capabilities of each individual.
Poor people are considered of lower value than rich people. Life is worth less for these "lower levels of human existence" (I'm being ironic here, of course). They are entitled to less healthcare & welfare and are marginalized from society. If we go a bit upper, to the hard-working but low-paid populace, they are certainly better but still, they are utilized like modern slaves, forced to work day & night and give their lives as cogs to the capitalistic machine. They are comforted with a mobile phone, a remote control and always kept on a leash via a heavy mortgage.
Going even higher on the human scale, we have the self-made business owners & professionals (the upper middle-class). These are now highly regarded because they rose up to the challenge and made a difference. They are considered a higher class on their own, entitled to good private healthcare, and capable to live in spacious, luxurious homes with many comforts of their choosing. They are the envy of the populace and the highest grade one can ever hope to ascend to.
And finally, we have the super-rich, who were born into riches or the extremely few who became billionnaires. They are a class of their own, self-regarded as the rulers of this system. These are the masters of the "slaves" below, heavily dependent on the populace to keep the machine turning and provide them the profits, with little or just normal work. They might have inherited the riches, they might not be smart or capable, but still they consider themselves above all else.
You see, and this is where the system is wrong. Because discrimination and racism exists even today (and we probably cannot avoid as long as we are human), but it's form is twisted. Because we have translated money as a measure of worth and regard the individual depending on the amount of money & assets we has in his bank account.
If the ideal of eradicating racism cannot be achieved, at least we should change its manifestation. We need a better measure of worth than money. Don't get me wrong, I don't totally disagree with the notion that making money is a measure of worth. It definity shows something. An excellent (bright, capable, honest) employee would be paid more than an average employee. This is natural and expected. It is healthy, because it provides an incentive to the excellent employee to keep up his efforts, as well as a motive to the average employee to get better.
But this is a good case of where more money means more worth. There are also many other examples that this paradigm fails. If you inherited the money, it means nothing about your abilities (moreover, it is a counter-incentive to evolve and better yourself). If you stole & cheated to get it, it is also a bad indicator. If you had a better startpoint than most (due to your parents' circle of acquaintances, or their financial support) it is unfair to be compared to equal terms with the rest. So, in the process of making money, there are many other factors expect individual human worth that can tip the scale in your favor or against it, which ultimately makes money a bad factor for differentiation.
And what is a better measure of worth? Well, if it was simple, we would have discovered it. It would be nice to have a way to measure how virtuous a character is, how much is his capabilities, his smarts, his willingness to offer to the public, his potential for evolution. If we had such an objective measure and is also was not only genetically predisposed (i.e. you were not born into a class but you had the capability to change if you wanted to and tried), then I would personally be ok with having some kind of discrimination. If you had the capability to ensure a good level of welfare for all individuals, give them all, an equal starting point and then judge them objectively based on their actual worth and contribution to society, then yes some who excelled should also be rewarded more handsomely that others. This is perfectly normal and it would set a precedent and align the motives of everybody for a better world via personal contribution.
But until we have such a system, racing based on any other measure is just plain wrong.
You'll notice here that I'm using the word racism with a more gentle connotation that usual, i.e. not implying acts of hatred or severe discrimination. For me, racism as an unavoidable product of our mental processes, is just a strong sense of personal differentiation from others.
Now the question is: does racism exist even today and in what form? Well, as you would imagine the discrimination in casts of humans is still here, mostly because as we said it is an derived from an inherent feature of the human brain. And the way it appears today is in my opinion via the financial capabilities of each individual.
Poor people are considered of lower value than rich people. Life is worth less for these "lower levels of human existence" (I'm being ironic here, of course). They are entitled to less healthcare & welfare and are marginalized from society. If we go a bit upper, to the hard-working but low-paid populace, they are certainly better but still, they are utilized like modern slaves, forced to work day & night and give their lives as cogs to the capitalistic machine. They are comforted with a mobile phone, a remote control and always kept on a leash via a heavy mortgage.
Going even higher on the human scale, we have the self-made business owners & professionals (the upper middle-class). These are now highly regarded because they rose up to the challenge and made a difference. They are considered a higher class on their own, entitled to good private healthcare, and capable to live in spacious, luxurious homes with many comforts of their choosing. They are the envy of the populace and the highest grade one can ever hope to ascend to.
And finally, we have the super-rich, who were born into riches or the extremely few who became billionnaires. They are a class of their own, self-regarded as the rulers of this system. These are the masters of the "slaves" below, heavily dependent on the populace to keep the machine turning and provide them the profits, with little or just normal work. They might have inherited the riches, they might not be smart or capable, but still they consider themselves above all else.
You see, and this is where the system is wrong. Because discrimination and racism exists even today (and we probably cannot avoid as long as we are human), but it's form is twisted. Because we have translated money as a measure of worth and regard the individual depending on the amount of money & assets we has in his bank account.
If the ideal of eradicating racism cannot be achieved, at least we should change its manifestation. We need a better measure of worth than money. Don't get me wrong, I don't totally disagree with the notion that making money is a measure of worth. It definity shows something. An excellent (bright, capable, honest) employee would be paid more than an average employee. This is natural and expected. It is healthy, because it provides an incentive to the excellent employee to keep up his efforts, as well as a motive to the average employee to get better.
But this is a good case of where more money means more worth. There are also many other examples that this paradigm fails. If you inherited the money, it means nothing about your abilities (moreover, it is a counter-incentive to evolve and better yourself). If you stole & cheated to get it, it is also a bad indicator. If you had a better startpoint than most (due to your parents' circle of acquaintances, or their financial support) it is unfair to be compared to equal terms with the rest. So, in the process of making money, there are many other factors expect individual human worth that can tip the scale in your favor or against it, which ultimately makes money a bad factor for differentiation.
And what is a better measure of worth? Well, if it was simple, we would have discovered it. It would be nice to have a way to measure how virtuous a character is, how much is his capabilities, his smarts, his willingness to offer to the public, his potential for evolution. If we had such an objective measure and is also was not only genetically predisposed (i.e. you were not born into a class but you had the capability to change if you wanted to and tried), then I would personally be ok with having some kind of discrimination. If you had the capability to ensure a good level of welfare for all individuals, give them all, an equal starting point and then judge them objectively based on their actual worth and contribution to society, then yes some who excelled should also be rewarded more handsomely that others. This is perfectly normal and it would set a precedent and align the motives of everybody for a better world via personal contribution.
But until we have such a system, racing based on any other measure is just plain wrong.
Sunday 6 January 2013
Just a quick comment about intelligence
Higher levels of intelligence (e.g. those exhibited by humans) are just a product of better pattern matching, in my opinion.
I don't see much different capabilities & algorithms in animals than in humans. And a nice example is love: it is just a higher level of affinity (that is also found in animals) due to better pattern matching!
I don't see much different capabilities & algorithms in animals than in humans. And a nice example is love: it is just a higher level of affinity (that is also found in animals) due to better pattern matching!
An attempt to explain extro & intro-version
Everyone wants to be happy in his life, to experience emotions and joy.
And we know from Noesis Theory that emotions are Driving Pockets that occur from out-of-context experiences.
Some people are able to produce original thoughts and out-of-context experiences purely from inside their mind and others need external stimulation to achieve that. Thus it is natural for the latter to be "forced" by their own nature to seek this external stimulation, because this is the only known way for them to experience interesting emotions!
So I would be willing to take a guess, saying that extroversion is a byproduct of the structure of the mind of a portion of individuals and is used as a method to create out-of-context experiences.
And we know from Noesis Theory that emotions are Driving Pockets that occur from out-of-context experiences.
Some people are able to produce original thoughts and out-of-context experiences purely from inside their mind and others need external stimulation to achieve that. Thus it is natural for the latter to be "forced" by their own nature to seek this external stimulation, because this is the only known way for them to experience interesting emotions!
So I would be willing to take a guess, saying that extroversion is a byproduct of the structure of the mind of a portion of individuals and is used as a method to create out-of-context experiences.
A bit more elaboration on the meaning of life
As I have said many times in the past, I believe that the meaning of life is the advancement of organizational complexity.
But a question that can easily be posed is: which type of advancement is good and which is bad? And who should be the judge of that?
It is true that for humans this conundrum has been solved since inception, whereas a race of robots would really have a hard time solving the same question. The answer for humans is of course death. Death prunes all the branches of the tree sooner or later and it is up to humanity to pick the best branches and maintain the knowledge they offered in their lifetime, by writing it in books, teaching it in schools and capitalizing on it in various ways; integrating it in a way in its body of knowledge.
It is certainly sad that the good branches are also pruned at some point in time, but it would be even worse if it was left in the hands of men to decide who will live forever and who should be left to perish. Imagine if this was the case and if by chance Hitler was able to win WW2... We would have been sunk to an eternal Dark Age...
So it's better if every person leaves behind a new piece of complexity (let's think of it as a lego piece) that humanity has to decide whether to stack it upon the other pieces that have been aggregated since the dawn of man, or simply leave it aside. It is a tough decision, because sometimes such a piece may prove unworthy foundation for the pieces above and humanity might have to "backtrack" and tear down a whole piece of the wall, just to be able to put a better piece (of complexity) that can support building a higher "wall".
In the end, the goal is to take the right decisions that help us build the highest possible wall, or in other words advance complexity to the limits that the human mind can support.
But a question that can easily be posed is: which type of advancement is good and which is bad? And who should be the judge of that?
It is true that for humans this conundrum has been solved since inception, whereas a race of robots would really have a hard time solving the same question. The answer for humans is of course death. Death prunes all the branches of the tree sooner or later and it is up to humanity to pick the best branches and maintain the knowledge they offered in their lifetime, by writing it in books, teaching it in schools and capitalizing on it in various ways; integrating it in a way in its body of knowledge.
It is certainly sad that the good branches are also pruned at some point in time, but it would be even worse if it was left in the hands of men to decide who will live forever and who should be left to perish. Imagine if this was the case and if by chance Hitler was able to win WW2... We would have been sunk to an eternal Dark Age...
So it's better if every person leaves behind a new piece of complexity (let's think of it as a lego piece) that humanity has to decide whether to stack it upon the other pieces that have been aggregated since the dawn of man, or simply leave it aside. It is a tough decision, because sometimes such a piece may prove unworthy foundation for the pieces above and humanity might have to "backtrack" and tear down a whole piece of the wall, just to be able to put a better piece (of complexity) that can support building a higher "wall".
In the end, the goal is to take the right decisions that help us build the highest possible wall, or in other words advance complexity to the limits that the human mind can support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)