Archives for category: alternative ways of acquring knowledge
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Virtual Reality

March 15, 2025 //
0

And the LORD God said,
Behold,
the man is become as one of us,
to know good and evil:

We live in a world of our own making.
We build it by talking ourselves into shaping it one way or another.
If not careful, we end up building a lie!

Competition has nothing to do with what’s going on in the jungle!

The jungle is about eat or be eaten!
Competition is about rules. Follow the rule or you’re kicked out before you get to the end!
The competition stops being true the moment you break the rule and your co-competitors do not throw you out.
By not throwing you out, those in attendance have just transformed that particular pitch into a jungle!

“Cooperation is the law of the civilization!“
This part is true. But incomplete!
As I explained before, to compete implies to cooperate. Those involved in a competition want to know who amongst them is better in a particular field. And COOPERATE in order to find that answer. By doing that they also build what we currently call ‘civilization’.

Kropotkin might be forgiven for what he had said.
He didn’t get to witness the Chinese Cultural Revolution. That was the true pinnacle of ‘cooperation’! Not civilized by any measure…

We really need to be more careful with words.
With what we say and with what we end up holding to be true!

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, effective communication, evolution, In English, man induced fragility, Rule of Law, skin in the game

One War Behind

March 4, 2025 //
0

Sometimes reading about history is not enough.
You might need to live at least some aspects of it…

I’m sure most of you are familiar with this notion.
With the notion that war is an art and that Sun Tzu was at least a notable teacher. In this domain.
And the second place goes to

Now, that we have established whom we consider to be the THE greatest experts on war, would you be so kind as to tell me when was the last time that China – or Germany, for that matter – had vanquished their opponents? After their respective treaties on war had been compiled…

My point being that a really ‘successful’ war ends with both parties understanding that there’s no point in fighting one.
That whenever the winner starts boasting about their exploits, that war has been fought for nothing. The winner might have won the war but they certainly had lost the peace.
My secondary point – and, maybe, the more important one – being that we tend to treat the current war using the knowledge gathered during the previous one, Which seems rational, right?!?

Yeah… well… The only successful war in our recent history – and only partially at that – was WWII.
WWI was fought for nothing. At the end, the victors had copied the actions of those who had won the previous wars. Imposed hefty reparations upon the vanquished. Hence the advent of Hitler.
WWII was not only terrible but also widespread. France, Germany, Italy, the Central Europe and, to a central extent, the Great Britain have been so thoroughly destroyed that people there did learn their lesson. No more war. Hence a completely different approach to peace than after WWI.
Inclusion of the former aggressor instead of punishment.

The next global war was the Cold one.
Fought mainly between the two WWII victors who had not directly experienced war. The US and the USSR.

What?!?

Well, just think about it.
France, Germany, Italy and so on had been occupied. Experienced hot war on a first hand manner for years on end. Great Britain had not only fought but had also been bombarded.
The US had fought in the war but only Hawai’i had directly experienced it.
And when it comes to the USSR the situation is… complicated. The eastern part of the WWII had been fought mainly in Ukraine and in the western part of Russia proper. The only main city directly affected by war was Sankt Petersburg/Leningrad. The rest of the Russian Federation had experienced less disturbance than western Ukraine in the present conflict.
And what did the free world do after the Cold war had been concluded? Specially the Americans?
Boasted? About their exploits?

How was the loser treated?
The westerners tried to do what the allies had done after WWII? Integrate the loser into the ‘brave new world’? Without understanding that the loser had not accepted its status?

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game

And the truth of the matter is…

March 2, 2025 //
0

We don’t get what we deserve,
we get what we put up with.

How did we get here?

Then

What is Truth?
Pilate

Well, there are two kinds of truth.
The one you feel with your shin when you hit a coffee table.
And the one you feel in your heart when those present laugh at you hopping on one leg while caressing the hurt one.

Which two kinds of truth divide us, people, into two categories.
Those trying to patch ‘an ever-changing truth’ out of many individual pictures – each of them the consequence of a ‘shin’ happening to connect with a portion of the ‘outside world’. Which people are currently known as ‘scientists’.
And those trying to reach ‘the truth’. By thinking, by divination, by… God only knows what any other means… Philosophers, theologians, quacks…

I was trained as an engineer.
To notice needs and to design solutions while evaluating the possible consequences of those needs being met by the proposed solutions. Which places me squarely into the first category.

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game, teleology

And/Or

February 17, 2025 //
0

It’s one thing to be able to see white from black.
And a lot more complicated to see black and white…

Being reasonable means listening to what the world has to say about things.
Being reasonable means being open minded.

Being rational means balancing your means with your wishes.
Being rational means actively identifying resources which might help you attain your goals and the pitfalls you need to avoid.

Being reasonable means choosing goals which ‘do not disturb’.
Being rational means transforming things into what they should be. Into what you think they should be…

Being reasonable means getting along.
Being rational means going alone.

Being reasonable means trying to get all in.
Being rational means being able to get to the bottom of it.

The point being that evolution is about the species, not about the individual.
And this point can be made out but individually…

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game, Trust

A reminder

February 1, 2025 //
0

History never repeats itself.
Only keeps teaching a lesson until we actually understand it.

‘In 1936, Hitler boldly marched 22,000 German troops into the Rhineland, in a direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler offered France and Britain a 25 year non-aggression pact and claimed: “Germany had no territorial demands to make in Europe” ‘.

“In the summer of 1938 Hitler demanded the annexation of the Sudetenland into Germany. At this point Hitler was aware that the Allies were desperate to avoid war, and thought it likely that they would appease his demands.
Hitler threatened war over the issue of the Sudetenland. On 29 – 30 September 1938 the British, Italian, French and German leaders met in Munich to discuss the issue.
The Allies agreed to concede the Sudetenland to Germany in exchange for a pledge of peace. This agreement was known as the Munich Pact.”

“On May 3, 1939, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin fired Foreign Minister Maksim Litvinov, who was Jewish and an advocate of collective security, and replaced him with Vyacheslav Molotov, who soon began negotiations with the Nazi foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop. The Soviets also kept negotiating with Britain and France, but in the end Stalin chose to reach an agreement with Germany. By doing so he hoped to keep the Soviet Union at peace with Germany and to gain time to build up the Soviet military establishment, which had been badly weakened by the purge of the Red Army officer corps in 1937. The Western democracies’ hesitance in opposing Adolf Hitler, along with Stalin’s own inexplicable personal preference for the Nazis, also played a part in Stalin’s final choice. For his part, Hitler wanted a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union so that his armies could invade Poland virtually unopposed by a major power, after which Germany could deal with the forces of France and Britain in the west without having to simultaneously fight the Soviet Union on a second front in the east.“

What is the lesson here?
That each tyrant believes they can outwit all other tyrants.
That tyrants are convinced they can outwit democratic alliances.
That, in the end, all authoritarian regimes fail. Abysmally. For the simple reason that inability to accept their own faillings makes all authoritarian leaders incapable of coping with change. Unable to adapt. Unable to evolve. Hence all authoritarian regimes are inherently fragile.

And who suffers the consequences?
We do. All of us. “World Wide Wars”, remember?

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, Mutual Respect, skin in the game

An Explanation

January 28, 2025 //
0

American Society Was Built for Populism, Not Elitism
“Technocrats and elites insist that centralized control is best.
Nature and history prove them wrong.”
Karl Zinsmeister, WSJ

Really?

“Tax billionaires out of existence?!?”

And what would be accomplished by doing that?

‘Yet another ‘trickle down theorist’…’

Nope!
Trickle down is an idiocy. It doesn’t work.
Just like ‘taxing billionaires out of existence’. It has been experimented, you know…
It was called communism by those promoting this brilliant idea. So brilliant that it burnt down every society which had tried it.
I lived under communist rule. I know.
There isn’t much difference between all money being controlled by the state/government and too much money being controlled by a handful of billionaires! Meaningful decisions are still being made by a too small number of people…

Yes, taxes are useful.
Besides gathering money to be used, by the government, for the common good.
My point being that taxes are an expression of how a society sees money.

That’s what’s needed. Decision makers who do not put money over everything else!
Any attempt to ‘tax billionaires out of existence’ is already an abuse of power.
Doing it before the society changes its understanding of the matter would be worse than a crime. It would be a horrible mistake.

High marginal taxes accomplish two things. If no loopholes are allowed.
Balance the budget and change the minds of the decision makers. ‘CEO’s’ as well as shareholders.
Convince them to reinvest a bigger share of the profit. Which makes it possible for the company to become more efficient. Which makes it possible for the company to increase wages.
Balancing the budget with money brought in by taxing the high earners makes it possible for the politicians to lower the taxes paid by the Regular Joes. Which would improve their status, their self esteem and their buying power!

Blaming a section of the society for something which needs to be dealt with in concert, by all the members of a society, is counterproductive. To say the least.
It does nothing to solve the real problems and it deepens the already existing rifts.

Blaming the billionaires for what’s going on – for everybody being obsessed with money – is in no way different from blaming the immigrants for most of the people being unsure about tomorrow.

Billionaires, as well as the immigrants, should be ‘exploited’ rather than driven into disappearance.
Each of them are very good at what each of them are doing.
The difference between them consists in the fact that the billionaires set their own wages.

Wages, all wages, are paid by us. By the consumers. Hence it is us who should determine how much each people should get. We, not some of those getting our hard earned money!
How are we going to accomplish that?
Making sure that the market remains free. Functionally free as opposed to controlled by a small number of people. No matter where they come from. The Government, as in communism, or a collection of monopolies. As in oligarchic capitalism.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, limited rationality, man induced fragility, skin in the game

The Nature of Evil

January 25, 2025 //
0

And the LORD God said,
Behold, the man is become as one of Us,
to know good and evil;
and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live for ever.

“And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?“

Adam called back and we all what happened next.

The serpent was cursed for his role, Eve was cursed for tempting Adam and Adam was cursed for….
In the end, all those involved – including the serpent, for whatever reason – were banished from the heaven. “Lest he put forth his hand…”

What are we to understand from all this?
That God, the omniscient and all powerful Father, was ‘evil’?
He must have known what was going to happen… he was omniscient, wasn’t he?

There are people who believe the Bible to be an accurate rendering of the past.
I happen to be one of them.
Only I don’t interpret what I read in the literal sense… the narrative is true, those things did happen, only not in the ‘real’ world. The Bible is not the story of flesh but a story of mind.

It is the story of what has happened in our minds. In our collective mind!

Genesis is the story of how we’ve grown conscious!
Starting from the sensations perceived during our interaction with the ‘real’ world – read ‘serpent’ – and using the evolutionary accrued ability to speak among ourselves – we’ve learned to identify ‘information’.
We, like all other living things, were already able to make the difference between good and ‘bad’. All living things ‘know’ what’s good for them and what to avoid. Or, at least, act as if…
We, like all other primates and along many other animals, were already adept at ‘reading minds’. Were already able to figure out intentions.
As conscious ‘human beings’ we have started to attribute intent! “To know good and EVIL”!

So evil is of a conscious nature, right?

‘How about ‘God’? Is it real?’

Sorry, I don’t have a reasonable answer for this question.
All I know is that the God so many of us believe in is nothing but a representation.
A figment of our collective imagination. And since we cannot imagine things but starting from the real world, there is a strong possibility that there is something, somewhere, which fits, however loosely, our concept. Our concept of a God…

Humberto Maturana, The origin and conservation of Self…
https://constructivist.info/radical/pub/hvf/papers/maturana05selfconsciousness.html
Frans de Waal, Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30231743-are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, biology, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game

The Difference

January 20, 2025 //
0

Being able to ‘see the difference’ is what makes us able to considerate.
The result of our considerations…

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to spot the difference between a spot and a curve.
You don’t even need to be able to read…

Every adolescent steps out of the straight and narrow. Time and time again. And is told by his elders to toe the line. Until they learn that stepping back into the fold is easier than remaining an outlier for the rest of their natural life.
Only the fold is no longer were it used to be… It has reached its current position because those who had the guts to explore have done that for the rest of us. Experimented being outliers. So that we, all of us, did not have to experience every possibility before choosing where to go next. They, the outliers, found out what was ‘out there’ and told us.

I’ve already made a few considerations about the two pictures above. About some of the differences between the top and the bottom ones. I’ve left the main one for today’s post.

We do have a certain bias towards conformity. We do, socially and statistically speaking, tend to follow the trend. Like all other social animals.
After all, no society/herd can function – as a group, when all its members behave ‘outlierly’. So much outside the trend as to buck it.
The difference between the top and the bottom ‘graph-s’ being the attitude towards the situation.

The top one comes with the ‘normal’ bias. Each normal individual does have a certain ‘something’ against the ‘outlier’ situation and a certain affinity for the comfort of being trendy. But we have learned to respect the outliers, for as long as they don’t hurt us. For as long as they don’t rock the boat so much as to get us seasick.
The bottom graph states from the beginning that only the outlier opinion is valid. That no matter how many people continue to follow the trend, they are wrong. Even worse, they are insignificant. Hence disposable.

OK, there have been instances when the trend was leading in the wrong direction. Quite a few.
Yet people have somehow managed to survive. They stuck together, realized the outliers who kept warning them were right and followed them out of the dire situation they found themselves in.
But in each and every situation where an outlier had declared the rest of the ‘mob’ to be insignificant/disposable, and had enough traction to act upon their convictions, the situation had to become worse before people realized they had to change tack.

Before the people had realized they were following the wrong outlier!

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, skin in the game

Step by step

January 15, 2025 //
0

“I see this as expression of a mother’s love for her child
and not a statement that women are for breeding only.“

Of course, you are completely correct,
but today people are amped up to find
something offensive everywhere.
Ridiculous.

In fact, this is way more than a mere expression of love.

There’s no other meaning of life but life itself.
Whatever meanings each of us might find do nothing but contribute to ‘life’.

And what else is life but a perpetual tomorrow?

Tags , , ,
Categories alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game

Head scratch

January 14, 2025 //
0

“Intelligence is the ability to think, reason, and understand
instead of doing things automatically or by instinct.
Nerve cells, after all, do not have intelligence of their own.“

Theoretically, we do have a certain understanding regarding the thing we call ‘intelligence’. After all, there are some dictionary entries discussing the matter.
But when it comes to measuring the said intelligence… nothing is straightforward anymore. So we still have a lot to learn about the thing. About our ability to understand, after all… About our ability to understand, period, including our own intelligence.

Click the picture above and read the article. It is interesting. The most interesting part being what it misses.

The first really intelligent computer application put together by man was the one who defeated Garry Kasparov.
Has anyone been invited to play chess by an application?
Is anybody aware of any chess or go application who had any initiative? Meaningful initiative? Other than making this or that move only AFTER a human had initiated the game?

What are we discussing here?
The intelligence level of any of the many, present or future, artificial intelligence applications or their ability to become aware? Aware of anything…

Furthermore, when we discuss whether AI, ANI, AGI or even ASI would erase humankind from the face of the Earth… nobody has yet mentioned us. After all, we are the ones building the applications. The computers on which we run the applications…
Instead of worrying whether any of the AI versions would do anything to us, we should worry about what some of us will do after they will have laid their hands on a really powerful AI application!

““There’s going to be things we do and the superintelligences just get fed up with the fact that we’re so incompetent and just replace us.”
Nearly 10 years ago, Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and CEO of Tesla Motors, told American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that he believes AI will domesticate humans like pets.
Hinton ventures that we’ll be kept in the same way we keep tigers around.
“I don’t see why they wouldn’t. But we’re not going to control things anymore,” he said. “

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, effective communication, evolution, In English, Mutual Respect, skin in the game
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »