Democracies are being rigged!

Democracy is the best we have, but it is outdated, because:

1. Capitalism is rigging democracies.
… while people are brainwashed but don’t know it.

I just came across this video that is Jeremy Corbyn’s response to Traingate. Sadly quite a late reveal, since this propaganda already had its negative impact on his campaign.In a previous poll 57% of brits wrongfully took side against Corbyn. Only 18% believed him. Embarrasingly brainwashed nation naively took side against a man who had the intention of improving their public transport and sided with the private owner of the train who owns private islands by ripping them off.

Just like normal Americans who voted for a billionaire class to rip off their health care, education, tax money and wellfare.

2. People are getting dumber:
That’s why racism is on the rise everywhere.

I wonder why the dumbest of any population typically believe in the supremacy of their own race. And this is not limited to white people.

In general, beliefs of collective supremacy doesn’t say much about a population. Says about an individual. To me when someone claims “my race is genetically smarter”, translates to “I’m most likely in the bottom quarter of my own population, intellectually.”

Anyway, people are getting dumber. Meanwhile dominators are becoming more experienced.

3. AI does it better:
Politicians are paid to make decisions. Can machines replace their job?

If yes, why don’t we use machines that are cheaper and more reliable? Say training a classifier that predicts whether or not Trump will sign a given bill tomorrow, provided his twitter account or other data available from him.

If no, if politicians are so random that machines can’t mimick them, why don’t we use a randomized algorithm instead?

Every four years people will turn up to vote for a random decision generator among few random options. During a randomized voting process, the genertor that collects the highest number of random votes will make random decisions till the next round!

We’re doomed.

“Dominator” for dummies

Communism aims at a society without the state. So it gives the ownership to the community. The few representatives of the community then represent the whole population and eventually set their own agenda, enslaving the rest. Anywhere they tried it on this planet they ended up making the most authoritarian forms of state.
Communism, whatever it promises, seeks for domination. Communism is a dominator.

* * *

Capitalism aims at economic and political freedom. So it gives the ownership to individuals. Some Individuals will eventually find a way to take up proportionally much more space and use up much more resources than others. Those few end up setting their own agenda, enslaving the rest.
Capitalism, whatever it pledges, seeks for domination. Capitalism is a dominator.

* * *

There are millions of ideas out there, and zillions of ways to implement them. But we know only few. Do you know why? Because they are “dominators”. They dominated first, so we heard about them. We realized they exist.

Take down the dominators, wherever you find them!

Your mom knows better!

Kitchen was certainly one of the areas of life that I tried to liberate myself.

… from culturally reinforced rules and regulations. I understood that “culture is not my friend”, and changed the way I had seen people do Persian food. Especially when I moved to Norway I regarded many of those common recipes as religious superstitions and started to do things my own way.

Amongst others, I got rid of my mom’s superstitious way of cooking rice! That for better quality rice must be “soaked, rinced and drained” prior to it being “boiled, drained and steamed”. So from those six stages I skipped the first three and made a shortcut to the last three to save time.

There I hacked a couple of other things too. Not waiting for cold water to boil in a pot and do it faster in an electric kettle first. Then pouring it in to an already hot empty pot. So deconstructing the axiom of “ingredients first, heat second”. Also removed that useless ugly “damkoni”, the fabric Iranian housholds use to cover the pot’s lid. As I assumed it’s meant to tighten the lid so steam doesn’t escape, though its actual function is to absorb the stem, so it doesn’t condence and drip in the rice.

After all the end result was still delicious!

Now turns out that my shortcuts were costly, sometimes even cancerous. And my mother was right!

Guys, those of you who don’t follow your mom’s recipe will eventually get cancer and die out. Evolution will take care of you and your recipes, so don’t dare to mutate in the codes of the collective wisdom when it comes to cuisine.

Your mom knows better!

Language

It’s everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.
– Matrix (1999)

Fish

This is the definition of “the Matrix” as explained by Morpheus to Neo.

Now, what other concept suits this definition – word by word – even better than the Matrix? What actual thing in the day-to-day world matches this description just as perfect if not more? That you don’t see it cause it’s everywhere. Like water to the fish?

Unjustified Leap

Watch this awesome video to the end, history of the entire world.

The short story of everything – and I mean everything big enough – seems to be like this: long equilibriums connected with quick leaps.

From all the major leaps mentioned here (that are allegedly self-organized) I can believe in the authonomy of the most farfetched ones, the least imaginable transitions:

– I can buy that cells decided to benefit from the economy of scale and thus shaped organs and animals so quickly to the extreme extent of the Cambrian explosion (2′:51″).

– Similarly I can believe that the technological singularity (19′:17″) that we are experiencing live, is taking place on its own. You may call it the artificial super-intelligence, the transcendental object or as in this video “the thing inventor inventor”. It is currently unfolding before our eyes and it doesn’t seem to be guided remotely. By a typical interventionist conscious God, through any dashboard or something equivalent.

– It is also believable that the sudden increase in the brain size of the human ape and the advent of the double-articulated language (and thus the human mind – 4′:11″) happened without an alien intrusion.

* * *

But there is one mysterious transition. A leap too giant to concieve to have emerged on its own and on the surface of this planet:

– The geological to biological transformation of the earth (2′:17″). How come as the planet cooled down (and became in a sense fertile) cells appeared so quickly? Every good story that I have heard skips over this leap, ignores the magnitude of such transition and fast forwards. Science knows nothing about this. We ear behind a wild guess even.

So such questions have grown again in my head and before I shave them off with Occam’s razor:

How did cells – such extremely complicated machines – appear on Earth? How were they cooked on a geological boring planet? Where did the instruction sheet of all living organisms appeared through rocks? All that advanced DNA computation and dataflows, the advent of life, where did they come from?

* * *

Just decoded one of the deepest archetypes for further investigation:

Mother Earth ain’t virgin!

Dream: The Inner Book!

Just had the strangest dream in a long while.

There was a divine voice representing the universe who gave me a very rare chance:

Ask any question and you shall know the answer. If you want to know only one thing, any thing, what that thing would be?

Not to lose the chance I replied without hesitation:

If you could tell me everything in one sentence what that sentence would be?

Then the scenery changed, there were lights and clouds and I flew through them. I went inside a book and in there even more clouds and lights and in there another book opened and sucked me in.

This went on and I knew it’s a dream. So I was worried that time will run out without me ever getting the answer. And luckily in the last book right before I fully wake up it transpired:

With no data you can still know everything!

WTF was that!

On the future of Newstainment

Addicted to Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO, etc? Based on my weekend experience I reckon that it’s quite a tempting habit to lean back and let them entertain us. A lot of fun in fact.

I however refuse to undergo this type of addiction. And I will resist it so long as I can. And will not prefer it to any other type of digital hook, be it computer games, Facebook or other social media, and even porn. It’s far more dangerous, and here’s why:

* * *

Netflix was an only-distribution company up until they started to use Big Data to predict and recommend the success of the actors and the roles they could play. After machines could successfully predict the success scenarios to maximize the popularity of the shows through in-debth content analysis, they were not only distributing contents. They started to make their own!

At the time there were a few eyebrows raised about how far they can go to use algorithms in creating in-house contents and what scary potentials this new paradigm holds. I think it was in 2012/13 with their “House of Cards” and those concerns were mostly ignored or looked down at, as paranoid conspiracy theories. I doubted those critics myself.

Now I think that not only such concerns were relevant and spot on, but also not enough of them were expressed.

* * *

Netflix is a data-driven company. Entirely. It doesn’t use AI only to recommend, rank or price contents. They don’t only look at search, browse or click behaviour. And they don’t stop at the completion rate of the movies or the retention rate based on the time between two episodes of a series. They are now into using algorithms to create contents. And we should understand what it can potentially do.

What they know about our taste, the technology they own and their vision put them (and their competitors in the entertainment industry) in a very powerful position that no state or corporate has ever been before.

For half a century thinkers have written about social engineering and mass manipulation through media outlet, the uniformification through the print culture, manifacturing consent and so on.

Forget about them. The power of traditional news corporates compared to what these new firms can potentially do in subliminally hijacking our minds is close to nothing: The power of in-debth content analysis and manipulation in the information warfare.

* * *

So far it’s tech magazine rumour and common knowledge that Netflix looks into when you pause, rewind or skip. Or that they match their recommendations with local events, seasonal trends and weather so that contents suit our moods. The estimated social class and demography based on zip code and the device we use, etc., are of course among the basics. Every firm does it these days and it’s not an edge any longer.

As time goes by and they sample the subscribers longer, faster and deeper, creating a digital profile of every one and their estimated psychometrics is not really sci-fi. They would be bad at their job if they don’t already do it, while they can.

Now looking at the fast pace of their interdisciplinary growth and where they can be in five years from now, should this start to get us worried? Worried not about the potential power of such companies, which is obvious, but about their intent: Their willingness to shape public opinions in the ways never possible before.

Of course we should!

* * *

Here I would like to cite mr. Murphy with a little modification:

Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong…

… if there’s enough money at stake!

And there’s enough money at stake. Lots of money. Can you imagine any business more profitable than manipulating people’s minds?

If you have the most optimist world view about human individuals, you should still be skeptic about the outcomes of the human collective behavior and its mallicious emergent properties.

When persuing shareholder profit is the main rule of the game, and this realm is not [and can not easily be] regulated, what else do we expect? For the boards of the corporations to be nice and cute, and to regulate themselves away from manipulating their own customers when much more profit is there to be made? Perhaps that they should stop showing guns or violence because it’s not good for the kids?

With the current rules of the game if you appoint the most caring, descent and honorable humans to the board of advisors and directors of these companies they will still soon enough attempt to do all of these: shaping public opinions, rigging democracies, justifying wars, gamifying exploitation of resources, igniting and guiding conflicts, and anything needed to lead the world population to a desired direction that pays off.

It’s natural for these trends to happen and it’s naive to think otherwise.

* * *

And if you think such companies will never use their potential to inject suspicious political agenda, or that they will never attempt to take political sides in controversial bloody conflicts or co-branding with potentially terrorist groups and so on, I would like to remind you that The White Helmets are still featured on Netflix!

I don’t have any first or second hand information about what’s taking place on the ground in Syria. I just smell something fishy when I see their content featured among a load of entertinment. To me it’s a red flag.

And I expect more of this to appear on our screens.

* * *

And if you are still subscribed to Netflix, watch “Black Mirror”‘s episode “Men Against Fire”.

My point is that manipulating people to see other beings as zombies or roaches in order to guide conflicts doesn’t require cheap implants!

Wireless organisms?

Can there be wireless organisms connected with wireless nerves? Can we imagine an organism that some day evolves somewhere, with its parts being movable/portable? Something that lives on as a single organism, transfers data between its detachable sensory, motor or processing parts, yet function as a whole single organism in a sense that its parts live together, or die together?

Simply put, nerves transfer information within the same organism, while senses do so in between organisms. Nerves are “wired” since electric signals need a immovable/unportable medium. But could it potentially exist an organism that uses wireless signals (light, sound, fragrance) to communicate between it’s detachable and portable parts? Something that uses electromagnetic waves, vibrations, chemical compounds or what else nature can provide?

Just imagine you could wirelessly send your hands to pick food for you and meanwhle sense and contol it, given that your hand doesn’t have a brain of its own. Then you would be something like a superorganism that is made of different portable alive parts that share a single central nervos system. Is such a creature imaginable somewhere in this big universe?

If yes, why our earth didn’t evolve any such wireless feature inside an organism? This is a bit counter-intuitive to me because such a mutation, implemented via any imaginable medium that nature would come up with (electromagnetics / chemicals / light / vibration) seems to me a kick-ass winner in any game of adaptation.

Here are few quick alternatives I can think of:

1. the issue of bandwith regulation:
Was it a difficult technical challange for nature to solve frequency interference? Regulating interference can be as limiting as much as motor acts are limited in the space. And then we know of one single dimension of data that is typicall carried by a wave (amplitude, frequency, etc.), while spatial dimensions are three! So organs better claim space than dedicate a frequency to themselves?

2. The problem of coverage:
Could it be caused by other technical issues like such as network coverage in distance?… When your hand gets to far from you for example!

3. The problem of becoming food!
May be the detached pieces without a complex scalable-by-size central nervous system can not move. It is argued that organisms need brains to move and that’s why brains are for. So would those little parts be eaten immediately and cause death to the full organism?

Value-Fact Distinction?

There is this thing called “value-fact distinction”; it points out to the difference between “what is” and “what ought to be” (in Persian: «باید و نباید» vs. «هست و نیست»).

* * *

1. As a child I was not aware of this distinction. I think it is quite natural (a default setting) to experience the reality based on emotions and values and judge the world based on how it benefits us, as opposed to objective investigation out of mere curiousity.

That is, morality is – wrongfully and as a default mindset – assumed to be as objective as rationality.

* * *

2. As I grew up I started to spot relativity in our ethics and morals. I was convinced that factual statements are objective and can be evaulated as true or false, but ethical statements are subjective and right vs wrong is a matter of taste or perspective.

True/False and Right/Wrong duality may “feel” alike, and we apply both to our decision-makings in life. But we should not mix them while investigating the world: If we set out to inspect the objective reality, we should stick to the facts staying away from the subjectivity of ethics. Mistaking right or wrong for true or false is a trap.

Or facts are objective; values are not.

* * *

3. The weird thing is that the distinction between facts and values is fading again for me. They are coming together like when I was a child, but this time in a different way.

I ask what if facts and values are both a matter of perspective, in a fundamental way. That both rationality and morality are subjective?

Kids may know some things better, prior to their culturally biased upbringing.

Multidimensional-valued Logic

A practical question/idea for logicians out there (expressed poetically of course, since it is me):

I was thinking what if true and false are just feelings and not states of truth. Say feelings like perception of colors. [Come on, it’s post-truth era.]

So we made up this language and then this two-valued logic and painted a monochrome picture of the truth.

Until this fuzzy guy came along and gave truth different shades and so painted this grey-scale image.

And then that non-monotonic guy came and animated that still image.

fuzzy

Now, is there any way we can paint this old movie in colors?! Multidimensional-valued truth, I am talking about.

I mean most of syntactical logic is just mechanical word play. Like this post. So why not making another truthful logic for that, too? You get cited, I promise!