Spain can not escape austerity because they do not have their own currency to print to finance their bankrupt government! And even if they did have their own currency floating against a one-world reserve currency, they would still be unable to escape austerity, because investors would punish them by fleeing to less bankrupted nations where they can buy debt denominated in the reserve currency unit-of-account. If nations attempt to sell debt denominated in their national currencies (that float against the one-world reserve currency), they will find that they can only capture speculative ingress and they will suffer massive volatility and crisis on each egress, because remember international capital flows follow a herding pattern. Don't forget the famous statement from a USA Treasury official to a Third World country official, "It is our dollar, but it is your problem". http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/12/spain-look-to-overthrow-austerity/ | Spain Look to Overthrow Austerity
The Spanish Podemos party believes it will end up with an absolute majority. Here too, the people are fed-up with austerity being shoved down their throat by Germany and the IMF, when they themselves are hardly the land of no debts. It looks like Spain will be the next and we see the same result rising in Italy and Portugal. |
|
|
|
|
Your post for debunking Kurzweil doesn't really address what I was talking about. I made the statement that real AI isn't really possible because the debug and error checking system of the AI would be entirely human designed, and this component of the system would define just about everything that the AI was doing at any given time.
Yes it does. Read it again more carefully. I already encompassed the generative essence of that. http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropybut it can't vary its imperfections nondeterministically Geniuses don't write all the special cases. We write a generative essence statement which captures all the special cases in the model.
... or it's going to mirror biological evolution.
You are repeating what I wrote in my blog before you did. Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique. Notwithstanding that uniqueness, if human evolution was entirely encoded in a finite genome, then it would be mathematically possible for a plurality of humans to have identical brains at some point in time as the brain forms before differentiation from non-identical learning environments. However, the brain is learning and exposed to the environment as it is forming in the womb, thus there is never a point in time where the brain was entirely structured from only the information in the DNA.
Thus evolution is not just an encoding from the environment to the genome, rather a continuous interaction between the ongoing environment and the genome. Thus for computers to obtain the same entropy of the collective human brainpower, they would need to be human reproducing, contributing to genome and interacting with the environment in the ways humans do. Even if computers could do this, the technological singularity would not occur, because the computers would be equivalent to adding more humans to the population. |
|
|
|
Nope, but it would probably enslave Russia. Just look at what happened to the Ruble!
Incorrect! The one-world reserve currency will enslave all of the nations. Study my post #11 more carefully. You didn't comprehend it.
I suggest you relate that to "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. And also relate that to the Asian crisis in 1998, which was caused by speculative international capital flows fleeing to Europe to take advantage of the ingress in investment that corresponded with the launch of the Euro. Nations are inherently prone to short-term capital ingress and egress. Without their own central bank to inflate out of an egress crisis, they are enslaved by the unit-of-account which is imposed on them by investors. The problem is fundamentally rooted in the ability of stored money to be a claim on future production. Instead when profitable production results from a diversity of knowledge innovations that are DIRECT (e.g. the customer uses your software, or they 3D print your design) and not just proxies diluted by mass production (e.g. factories make a million copies of your design), then stored money becomes incredibly difficult to invest. The more stored money you have, the faster it withers in relative value. This is the paradigm shift coming on now due to the Knowledge Age. In short, investing will become active instead of passive, and investing will be small and numerous (i.e. bottom-up) instead of large economy-of-scale fascism (i.e. top-down). Sorry Armstrong! Storing capital in money instead of fine-grained (maximum division-of-labor) knowledge thus causing international capital flows that are the problem! That paradigm must be eliminated! We need capital flows to be instead actual finely-grained, bottom-up knowledge exchange, where capital becomes knowledge and not stored claims on future production. Then there won't be any more nations, nor any one-world top-down slavery. You say "no one will save and be productive"? Wrong! They will save up their knowledge gained by being productive instead of lazy! This is the paradigm shift of epic proportions and nearly no one sees it is happening. |
|
|
|
I can't remember, was the Anonymint age of knowledge thing supposed to inevitably lead to the creation of AI or not?
Absolutely not! My seminal blog was about how Kurzweil's Singularity is nonsense; and where I had already made the points you are making about A.I.. Go read this new thread of mine to understand in one page my thesis on everything talked about in this 45 page thread. |
|
|
|
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Armstrong's hair-brained "direct democracy" idea has failed; there is only one solutionFrom: iamback Date: Thu, March 12, 2015 3:49 am To: "Armstrong Economics" < armstrongeconomics@gmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well Switzerland with its unique "direct democracy" (citizens can raise referendums at-will and have a popular vote) has failed to stop the DEEP STATE from instituting the plan for Global Technocracy: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/12/switzerland-joins-nsa-is-monitoring-its-citizens/The Swiss have now introduced the Enlightenment Intelligence Agencies Act which expands the powers of government to secretly track citizens, tap phones, and to do so even if the person is not actually charged with a crime. One by one, every country seems to be turning to Stalinist type tactics and are obsessed with what are their citicens thinking.
Connecting the dots, what is starting to emerge is a bleak picture that those in bureaucratic government know the financial system will collapse thanks to socialism they cannot maintain. Between promises to the people and pensions that are unfunded, the day of reckoning seems to be understood quietly behind the curtain. There is just no other reason to track the movement of every car and every person storing every phone call, text message, and email. What are they so paranoid about? It is always one thing – losing power.
It appears that those deep in the bowels of government are preparing to take society as a whole into authoritarianism all the way to maintain power by force. Europe has already dismissed democratic elections. Brussels has told Greece pay up, they do not care about what the Greek people want. The same in Spain. They rigged the elections in Italy and Scotland. Everywhere we look there is something wrong and it appears they are tightening the shutters getting ready for the economic storm to hit.
What the future holds with government is becoming dark and sinister for it is all about them sustaining control. This seems to be the classic battle between government maintaining power and the people demanding freedom. This is the real battle of history. This can go either way. But it appears we will reach that crossroads all because of greed, corruption, and a financial system that nobody in their right mind would have designed.
There is ONLY one solution to the crisis on the horizon. We will look at this in detail at the Solution Conference. This will be a live stream even on the internet worldwide. We have to deal with the collapsing economy for therein lies our entire fate as a society. The only solution is to make it relatively very unprofitable to finance ROI with debt. This is what the Knowledge Age will do. I explained upthread. The one-world system will fall down into the abyss and not be able to compete. The Knowledge Age currencies will be autonomous and numerous, yet pegged to the one-world unit-of-account, but not borrowing in that account because debt won't finance knowledge production (it can only finance tangible things such as factories which are disappearing or become 0 profit activity with the Knowledge Age of 3D printing, etc). Armstrong's proposed collectivized solutions which he will present at his hair-brained Solutions Conference are just going to lead more of the same collectivized mess. He is not proposing real solutions, rather stop-gap measures to further the collectivization of humanity which is the problem! Human nature can't be altered with organization. Even Armstrong knows this damnit! The only solution is a paradigm shift change in the technology that renders the pre-existing collectivization mode impotent and unable to continue. I have explained that solution. |
|
|
|
I have also read (elsewhere) that many are unsatisfied with his work "post-prison".
Probably the goldbugs who are pissed that he doesn't agree that gold is manipulated, which he has revealed extensively in his blog post-prison. Even if we have a BIG DEPOPULATION (flu epidemic, war), being better prepared than most others raises the odds of survival, perhaps even to thrive thereafter.
You will never have enough ammo to hold off the hoardes of waves of humanity attacking you, if ever we reach the point where you need to have a firefight in the first place. Bunker mentality is a battle of attrition. It isn't realistic. A true survivalist would be able to survive with nothing but a knife. I didn't mention that I've carried 50kg 12 foot long 6" x 6" chainsaw cut hardwood (Mahogany?) logs on my head over the mountains and valleys with the natives here in the Philippines. I know how to survive on digging camote (sweet potato) out of the ground. I can run long distances. But that is only an insurance policy. I would much rather find a crypto solution for my well being in a modern, productive, prosperous world. The life in the wild is harsh. Lime disease from ticks any one? |
|
|
|
Armstrong has no answer to my challenge. He goes back to his repetitive theme of blaming the problem on bureaucrats and his hair-brained idea of "direct democracy" as a solution. Voting (politics) is never a solution and can always be subverted by the human nature of collectivism. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/11/german-and-spanish-key-banks-fail-us-stress-tests/This is just becoming a total mess and above all, we really cannot afford perople calling the shots who have zero practical experience beyond making their family members rich on the side. |
|
|
|
More correct Armstrong predictions. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/11/gold-the-downside/ | The Gold “POP” our computer pinpointed was right on schedule. We even managed to get the day of the high. Now gold has fallen to 1146 intraday and this is interesting. Our Daily Bearish Reversals are at 1146 and 1141 followed by 1130. Resistance now stands at the 1208-1215 level. |
|
|
|
|
Look, no one is forcing you to use bitcoin or anything else.
Obviously you have not even read nor comprehended the thread. No where did I write that crypto-currency was not part of the solution. In fact, I wrote the opposite, stating the crypto-currency is part of the Knowledge Age solution. |
|
|
|
The money banks create goes by default into other banks. Thus even if the bank does not attract deposits they can borrow money from their neighbor banks. This is not free and the cost to do this is artificially set (in the US) by the FED. It is this cost that is the true limiting factor on how much money a bank can create.
This interbank lending rate is called the Federal Funds Rate.
Nothing prevents Coinbase from doing fractional reserve off chain lending. The underlying asset cryptocurrency, however, is fixed and limited in supply. Thus if when Coinbase starts doing this it will be operating much like the fractional reserve banking system did when we were on a gold standard.
The key to understanding the scam is the realization that bank lending is not limited by their deposits. Rather they create they money and in the process debase/devalue the currency of everyone else.
Correct if there is no Central Bank to print more fractional reserve receipts to bailout bank runs, then the banks fail from fractional reserve lending (which creates money out of thin air). The scam of Central Banking is the people agree to collectivize the debasement over the entire banking and financial system. This delays the defaults (in our case for the past 80+ years), which ends up making the default a global abyss of epic proportions as what we will see over the next 7 years starting 2015.75. The reason we ended up with a Central Bank in the USA in 1913, was because the monetary system was so dysfunctional towards the end of the 19th century, we were having bank runs and depressions often. Fractional reserve banking is a natural free market result. It can't be stopped with regulation (because the political system will always be captured by the banksters). The only solution is the one I am writing about in my new thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985481.0As usual, I don't expect most readers to understand my point. |
|
|
|
The money banks create goes by default into other banks. Thus even if the bank does not attract deposits they can borrow money from their neighbor banks. This is not free and the cost to do this is artificially set (in the US) by the FED. It is this cost that is the true limiting factor on how much money a bank can create.
This interbank lending rate is called the Federal Funds Rate.
Nothing prevents Coinbase from doing fractional reserve off chain lending. The underlying asset cryptocurrency, however, is fixed and limited in supply. Thus if when Coinbase starts doing this it will be operating much like the fractional reserve banking system did when we were on a gold standard.
The key to understanding the scam is the realization that bank lending is not limited by their deposits. Rather they create they money and in the process debase/devalue the currency of everyone else.
Correct if there is no Central Bank to print more fractional reserve receipts to bailout bank runs, then the banks fail from fractional reserve lending (which creates money out of thin air). The scam of Central Banking is the people agree to collectivize the debasement over the entire banking and financial system. This delays the defaults (in our case for the past 80+ years), which ends up making the default a global abyss of epic proportions as what we will see over the next 7 years starting 2015.75. The reason we ended up with a Central Bank in the USA in 1913, was because the monetary system was so dysfunctional towards the end of the 19th century, we were having bank runs and depressions often. Fractional reserve banking is a natural free market result. It can't be stopped with regulation (because the political system will always be captured by the banksters). The only solution is the one I am writing about in my new thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985481.0As usual, I don't expect most readers to understand my point. |
|
|
|
I would not take insults from AnonyMint iamback too seriously. He tends to throw them around liberally at pretty much everyone.
I also commend people who write astute and smart posts. You can find many, many, many examples of that. an expert in the field.
Armstrong has correctly stated that the experts learned by doing, not from theory and academic cathedrals. Thus there are very few experts (at least amongst those who speak out in public or publish). Most of the talking heads or those who publish research are just spouting delusion. |
|
|
|
|
What part of "spoon feed" do you not understand?
If ever one of the 63,000 readers can't just go read the essays in the OP and read the thread, and instead has to burden the thread with their personal demands, is that realistic? I don't think you are being civil with that attitude. You are being a whining spoiled brat.
Also CoinCube's formal training in economics is mostly irrelevant. Beyond Economics 101, most of what you learn from theory is wrong. For you to imply that is a requirement for you to read this thread, is way over the top (bringing that snotty academic cathedral attitude into a Bitcoin forum).
CoinCube, you are correct I don't give a shit about politics, because having the correct ideas and knowledge is what matters. Nothing is accomplished if decision making is done groupwise. Am I going to have to prove that, when I single-handedly have to write the crypto-currency we need?
I am tired of begging Skycoin, Monero, etc to work on what we need.
Leaders lead by doing. Followers talk, waste time, and eventually adopt what the leaders did successfully.
|
|
|
|
I hope everyone understands the implied point in the OP of comparing the Euro vs. Greece to the one-world reserve currency vs. nations. Greece was forced to borrow denominated in Euros during the speculative inflow of investment at the turn of the 21st century, but as Germany was more productive they benefited more from the Euro and Greece had no way to devalue their debt. So they are repaying the debt with a lower productive economy with massive egress of speculative investment. The same problem with happen when the reserve currency for debt is SDRs and then all nations will be repaying their debts in SDRs while they won't have the policy tools to inflate nor deflate their debt burdens to respond to volatility in relative productivity and speculative ingress and egress of capital. Effectively they become a slave to the international central bank who can issue fractional reserve debt denominated in SDRs, which the banksters will surely have in their back pocket again. Just like the Fed now is pumping debt into the developing world making them short the dollar, then it will pull the rug from under them by raising interest rates sending the dollar higher and causing them to repay debt in more expensive dollars. The only solution to this problem is for the Knowledge Age to rise and say "I don't need stored monetary capital, I need knowledge". I will quote from myself about this as follows. The Rise of KnowledgeFinanceability of Knowledge
As explained in the “Economy of Knowledge” and “Energy of Knowledge” sections, knowledge doesn't exist now if it isn't dynamically adaptable in the future. The only systems in nature which can do this, are those that are composed of autonomous agents without top-down control, e.g. ant colonies, the neurons and synapses of the human brain, free markets, and unregulated social networks.
Due to aggregating and concentrating capital via an interest rate, as opposed to dispersing and scattering capital, finance mathematically must over time reduce the quantity of autonomous decisions (at least decisions about who receives funding to produce). Thus if financing were the predominant long-term trend, knowledge could not be.
The more potential energy in the knowledge capital, the more priceless it is sell its future. There are knowledge producers such as the creator of the open-source software movement, who absolutely refuse to work at any price where they don't have sufficient ownership of their knowledge, so as to prevent limitations of its potential future use. Due to the transactional cost Theory of the Firm which provides for the economic existence of the corporation, corporate capital accumulates by defending or increasing the transactional cost between otherwise autonomous knowledge producing actors. Thus increasing corporate control of knowledge is the antithesis of increasing knowledge. Knowledge can only increase by increasing the autonomy of the knowledge producing actors. This tension is depicted graphically.
Thus, finance and corporations are inherently ownership centralization paradigms. Whereas, knowledge ownership can not be centralized without destroying it.
For example, if a corporation purchased a huge library of software modules or books, written by different authors, the managers could create nothing with this without the authors (or others) who are knowledgeable of these modules or books. If these authors were not already organically interacting, then they would not be able to at any price, unless there was interoperability knowledge potential enumerated by some knowledgeable person(s). Thus always the knowledge is owned by the knowledge producers. When a knowledge producer is gone, the knowledge previously produced is destroyed, if it was not adopted by another sufficiently knowledgeable producer.
The Inverse Commons explains that unlike sharing of hard resources, the sharing of knowledge increases the value of the shared knowledge. Current knowledge becomes more valuable as it gains more future potential uses, and only autonomous knowledge actors can maximize diverse use cases of interoperability.
Software has minimal financing requirements, e.g. one or two humans with computers can write software that launches a $millions start-up. I did this once or twice by myself with no employees (e.g. CoolPage.com by 2001 if in Shadowstats inflation-adjusted dollars).
Knowledge Investing
Since the ownership of knowledge can't be transferred with money, financing incurs the risk of guaranteeing knowledge to spontaneously create itself where it did not already exist. No level of guaranteed interest rate can compensate for this lack of knowledge in the act of financing. What attracts savers to be passive capitalists is the economy-of-scale, where the due diligence effort (i.e. knowledge production) applied does not rise significantly with the amount saved (i.e. loaned) at interest. The collective politics will guarantee (insure) the return by debasing the money as necessary to pay for the lack of knowledge production— another evidence that financing is a centralization paradigm because knowledge can't be owned with money.
Whereas, equity investment has no guaranteed return and requires knowledge production.
“Equity investments” that are based on consistent dividends, are essentially a low knowledge production investment decision with a semi-guaranteed return similar to financing. It is instructive to note that as of 2008 “No stockholder has made a real inflation-adjusted penny in equity in Coca-Cola in 46 years.”.
Passive capitalists will find it nearly impossible to venture into high-tech knowledge investing, because they necessarily must approach it from the financing perspective, as their objective is to deploy large quantities of capital passively, i.e. to approach the theoretical constant marginal utility of gold. For example, Buffett's BYD (which makes electric cars) investment has performed poorly. A scientifically knowledgeable person knows that the energy-density of batteries is not ROI competitive with petrol.
One general rule for investing in knowledge production, is to invest close to what you know well. Because knowledge is inherently local and autonomous. If there is some popular investment theme, then it must have a very low relative knowledge production— the extreme case is depositing money in the bank, where the depositor doesn't even care how the money is invested.
The creator of the open-source software movement enumerated some business models that apply to knowledge production. The general concept is to not own the preexisting base of knowledge (it is always owned by the individuals and can't be transferred with money), rather to create a market for the services of the preexisting knowledge producers. In short, top-down fund some incremental advance in knowledge production and own the market for it. Remember that in the Theory of the Firm, corporations only exist where there is a transactional cost (barrier) to the autonomous knowledge producers achieving the same market organically. So the key is to identify these market barriers and invest to solve them.
Passive capital is financing those hard resources in the internet space, e.g. the massive server farms that serve the billion users of Facebook and Google, funded by collecting ad revenue rents on all internet activity— an implicit attempt to make knowledge capital subservient. Yet given the non-autonomous top-down control of thousands of knowledge producing employees, and the requirement to defend the transactional cost that sustains the corporate profit, Facebook and Google can't produce software diversity fast enough to service all the features that users want. Diversified software start-ups will flourish. |
|
|
|
I personally don't see anything wrong with a one world currency and actually think it could liberate people from their governments... just as long as it is a decentralized currency free from state manipulation, like bitcoin. Maybe bitcoin will grow to become a defacto world currency eventually which could exist alongside fiat ones but maybe even overtake them eventually.
The underlined is myopic delusion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=966977.0As best we can make multiple crypto-currencies (so we get decentralization through competition) but none of them will compete with the one-world reserve currency in terms of being the widespread unit-of-account. That is why I proposed the pegging feature using options. |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube, how can a correct prediction be confirmation bias? You go on your merry way of delusion.
AcademicCathedralPompousPussyPossum577, you cry baby. Do you always need to be spoon fed?
|
|
|
|
I like the poll question but the answer choices are mutually exclusive, nor collectively exhaustive.
I was rushed and felt like making the answer choices obnoxious for lack of time to give more careful thought. Mutually inclusive and exclusive choices also provide information. I like experiments. I get bored. |
|
|
|
Besides, if you save a lot (gold, stocks or even whatever iamback would suggest), then you will be in great shape for almost any future.
If you do not own a gun, don't be a snob, go buy one or two! Don't wait around! And LOTS of ammo! THREE times what you "think is enough". My 3000 rounds for the AK isn't even enough "for a good firefight" my redneck friends tell me...
I entirely disagree and I don't think you are close to being prepared...
Farmland, some livestock, fruit, vegetables, weapons, precious metals, off-the grid power is the way. And as this blue ball spins its way to oblivion it sounds like the best plan for my family and me. Those that are not self-sufficient will end up relying on government handouts and have to be a slave of the nanny state. And she is one mean bitch.
Sorry none of that nonsense will help you.[2] You better stop being a dinasour before it is too late. The Knowledge Age is the only path forward. Technology and prosperity is how you win. Bunker, "man is an island", prepare for shootouts mentality is always a loosing paradigm. |
|
|
|
Also nary a mention of black ops programs within the US Military Industrial Complex. The shadow government is very real. Wealth, secrets, and ultimately power has flowed into them for at least 6 decades.
I have posted many times about the Fourth Branch of the USA government a.k.a. the DEEP STATE which Bill Moyers did a documentary on. And I have pointed out that Donald Rumsfeld admitting on the eve of 9/11 that $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget, but all those documents (and investigators) were destroyed (and murdered) at the Pentagon the next day. As well there is a written letter from the SEC admitting that Armstrong's extensive audio recordings of phone conversations that could implicate all the banksters had been destroyed at the WTC buildings. Are you aware that Armstrong documented the entire Russian Crisis, LTCM derivative failure, and connection to Yeltsin and Edward Safra.[1]
In effect they are a more advanced sub-species of humanity using the very thing that you purport to our ultimate safety net - technology.
...
All of this being said, digital currency is the future. It will be global in nature. But it will not be good for any of us because the technology that they use to control will be so domineering that TBTB will be able to cut you off if you are non compliant with whatever law they decide to throw at you from their pedestals.
True but I guarantee you that we hackers can out tech the TPTB and the NSA. I will quote myself to explain why (we are more numerous!): http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_EntropyAlgorithm ≠ Entropy
Proponents of the technological singularity theory cite the exponential increase in computing hardware power such as Moore's Law and recent software advances such the sophisticated Spaun artificial brain which can pass simple IQ tests and interact with its environment; also IBM's Watson computer which defeated Jeopardy and chess masters, subsequently was recently programmed to do lung cancer diagnosis more accurately than human doctors.
However, the speed of the computing hardware and the sophistication of the software has no relevance because creativity can't be expressed in an algorithm. Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Thought_Isn%27t_FungibleThought Isn't Fungible
To make the computers as creative as the humans would require inputting the entropy from all the human brains. Yet there is no plausible way to extract the future uniqueness of human brains other than to allow them interact with the environment over unbounded time, because the occurrence of creativity is probablistic (by chance) as the dynamic diversity of human minds interact with the changing environment. The term unbounded means there is no way to observe or capture that uniqueness a priori other than through the future of life as it unfolds.
Inmates can be forced to do manual labor because it is possible to observe the performance of the menial tasks. However, it is impossible (or at least very inefficient and imprecise) to determine whether a human is feigning inability or giving best effort at a knowledge task. Manual labor is fungible, i.e. nearly any person with average IQ and dexterous limbs can be substituted to do the task. Whereas, knowledge production such as programming the computer, authoring content or developing marketing plans, requires diversity of thought.
The 160 IQ genius Microsoft founder Paul Allen refers to this as “specialized knowledge” in The Complexity Brake, yet he thinks the brain is finite because he apparently didn't consider that every finite human brain is unique; thus systemic creative thought possesses dynamic unbounded entropy.
Ray Kurzweil responded that the human genome (DNA) has a finite information content, and claimed that humans possess a canonical brain which is differentiated by what is learned from the environment during each human lifetime.
Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique. Notwithstanding that uniqueness, if human evolution was entirely encoded in a finite genome, then it would be mathematically possible for a plurality of humans to have identical brains at some point in time as the brain forms before differentiation from non-identical learning environments. However, the brain is learning and exposed to the environment as it is forming in the womb, thus there is never a point in time where the brain was entirely structured from only the information in the DNA.
Thus evolution is not just an encoding from the environment to the genome, rather a continuous interaction between the ongoing environment and the genome. Thus for computers to obtain the same entropy of the collective human brainpower, they would need to be human reproducing, contributing to genome and interacting with the environment in the ways humans do. Even if computers could do this, the technological singularity would not occur, because the computers would be equivalent to adding more humans to the population.
The implication is that the creativity of humankind is enhanced as the human population grows. And culling the population to increase average IQ would reduce human creativity. Resilient systems don't have low entropy.
Claude Shannon showed us that the capacity for information content is equivalent to the entropy of a system. As elucidated above, the entropy of our universe is inseparable from life, thus information is alive.
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_AnnealsKnowledge Anneals
Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math). Given Kurzweil's sensationalized magnum opus is the technological singularity, it is surprising that he is apparently not well studied in the field of social knowledge formation.
Kurzweil states that the brain is composed of a finite number of pattern matchers and that humans train to be exceptional (unique) to think deeply about some subject matter. Whether Kurzweil is implying that computer brains could have more pattern matchers and/or process information from the environment faster thus obtaining higher levels of cognitive capability from more input entropy so as to attain the claim that computers will vastly outpace human knowledge, he fails to understand a basic fact that simulated annealing (SA) is the only known global optimization algorithm when the subject matter is not known a priori. SA requires many simultaneous, independent small (imperfect trial and error) steps. The free market optimizes better than top-down because the larger number of actors anneals better. So again, the computer brains at best can supplement the supply of humans, but they can't overpower the free market. Frankly I am shocked that Kurzweil didn't realize this, since my A.I. studies in the 1980s is where I first learned about SA.
The knowledge creation process is opaque to a single top-down perspective of the universe because to be omniscient would require that the transmission of change in the universe would propagate instantly to the top-down observer, i.e. the speed-of-light would need to be infinite. But an infinite speed-of-light would collapse past and future into an infinitesimal point in spacetime— omniscient is the antithesis of existential. In order for anything to exist in the universe, there must be friction-in-time so change must propagate through resistance to change— mass. The non-uniform mass distribution of the universe is mutually causal with oscillation, which is why the universe emerges from the frequency domain. Uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing would exist. Taleb's antifragility can be conceptualized as lack of breaking resistance to variance amplification.
Farmland, some livestock, fruit, vegetables, weapons, precious metals, off-the grid power is the way. And as this blue ball spins its way to oblivion it sounds like the best plan for my family and me. Those that are not self-sufficient will end up relying on government handouts and have to be a slave of the nanny state. And she is one mean bitch.
Sorry none of that nonsense will help you.[2] You better stop being a dinasour before it is too late. The Knowledge Age is the only path forward. Technology and prosperity is how you win. Bunker, "man is an island", prepare for shootouts mentality is always a loosing paradigm. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
