Name: Anonymous 2018-09-28 22:39
Visited Pirogovo - the museum of Ukrainian culture, where among the corn fields there are sham historical Ukrainian huts, in which the plastic corn cobs hang on the walls. There is also a fake church and a thick rotted cross, and on the cross a disproportionately small Jesus made of faded plywood, and in front of him a small wooden cross, just of the size of that Jesus.
From my childhood I remember the market in Serpukhov. And at this market was the priest, dressed in cassock and selling occult literature. Passers-by said to the priest "you are Orthodox, are you not ashamed?", but the priest joked off.
When I applied for refugee status, I was asked what kind of religion I had:
- I answered "Agnosticism".
- They: no, we have no such religion.
- Well, I say, then can you write "Satanism"?
- And this is not allowed either.
- Then what is there?
- Animalism for example is.
- Ok, write me down under some religion of your choice.
I still do not know which religion I was ordained to. However, most religions profess the so-called "golden rule", having the form of the form "feed the other shit the way you want yourself to be fed shit". Many philosophers have spoken out both for this rule and against it, giving rise to arguments of varying degrees of stupidity.
But the philosopher differs from the layman first of all by a detached analytical view of phenomena, and when the philosopher is offered an axiom, like "treat others as you want them to treat you," the philosopher sees all space of similar axioms and realizes that this is not the only possible way. Similarly, the philosopher sees the harmful consequences (or lack thereof) to which the acceptance of this axiom leads.
Let's try to parameterize "treat others as you want them to treat you." To begin with, we replace the actors with variables:
X treat Y as you want U to treat V
Now substitute the relation "treat" with variable relations R and S:
R(X,Y) as you want S(U,V)
Next, substitute "as you want" with variable P:
P(R(X,Y),S(U,V))
Thus, we have a 7d-space (P, R, S, X, Y, U, V) including, in particular:
"Love others not like penguins hate pigs"
when:
P = not like
R = love
S = hate
X = you
Y = others
U = penguins
V = pigs
In other words, there are a lot of ethical axioms of this kind.
With the consequences of adopting an axiom, everything is more complicated. For example, the above "golden rule" axiom in fact allows you to mask the path to Hell with good intentions, as in that fairy tale about a squirrel drowned during baptism, but it was still good, because the squirrel died orthodox christian. In the Old Testament, there is an alternative axiom formulated as "an eye for an eye" (or treat others as they treat you), but it leads to similar problems. On the other hand, in the Old Testament, there is "you will reap what you sow" Perhaps humanity can not be organized by such simple rules, including the universal quantifier?
Any formal or ordinary reasoning somehow comes down to a set of axioms - some beliefs. Therefore, to talk with someone about something or study someone's text, it is necessary to understand which system of axioms the person or the author of the text uses in his reasoning. Otherwise it will be a conversation between the blind and the deaf.
However, it happens that one system of axioms can be expressed through the other, especially in social systems. For example, at first sight, communists and individualists will never understand each other, for when a communist says "good", he means a common good, and when the "good" is said by an individualist, he means his own personal good.
But the trouble is, the supporters of communism are by no means unselfish, and they usually try to give their personal benefit for the common good, trying to cover the way to Hell with good intentions for the sheeple. So the communists sometimes even openly argue that one must take away other people's wealth and appropriate it for their own good, but usually they do it in a veiled manner, for example introducing benefits and welfare for themselves.
Comrades of the communists, the Nazis, also believe that it is necessary to destroy or enslave other nations by taking possession of their property. Likewise, women who feed 40 cats do not care about the welfare of these cats, but try to compensate for their mental problems, like loneliness and the lack of children. Each has its own social justice, but it reduces to the interests of the survival of some system, or this system does not live long, such as a ponzi scheme or a bomb explosion.
Such expressiveness of one through the other is traced throughout the foreseeable world - from biology, to the motion of galaxies, to quantum particles. Supporters of cybernetics will protest that, say, a black hole "sucking" objects into itself does not have control over its actions: where to fly to and what objects to catch into its gravity; - I will object to this, that none of the systems have control over themselves. Control is illusory, like freedom of will, and depends on external deterministic factors.
It's a lie that people are responsible for their actions. No man made himself: every one always has parents, acquaintances, attending psychiatrist, accomplices, and a political instructor who has pestered him in the head. A pair with Down syndrome will give birth to down syndrome kid, and if you were born in a Russian village, in a family of drunkards, you most likely will become the same Russian alcoholic, unless a miracle happens: for example, your mom will be killed by a drunken stepfather, and you will be sent to an orphanage from which Americans will adopt you. It is obvious that individual chemical reactions have no choice as to how to proceed, so why should a person (a composition of chemical reactions) have a choice?
Thus, in terms of control over their actions, a person is no different from this black hole, onto which falls a lot of dusty garbage. Everything that we see around us speaks about the ultimate determinism. You can call it fatalism, but sooner or later the matter of which your body is composed will be in the black hole located in the center of the Milky Way. And you can't do anything. You may as well jump now from a bridge... however, whether to jump or not, you have no choice.
To those who believe that there is no free will, psychiatrists diagnose schizophrenia. Therefore, if you tell the doctor that you do not control your life, then you can be sentenced to a life in a psychiatric hospital, where they will control you by medication, restricting your movement and by beating you. According to psychiatry, turning you into a vegetable by means of neuroleptics, so that you can't go to the toilet yourself, will somehow help you gain control over your life.
According to different polls, about 80% of people believe in free will, on the other hand these same people have an 80% chance to have that opinion, so their choice here is 80% deterministic. However, had 100% of people unanimously believed in determinism, there would certainly be no freedom of will, while answering that question. That gives us insight, that systems with reduced amount of freedom of will do exist.
Once upon a time, based on such observations and developing Markov's ideas, I wrote a very simple program [markov_sort] (https://github.com/saniv/markov_sort/), which takes as input the state of the world before and after some actions. To each value in the "before" space, the program assigns a set of sensors with different thresholds (selectable randomly at program startup) and links them with random values in the "after" space, again giving them random influence, thus making cross-correlation of each bit of information with each other. Seeing the unknown "before" space each such link votes (using its influence), producing the most likely "after" space. In addition, each link has associated statistics, estimating how strongly the associated "before" value affects the "after" value, it is this statistic that determines how link will vote in each particular case.
Thus, such a system can predict rather complex functions, like sorting items in ascending or descending order, while simple logical operations, like XOR, it guesses with 100% accuracy. Moreover, the more connections and the more experience system has, the more accurate the guess. Also, this system can work in a closed loop, trying to predict the state a few steps forward, as if collecting chain links of markov chain. Thus, having a set of actions, the system can choose what brings it closer to the goal. On the other hand, the program can play a role of a simple chat bot, generating a response to examples of chat conversations. Interesting, but the reasoning underlying this program have little in common with reasoning behind neural networks or perceptrons, and it is much easier to implement: it actually works directly with raw bits and does not even require floating-point numbers. Edited on 28/09/2018 23:26.
From my childhood I remember the market in Serpukhov. And at this market was the priest, dressed in cassock and selling occult literature. Passers-by said to the priest "you are Orthodox, are you not ashamed?", but the priest joked off.
When I applied for refugee status, I was asked what kind of religion I had:
- I answered "Agnosticism".
- They: no, we have no such religion.
- Well, I say, then can you write "Satanism"?
- And this is not allowed either.
- Then what is there?
- Animalism for example is.
- Ok, write me down under some religion of your choice.
I still do not know which religion I was ordained to. However, most religions profess the so-called "golden rule", having the form of the form "feed the other shit the way you want yourself to be fed shit". Many philosophers have spoken out both for this rule and against it, giving rise to arguments of varying degrees of stupidity.
But the philosopher differs from the layman first of all by a detached analytical view of phenomena, and when the philosopher is offered an axiom, like "treat others as you want them to treat you," the philosopher sees all space of similar axioms and realizes that this is not the only possible way. Similarly, the philosopher sees the harmful consequences (or lack thereof) to which the acceptance of this axiom leads.
Let's try to parameterize "treat others as you want them to treat you." To begin with, we replace the actors with variables:
X treat Y as you want U to treat V
Now substitute the relation "treat" with variable relations R and S:
R(X,Y) as you want S(U,V)
Next, substitute "as you want" with variable P:
P(R(X,Y),S(U,V))
Thus, we have a 7d-space (P, R, S, X, Y, U, V) including, in particular:
"Love others not like penguins hate pigs"
when:
P = not like
R = love
S = hate
X = you
Y = others
U = penguins
V = pigs
In other words, there are a lot of ethical axioms of this kind.
With the consequences of adopting an axiom, everything is more complicated. For example, the above "golden rule" axiom in fact allows you to mask the path to Hell with good intentions, as in that fairy tale about a squirrel drowned during baptism, but it was still good, because the squirrel died orthodox christian. In the Old Testament, there is an alternative axiom formulated as "an eye for an eye" (or treat others as they treat you), but it leads to similar problems. On the other hand, in the Old Testament, there is "you will reap what you sow" Perhaps humanity can not be organized by such simple rules, including the universal quantifier?
Any formal or ordinary reasoning somehow comes down to a set of axioms - some beliefs. Therefore, to talk with someone about something or study someone's text, it is necessary to understand which system of axioms the person or the author of the text uses in his reasoning. Otherwise it will be a conversation between the blind and the deaf.
However, it happens that one system of axioms can be expressed through the other, especially in social systems. For example, at first sight, communists and individualists will never understand each other, for when a communist says "good", he means a common good, and when the "good" is said by an individualist, he means his own personal good.
But the trouble is, the supporters of communism are by no means unselfish, and they usually try to give their personal benefit for the common good, trying to cover the way to Hell with good intentions for the sheeple. So the communists sometimes even openly argue that one must take away other people's wealth and appropriate it for their own good, but usually they do it in a veiled manner, for example introducing benefits and welfare for themselves.
Comrades of the communists, the Nazis, also believe that it is necessary to destroy or enslave other nations by taking possession of their property. Likewise, women who feed 40 cats do not care about the welfare of these cats, but try to compensate for their mental problems, like loneliness and the lack of children. Each has its own social justice, but it reduces to the interests of the survival of some system, or this system does not live long, such as a ponzi scheme or a bomb explosion.
Such expressiveness of one through the other is traced throughout the foreseeable world - from biology, to the motion of galaxies, to quantum particles. Supporters of cybernetics will protest that, say, a black hole "sucking" objects into itself does not have control over its actions: where to fly to and what objects to catch into its gravity; - I will object to this, that none of the systems have control over themselves. Control is illusory, like freedom of will, and depends on external deterministic factors.
It's a lie that people are responsible for their actions. No man made himself: every one always has parents, acquaintances, attending psychiatrist, accomplices, and a political instructor who has pestered him in the head. A pair with Down syndrome will give birth to down syndrome kid, and if you were born in a Russian village, in a family of drunkards, you most likely will become the same Russian alcoholic, unless a miracle happens: for example, your mom will be killed by a drunken stepfather, and you will be sent to an orphanage from which Americans will adopt you. It is obvious that individual chemical reactions have no choice as to how to proceed, so why should a person (a composition of chemical reactions) have a choice?
Thus, in terms of control over their actions, a person is no different from this black hole, onto which falls a lot of dusty garbage. Everything that we see around us speaks about the ultimate determinism. You can call it fatalism, but sooner or later the matter of which your body is composed will be in the black hole located in the center of the Milky Way. And you can't do anything. You may as well jump now from a bridge... however, whether to jump or not, you have no choice.
To those who believe that there is no free will, psychiatrists diagnose schizophrenia. Therefore, if you tell the doctor that you do not control your life, then you can be sentenced to a life in a psychiatric hospital, where they will control you by medication, restricting your movement and by beating you. According to psychiatry, turning you into a vegetable by means of neuroleptics, so that you can't go to the toilet yourself, will somehow help you gain control over your life.
According to different polls, about 80% of people believe in free will, on the other hand these same people have an 80% chance to have that opinion, so their choice here is 80% deterministic. However, had 100% of people unanimously believed in determinism, there would certainly be no freedom of will, while answering that question. That gives us insight, that systems with reduced amount of freedom of will do exist.
Once upon a time, based on such observations and developing Markov's ideas, I wrote a very simple program [markov_sort] (https://github.com/saniv/markov_sort/), which takes as input the state of the world before and after some actions. To each value in the "before" space, the program assigns a set of sensors with different thresholds (selectable randomly at program startup) and links them with random values in the "after" space, again giving them random influence, thus making cross-correlation of each bit of information with each other. Seeing the unknown "before" space each such link votes (using its influence), producing the most likely "after" space. In addition, each link has associated statistics, estimating how strongly the associated "before" value affects the "after" value, it is this statistic that determines how link will vote in each particular case.
Thus, such a system can predict rather complex functions, like sorting items in ascending or descending order, while simple logical operations, like XOR, it guesses with 100% accuracy. Moreover, the more connections and the more experience system has, the more accurate the guess. Also, this system can work in a closed loop, trying to predict the state a few steps forward, as if collecting chain links of markov chain. Thus, having a set of actions, the system can choose what brings it closer to the goal. On the other hand, the program can play a role of a simple chat bot, generating a response to examples of chat conversations. Interesting, but the reasoning underlying this program have little in common with reasoning behind neural networks or perceptrons, and it is much easier to implement: it actually works directly with raw bits and does not even require floating-point numbers. Edited on 28/09/2018 23:26.