No one gives a shit. They are just words: Democracy, Republic, Capitalism.
Let's change that. A Solution Clock. Three numbers, between 0 and 1. How close to 1 are we a Democracy right now. A republic right now and Capitalism right now.
Right above the Debt Clock. Boston, I'm getting pissed. There you are, MIT and Harvard, in the same town. None of you can Uber to the other? Stand up and count!!!!!
If you want to know how likely a thing is, you ask a probability theorist. How complicated is that. And since "How likely is it?" is the first of two questions of proof now (then asking the significance), I say the experts in how likely a thing might be, are supposed to be in charge now. Stand up and count!! Look at this virus!!
How hard could this be? The math people in charge organize the political and economic ideas and select a feasible version of each Democracy, Republic, Capitalism, here on this land. Then a scale between 0 and 1, and grad school kids pour over the globe until quantum computers can, and spitting out three numbers. Not rocket science.
All it takes is money. There are billionaires, who learned from being both super-rich and not, that this is immoral. The buildings do well the leaders do well, is not an economic system for people, it is one for buildings. Look at this virus, bailouts!!!!
The solution clock, it's not illegal, they couldn't stop it. And while the debt could go down independently. The three numbers could not. As those numbers increase from the near zero they are now, the debt vanishes, along with the pot holes and student debt and obesity and illness and pollution, homeless, hungry etc.
That is why they wrote the words down the Greeks. This is why the founding fathers selected them. If we would just follow the instructions? But there aren't any instructions, just s starting place and a goal. Here and a Democratic Republic practicing Capitalism. That's the goal.
So, before we can follow the instructions, we have to design them. None of our systems have been designed. To design a system, you must math it. You must. If you can't math, you can't system. Repeatability, that is the nature of proof itself, and a system. This is not complicated, the "belief" people got to go. It's time for the "Proof" people to design these systems, make the instructions and deploy things. Then the artists and poets can take over and use the systems, and we make a Democratic Republic practicing Capitalism. Can we please hire the math people now???
The Solution Clock, by Mase!
Saturday, April 11, 2020
Morality-Intelligence Scale
Someone wrote that Belief is the lowest form of knowledge and Empathy is the highest form of knowledge. I've read that in a few places over the years.
I really liked it, even though something was missing. Found it! "Me" was missing. Empathy is "we". There was belief on the low end, belief is not "me", hypocrisy is.
A belief is a strong conviction in an idea absent proof. If you got an idea, and one can prove it's false and no one can prove it's true, you got yourself a "Belief". The most important thing to know about a belief is; if no one can prove it's false, it ain't false. And if no one can prove it's true, it ain't true, your belief is not fucking true. How hard is this. These words are in English. This is literally killing tons of people right now.
Belief is not the opposite of Empathy, Hypocrisy is, I think.
Hypocrisy: As there is nothing less to know, no less morality to have, than "Me"
Empathy: As there is nothing more to know, no more knowledge exists, than "We"
A being can not exist with less than "me", and an being can not exist with more than "we". It's the least or most a being can possess. Could that be the definition of "being" this scale? Falling inside this scale? would a rock meet this scale? If not, then it is not a being, that separates us, like the movie Andromeda strain from the 70's, defining what it means to be "alive" Life, yeah that's dumb, but...something for someone smart to look into maybe?
Just curios, I don't have too many original thoughts, is this a new one? How would one know something like that, lol. Not too important, Someone must have written this before I suppose.
I like it, Hypocrisy is the Opposite of Empathy. See the scale, Me to We. So, it seems this knowledge journey we are on starts at "me", I can see those cave people, each self-concerned and each not knowing they or anyone else is exclusively self-concerned. And ends at empathy. It is not only a knowledge journey, it is also a morality journey. Morality and knowledge are causal, I think.
[ME] ??? - Social Groups - Feudalism - Industrialism - Capitalism - Socialism - Communism [Almost We] - xxx - Empathy [WE]
Binary Proof - - Multi-Valued Proof - some 4th dimensional animated non euclidean proof maybe - then who knows Empathy proof??? It fits right?
(If the political system and economic systems don't come together until communism, why does Sanders and Scandinavia have it together now? democratic-socialism? They know more than Plato? Maybe it's different in grad school? Why can't we follow the instructions? Well lawyers and bankers are good at making them up, we need probability theorists in charge to design our systems)
So, as we progress in time, the more "we" we become the more things we can know, those things include what we do not know about ourselves, and everything about anything that is not ourselves. See, we don't go backwards in time, we are going this way, more morality, more knowledge.
Before you can know anything, you have to think it. Before you can think it, it has to occur to you. If it doesn't occur to you think of something, it isn't possible to think of it. That is called index of suspicion. So, it would not be the thoughts we have, nor the things we say, the lowest common denominator, is to have things occur to us. So Scarmucci says that what Trump said was racist but he himself is not racist.
That is at odds with this. This supposes that the thought simply occurring to him is what's relevant. When he said "Why do we give attorneys to brown people at the border", I was slightly incredulous. I mean the president is asking why the brown people have the same rights as him. That's stupid. My brain wont work that way, all people can not be created equal and I have more rights than some people. It makes sense, he is a Nationalist, again this is the President, Americans are not more equal than others. Oh, there is no separate but equal, they tried that already. It's like a comedy.
Hey a Nationalist? A National Capitalist, that's the Naca Party, not National Socialism, not a Nazi, a Naca ("c" like in ice). We have a Naca Party, neat! Naca-Maga, sounds like babies pre-speech, having an adult conversation. It sounds just like that.
So, in America today, the anchor on planet earth for Freedom and Human Rights, Fair Trade and Equality we have a President who is a Racist Nationalist. We look like fucking Morons. You can't make this up, I mean this in particular.
It's not that they are wrong, it's the hypocrisy that is offensive to the human spirit. That person seems to be farther back on the me/we line. They have some growing to do.
The more "me" one is the less things there are that can occur to them, it seems. The set of things that can occur to them is small. This small set seem to be finite. And maybe each answer they look for has to fit into one of these things, and if it cant find one close or far, it just sits there as it's own idea. He is a genius and also at the same time hides his grades. I think to acquire more members of this set of thoughts inside our index of suspicion, one has to be able to "we", not simply with people but all the resources and ideas, all beings.
Mostly, small context people, tend to avoid those ideas that are facts and prefer their false ones, it feels better, instinct. I suppose most ideas will fit to some extent into one to the things he has available to think about. Even it's not a good fit, to them it would still be right and they will defend it. Oh winning "this round" would have to be more important than "winning the entire game". See a round is one or more, and the entire game is the set of rounds or "we". Like a primer.
For example, a bunch of friends were hanging out talking about a news story about white people using the "N" word. They asked and I said something like, I think that word is none of my business, not all words belong to all people. One guy is offended, as an American, he declares that this is America, we have a first Amendment, he can say anything he wants, first amendment, blah blah blah. I pointed out that I can't go to his house and call his mom honey, and he goes "What did you call my mom".
So basically, he can say anything he wants, but we cant say anything we want. "We" is opposed to "me", and in that brain both those ideas sit, with no conflict. I think that is the defect. How can one Idea, exist in the same brain as both true and not true? Trump kept his promises and the deficit is a trillion bucks? Well, that works with most of his big promises. Both true and false in one brain.
Hamilton wanted to federalize the war debt, Jefferson did not, Virginia had already paid theirs. That's "me". So they made a deal. We federalized the debt and Jefferson moved the capitol to Northern Virginia where he was from. Hamilton accomplished something that has benefited billions, Jefferson got to go home for himself.
There is something about hypocrisy and the ability two keep one idea in your brain as both true and not true. I have gotten high a couple of times and tried to do this. I tried to think he repealed Obama care and also Obama care is still law. It simply does not fit in my brain, and I really want to see what that looks like. No luck so far. But trying quietly, almost like meditating, does provide some context. Not enough to make a new idea. Oh! That's the point new ideas to us.
This is a problem, for them, how can new ideas occur to you if you do not allow new ideas to happen? If you block the data, how can you get the context?
It's a scale, so one idea should fall close the "me" side and the other to the "we" side. If time moves backwards the "me" would be correct. So, "we" seems to be the right moral thing and we ought to make that choice, the choice closer to "we" on this scale. Gotta say this ought to make decision making easy. Oh! Of course, that's why people agonize over choices, humans know "we" is the answer, so making that choice is easy. So one reason it could be a difficult choice is, it's hard to tell, like the choices are in the middle.
Also, it might be difficult, if the choice you want to satisfy instincts, and the "we" choice are not the same. So, the ability to rise against instinct might be helpful. That's the best definition of intelligence I ever read, and I have kept that definition as my preference. So to rise against instinct would get you closer to "we".
[me]-----------[my gun system]-------------------[our gun system]---------------------[we]
[me]-----------[my single payer health]----------[our universal health]----------------[we]
[me]-----------[racism]------------------------------[human]-------------------------------[we]
[me]-----------[Nationalism]-----------------------[Democracy]-------------------------[we]
I see a pattern here. For me the context for right and wrong was missing, the context seems to be hypocrisy/empathy. I mean if this was not relevant, then the "me" stuff and the "we" stuff would be random, not consistent on their own side. Avoiding the middle where it's hard to tell. Seems this would be the way to make choices about right and wrong. Quantified right and wrong, would be possible if this were true, maybe.
So it's not about immoral, it's about less more and more moral. The more moral you are the more "we" you are. In order to be more "we", that has to occur to you, that "we" is a group that includes you, and to start to know the group as you know yourself. If you do that that might provide opportunity to see something you know as some "other". Like saying the same sentence in two different languages, it makes it look a little different, more if you will, adding to what you already saw. Now that also can occur to you as you go forward. You have more ideas to think about, because more things can occur to you, and results in more ideas and more knowledge.
I think that makes morality causal to intelligence and data. The more moral, the more "we" the more you can know and the more you can understand.
It seems we can empathize with our future selves. The better you are at predicting, the more data you have to work with. But the data alone is not enough. Many people downloaded the corona virus data and did their own math, early. Not at first, it was just another virus. But then it wasn't. We data down-loaders paid attention, because we do data and the tool for predicting things is math. Maybe since we are used to thinking of some things as things that will happen, as opposed to might happen, we have an empathy advantage.
The empathy of our futures selves, perhaps it's easier to see if it has more shape, predicting with proof rather than instinct. I have no interest in gasping for my last breath weeks from now. Neither does anyone else. How likely that is to happen jumped substantially with this virus, and some people like me, took substantial early efforts, those who did not are the people mostly who are sick, some are sick now and do not it yet.
So a thing that can be predicted with math must be predicted by math and the individual has to know that on some level. Most wont know it as knowledge themselves, but the group they are in might include a friend or a son, and that "we" makes a group, so the group knows. Why do some individuals go the opposite way?
We have no way of predicting individual behavior. Only group behavior. So the answer is we don't know.
It has to be more than the group. It's anecdotal, but weeks ago, I was Paul Revere and treated like chicken little by friends and others, even my own mother would not leave Manhattan weeks ago, and in this case there were good options. Why? I really want to know what I can do better.
It seems it is the job of the individual to keep care of the group, so the group can make progress for the individual. There is a conflict. I mean on it's face, excluding those not helping the group would also remove the context they contribute, and that is less context.
Oh! No, false is implied in true, we already have that context, and it's no longer needed. So excluding the "me" is required, it is blocking the "we". That makes more sense. I donlt know, any chance Noam Chomsky can read this and let me know if it's stupid? A scale, for moralty/knowledge, to contextualize proof in terms of "what is better".
I really liked it, even though something was missing. Found it! "Me" was missing. Empathy is "we". There was belief on the low end, belief is not "me", hypocrisy is.
A belief is a strong conviction in an idea absent proof. If you got an idea, and one can prove it's false and no one can prove it's true, you got yourself a "Belief". The most important thing to know about a belief is; if no one can prove it's false, it ain't false. And if no one can prove it's true, it ain't true, your belief is not fucking true. How hard is this. These words are in English. This is literally killing tons of people right now.
Belief is not the opposite of Empathy, Hypocrisy is, I think.
Hypocrisy: As there is nothing less to know, no less morality to have, than "Me"
Empathy: As there is nothing more to know, no more knowledge exists, than "We"
A being can not exist with less than "me", and an being can not exist with more than "we". It's the least or most a being can possess. Could that be the definition of "being" this scale? Falling inside this scale? would a rock meet this scale? If not, then it is not a being, that separates us, like the movie Andromeda strain from the 70's, defining what it means to be "alive" Life, yeah that's dumb, but...something for someone smart to look into maybe?
Just curios, I don't have too many original thoughts, is this a new one? How would one know something like that, lol. Not too important, Someone must have written this before I suppose.
I like it, Hypocrisy is the Opposite of Empathy. See the scale, Me to We. So, it seems this knowledge journey we are on starts at "me", I can see those cave people, each self-concerned and each not knowing they or anyone else is exclusively self-concerned. And ends at empathy. It is not only a knowledge journey, it is also a morality journey. Morality and knowledge are causal, I think.
[ME] ??? - Social Groups - Feudalism - Industrialism - Capitalism - Socialism - Communism [Almost We] - xxx - Empathy [WE]
Binary Proof - - Multi-Valued Proof - some 4th dimensional animated non euclidean proof maybe - then who knows Empathy proof??? It fits right?
(If the political system and economic systems don't come together until communism, why does Sanders and Scandinavia have it together now? democratic-socialism? They know more than Plato? Maybe it's different in grad school? Why can't we follow the instructions? Well lawyers and bankers are good at making them up, we need probability theorists in charge to design our systems)
So, as we progress in time, the more "we" we become the more things we can know, those things include what we do not know about ourselves, and everything about anything that is not ourselves. See, we don't go backwards in time, we are going this way, more morality, more knowledge.
Before you can know anything, you have to think it. Before you can think it, it has to occur to you. If it doesn't occur to you think of something, it isn't possible to think of it. That is called index of suspicion. So, it would not be the thoughts we have, nor the things we say, the lowest common denominator, is to have things occur to us. So Scarmucci says that what Trump said was racist but he himself is not racist.
That is at odds with this. This supposes that the thought simply occurring to him is what's relevant. When he said "Why do we give attorneys to brown people at the border", I was slightly incredulous. I mean the president is asking why the brown people have the same rights as him. That's stupid. My brain wont work that way, all people can not be created equal and I have more rights than some people. It makes sense, he is a Nationalist, again this is the President, Americans are not more equal than others. Oh, there is no separate but equal, they tried that already. It's like a comedy.
Hey a Nationalist? A National Capitalist, that's the Naca Party, not National Socialism, not a Nazi, a Naca ("c" like in ice). We have a Naca Party, neat! Naca-Maga, sounds like babies pre-speech, having an adult conversation. It sounds just like that.
So, in America today, the anchor on planet earth for Freedom and Human Rights, Fair Trade and Equality we have a President who is a Racist Nationalist. We look like fucking Morons. You can't make this up, I mean this in particular.
It's not that they are wrong, it's the hypocrisy that is offensive to the human spirit. That person seems to be farther back on the me/we line. They have some growing to do.
The more "me" one is the less things there are that can occur to them, it seems. The set of things that can occur to them is small. This small set seem to be finite. And maybe each answer they look for has to fit into one of these things, and if it cant find one close or far, it just sits there as it's own idea. He is a genius and also at the same time hides his grades. I think to acquire more members of this set of thoughts inside our index of suspicion, one has to be able to "we", not simply with people but all the resources and ideas, all beings.
Mostly, small context people, tend to avoid those ideas that are facts and prefer their false ones, it feels better, instinct. I suppose most ideas will fit to some extent into one to the things he has available to think about. Even it's not a good fit, to them it would still be right and they will defend it. Oh winning "this round" would have to be more important than "winning the entire game". See a round is one or more, and the entire game is the set of rounds or "we". Like a primer.
For example, a bunch of friends were hanging out talking about a news story about white people using the "N" word. They asked and I said something like, I think that word is none of my business, not all words belong to all people. One guy is offended, as an American, he declares that this is America, we have a first Amendment, he can say anything he wants, first amendment, blah blah blah. I pointed out that I can't go to his house and call his mom honey, and he goes "What did you call my mom".
So basically, he can say anything he wants, but we cant say anything we want. "We" is opposed to "me", and in that brain both those ideas sit, with no conflict. I think that is the defect. How can one Idea, exist in the same brain as both true and not true? Trump kept his promises and the deficit is a trillion bucks? Well, that works with most of his big promises. Both true and false in one brain.
Hamilton wanted to federalize the war debt, Jefferson did not, Virginia had already paid theirs. That's "me". So they made a deal. We federalized the debt and Jefferson moved the capitol to Northern Virginia where he was from. Hamilton accomplished something that has benefited billions, Jefferson got to go home for himself.
There is something about hypocrisy and the ability two keep one idea in your brain as both true and not true. I have gotten high a couple of times and tried to do this. I tried to think he repealed Obama care and also Obama care is still law. It simply does not fit in my brain, and I really want to see what that looks like. No luck so far. But trying quietly, almost like meditating, does provide some context. Not enough to make a new idea. Oh! That's the point new ideas to us.
This is a problem, for them, how can new ideas occur to you if you do not allow new ideas to happen? If you block the data, how can you get the context?
It's a scale, so one idea should fall close the "me" side and the other to the "we" side. If time moves backwards the "me" would be correct. So, "we" seems to be the right moral thing and we ought to make that choice, the choice closer to "we" on this scale. Gotta say this ought to make decision making easy. Oh! Of course, that's why people agonize over choices, humans know "we" is the answer, so making that choice is easy. So one reason it could be a difficult choice is, it's hard to tell, like the choices are in the middle.
Also, it might be difficult, if the choice you want to satisfy instincts, and the "we" choice are not the same. So, the ability to rise against instinct might be helpful. That's the best definition of intelligence I ever read, and I have kept that definition as my preference. So to rise against instinct would get you closer to "we".
[me]-----------[my gun system]-------------------[our gun system]---------------------[we]
[me]-----------[my single payer health]----------[our universal health]----------------[we]
[me]-----------[racism]------------------------------[human]-------------------------------[we]
[me]-----------[Nationalism]-----------------------[Democracy]-------------------------[we]
I see a pattern here. For me the context for right and wrong was missing, the context seems to be hypocrisy/empathy. I mean if this was not relevant, then the "me" stuff and the "we" stuff would be random, not consistent on their own side. Avoiding the middle where it's hard to tell. Seems this would be the way to make choices about right and wrong. Quantified right and wrong, would be possible if this were true, maybe.
So it's not about immoral, it's about less more and more moral. The more moral you are the more "we" you are. In order to be more "we", that has to occur to you, that "we" is a group that includes you, and to start to know the group as you know yourself. If you do that that might provide opportunity to see something you know as some "other". Like saying the same sentence in two different languages, it makes it look a little different, more if you will, adding to what you already saw. Now that also can occur to you as you go forward. You have more ideas to think about, because more things can occur to you, and results in more ideas and more knowledge.
I think that makes morality causal to intelligence and data. The more moral, the more "we" the more you can know and the more you can understand.
It seems we can empathize with our future selves. The better you are at predicting, the more data you have to work with. But the data alone is not enough. Many people downloaded the corona virus data and did their own math, early. Not at first, it was just another virus. But then it wasn't. We data down-loaders paid attention, because we do data and the tool for predicting things is math. Maybe since we are used to thinking of some things as things that will happen, as opposed to might happen, we have an empathy advantage.
The empathy of our futures selves, perhaps it's easier to see if it has more shape, predicting with proof rather than instinct. I have no interest in gasping for my last breath weeks from now. Neither does anyone else. How likely that is to happen jumped substantially with this virus, and some people like me, took substantial early efforts, those who did not are the people mostly who are sick, some are sick now and do not it yet.
So a thing that can be predicted with math must be predicted by math and the individual has to know that on some level. Most wont know it as knowledge themselves, but the group they are in might include a friend or a son, and that "we" makes a group, so the group knows. Why do some individuals go the opposite way?
We have no way of predicting individual behavior. Only group behavior. So the answer is we don't know.
It has to be more than the group. It's anecdotal, but weeks ago, I was Paul Revere and treated like chicken little by friends and others, even my own mother would not leave Manhattan weeks ago, and in this case there were good options. Why? I really want to know what I can do better.
It seems it is the job of the individual to keep care of the group, so the group can make progress for the individual. There is a conflict. I mean on it's face, excluding those not helping the group would also remove the context they contribute, and that is less context.
Oh! No, false is implied in true, we already have that context, and it's no longer needed. So excluding the "me" is required, it is blocking the "we". That makes more sense. I donlt know, any chance Noam Chomsky can read this and let me know if it's stupid? A scale, for moralty/knowledge, to contextualize proof in terms of "what is better".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)