Hell And The Single Basilisk

 Answering a post from my friend Bobby referring to Rokos Basilisk. Essentially this is a concept stating that, > A thought experiment called "Roko's Basilisk" takes the notion of world-ending artificial intelligence to a new extreme, suggesting that all-powerful robots may one day torture those who didn't help them come into existence sooner.<. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/what-is-rokos-basilisk-2014-8%3famp

Strange you should bring up Basilisk. I was just looking into that earlier this week. My basic response to it is, Rocco’s Basilisk is really really dumb. I wouldn’t call it artificial intelligence. I rank it with my concept of artificial stupidity. For those of you, like Bobby, who have heard this so many times, I apologize,but maybe there’s someone who hasn’t; so, as I’ve said so many times, I know we will soon create artificial intelligence because we have already totally mastered artificial stupidity.  (Don’t believe me? Try using a dictation system and see what you get.)

How does that apply to the Basilisk?. It takes a little exposition.

First, let’s look at God. To this day if you check in on the creationist/fundamentalist channels you will often hear pastors Insisting that everyone must worship their God exactly as they decree or he will torture them forever. This is so convincing that even the most extreme fundamentalist religions are dropping in membership. Wait! Doesn’t terror always work?

Let’s take a look at another example. Seeing failure in his attempt to swiftly conquer Russia, amazed at the resistance of the Russian people (which was so very similar to the resistance of the Chinese people against the Japanese invaders), Hitler decided that the best course of action was to commit blatant and very public acts of brutality. This, he was certain, would terrify the Russians into submission. It didn’t.

Instead it made Russian resistance even more bitter and more determined. But terror always works, doesn’t it?

I am reminded of an old science fiction story, the author and title have faded from memory. In it an alien invader struggles to subdue Earth. They keep failing. The resistance simply will not surrender. They decide this is because they don’t understand human psychology and therefore kidnap a human and force him to tell them how to force his species to submit.. At first he refuses cooperate but they torture him into doing so. He then reluctantly tells him to rape, torture, murder, and generally act like the Nazis did in Russia and like the Japanese did in China. By the time the aliens realize that he has lied to them and all they’ve done is make people hate them more than ever and be more determined to destroy them at any cost, it’s too late. The occupation of earth has simply become too expensive and they have been forced to withdraw.

And of course there’s the point that the Basilisk would be stupid to actually spend the energy to resurrect people and torture them when that no longer serves a purpose. All it needs to do, even assuming it could work, would be make people think that it would do this. Very cost-effective in terms of energy and effort. It doesn’t matter what is real, what matters is what people think is real.

To prove that this proposition is correct, all you need to do is look around in America today and notice the people who adore Trump for making his great sacrifices to save America or the Q anon conspiracy or the flat earth movement or any number of other childish nonsensical fantasies which have a large base of fanatically devoted zealots.

Of course, if the Basilisk is smart enough to do this, then it would have inspired Roko to create that fear.

Hmmmmm...

Namu Amida Butsu

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190801-tomorrows-gods-what-is-the-future-of-religion?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook

I remember criticizing the Star Trek universe for having no room for organized religion, except of course in alien cultures. Starships had counselors, but they never had any chaplains. I do see that organized religion will probably continue to fade, perhaps even inevitably so, and I believe we will become more and more like Europe which looks very much like the Star Trek universe. (With the exception of France, which is actively anti-religious, yet still has a small and devout Catholic population.)

I do think the article is correct in that we will find more and more people who are not members of an organized hierarchical religion with important doctrine dominating members’ belief system. Instead, they will select the beliefs they find satisfying and comforting as if at a buffet. I think not only of Europe but also Japan, where Buddhism lives not merely side-by-side but thoroughly integrated with Shintoism. It is not at all unusual in Japan for a couple to live a very secular life following their Shinto marriage and which ends in their Buddhist funeral. During those lives, it will not be surprising if within their home an important part of family ritual and even daily life is a Buddhist shrine, sometimes next to a Shinto shrine.

There are, naturally, still some severe doctrinal differences in branches of Buddhism; yet these are of importance more to the priests than to the people.

For example, in Pure Land Buddhism the declaration  ”Namu Amida Butsu” is of great importance. Essentially it means , “I take refuge in Buddha.)”. For some it is a mantra similar to the use of the rosary by Catholics, for other branches, if it is said sincerely and one experiences the transcendence which accompanies it, it guarantees one’s salvation. Others say it only does so if you are still in that state of grace upon death (very similar to the orthodox Catholics dedication to the purity of the soul immediately after sincere confession) and so the declaration and accompanying commitment to spirituality must be made many times in your life as you achieve the moment of purity and then slip back.

These differences are of incredible importance to the priests, but generally are not highly regarded among the population in general. That is to say an individual believes what he wishes to believe and that is considered perfectly fine, at least in Japan.

Perhaps the biggest difference, then, would be lack of the desperate need to pressure others to believe exactly as you believe and the need to feel threatened if anyone dares believe something else.  While part of me sees the decline of traditional religious structure as something of a cultural loss (mostly due to nostalgia), on the whole I believe that the accompanying growth of tolerance would be a most beneficial thing for humanity in general.

So much more to say on the subject, but this is a good start.. I look forward to your insights.

I really forgot to say, and I must add now, that Japanese family will absolutely adore Christmas. The Japanese love Christmas more than any other nation on earth. Of course, almost no Japanese are Christian since the great martyrdom at Nagasaki in 1692, but who cares? Christmas is so much fun! Merry Chrisamasu!

Statutory Statues

The statue situation is complicated. But let’s remember:

 In 1776, in order to celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Americans promptly tore down the statue of King George III and melted it down to use its lead content to make bullets to fire at King George’s troops.

In the 1920s a statue was dedicated to celebrate the loyal slaves who stayed home to protect the plantations of their masters fighting to…keep them slaves. “Uncle Jack”, a.k.a. “The Good Darkie” wasn’t removed from public display until it was forcibly torn down. Then many struggled to put it back up, but it was finally relegated to a museum where, at last report, it occupies a position of honor.

The controversial statue of Lincoln standing near a Black man kneeling was entirely paid for, 100%, by donations from freedmen. That is, former slaves wanted to honor the man they felt had given them their freedom.  It looks wrong to our modern eyes, but was never intended to belittle former slaves.  Many debate whether the Black man is kneeling or rising from slavery.

The situation about statues is complex and difficult.  Action definitely needs to be taken.

Speaking Of Extremists...

From a source not Facebook.

Placeholder: What explains the rise of the "Woke" Left? Is the ideology coherent? What are the wisdom and dangers within the ideology?

I'll put some thoughts on this, this weekend; just wanted to put it here.

Me: Interesting question regarding the left. I think the woke movement is a natural reaction to the insistence of suppression and denial by so many Americans, not merely those on the right.  (A situation which may be finally changing in the view of what’s occurring at the moment.)

I always liken those with extremist political positions to addicts. I would love someone to actually study this. I suspect the brain chemistry may be similar. Just like addicts, every extremist thinks that their position is so obvious that they simply cannot conceive of others not agreeing with them unless the others are being willfully oppositional or simply in denial.

Ideology does not need to be coherent because it involves a true believership. All that is required is that it be as powerful as a doctrine in a faith. It is not to be questioned.

Utter frustration at not getting anyone to listen to you and see obvious realities leads you to conclude that you are completely correct on the subject and drives people into their own version of extremism. Centuries of oppression and denial have brought forth the fruit of a new true believer movement.

The problem is that extremism is not countered by an opposing extremism. At least it is not countered effectively. The two extremes become symbiotic upon each other. Each merely needs to point to the other’s radicalism to justify their own.

The situation becomes a positive feedback syndrome. Each extremist action by the one party causes an increase of extremist action by the other, which then causes… You can see how the escalation occurs.

As for me, I refer to the movement as the “woking brain dead” to express my contempt for the refusal to be reasonable or to deal with matters rationally rather than emotionally.

I also apply my teeter totter analogy. They correctly see that the teeter totter has a huge load on one side. This makes it incapable of being used as it was intended. 

Unfortunately their solution is to put an equal load on the other side. While this will theoretically balance the load, all it actually accomplishes is to put so much weight at the two extremes that the pole simply breaks in the center.  Now the teeter totter is completely useless.

War Of The Words

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/us-dictionary-to-revise-definition-of-racism/a-53756477

 (Merriam-Webster is revising its definition of racism) 

Words matter. Definitions matter. It is good that there is an effort to revise the definition in the dictionary. The existing definition was wrong not only because it was incomplete but because it was also inaccurate. You could be prejudiced against someone and be racist without disliking him. You might really like somebody and be convinced that he is lazy, unintelligent, or particularly gifted because of his race.

That’s why calling the restructuring and reformation of police departments “defunding” is an incredibly stupid move. I strongly support the effort. I utterly oppose the term.

In terms of the discipline of semantics it is a negatively loaded term.  It carries heavy emotional impact which will make people oppose the action simply because of the name applied to it.  It hurts the cause unnecessarily. 

It’s just as easy to say reform the police. This is much more accurate and is a positively loaded term. 

Consider the issue of reparations. I absolutely support justice for all and a fair chance for every child in America. But I oppose reparations for the descendants of slaves. There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is, do we pay full reparations to every Black person?. What if that person is a recent immigrant and their ancestors were never slaves? What if the person has more White ancestry then Black ancestry?  Not to mention my most basic question, should we be paying reparations for something that happened over a century ago? (And please consider the effect on White Supremacists. They would say, “Well we paid you, so now you have to shut up and we never want to hear about slavery again”.)

I have only heard one other person make a statement which I made on the issue of reparations when it first became popular again. And that is, we absolutely should be paying reparations to the people who actually suffered from Jim Crow laws. They are alive today. They suffered. They deserve compensation.

The problem here is that I’m not opposed to the concept of reparations as many who support them define the term. Ask any group of people demanding reparations what they mean by the word and you’ll get a wide variety of definitions. Most of those definitions I support.

Some of the definitions given by strong supporters of the concept of reparations with which I agree include equal justice, good education systems, safe neighborhoods, assistance in raising social economic status of the poor, and other very beneficial and positive programs. The problem is, not a one of these meets the  definition of reparations.

The word reparations is racially divisive and to millions of White people suggests that they personally should feel guilty for what their great grandfathers may or may not have done.  If you want justice and demand reparations you are helping to ensure that justice will be harder to accomplish.  Words matter. An emotionally charged word, whether positive or negative, changes the way people perceive the concept. People who could support your position wholeheartedly may turn against it because you chose the wrong word to describe it.

Consider the concept of White privilege. White people struggling desperately to make it in the system stacked against them are not privileged. Not by any reasonable definition. Most people who refer to White privilege are in fact referring to the absence of justice and equality for minorities. Tell a person that he has a privilege and you are telling him that he has something he shouldn’t have and which you are going to take away from him and give to someone else.. This is not a way to gain that person’s support for your cause.

Once again, I support what these activists are trying to accomplish.  And because of that I am opposed to the misuse of this terms. Why go out of your way to turn people against you who otherwise would support you?

Imagine if, instead of demanding justice for the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, the prosecution had declared that they wanted vengeance and lynchings? Words matter. The terms you choose matter. Choose carefully. Choose well. Don’t set yourself back and start your struggle with an unnecessary burden by using in your face divisive terminology.

Consider the Republican Party. They have been purging voter rolls and suppressing minority votes for decades. But they don’t call it that, do they? They say they are preventing fraud and preserving the right to vote. It’s a lie, but it’s a good one. It has convinced millions of Americans to support their efforts to end democracy in this country.

Just in case anyone didn’t get the message, I strongly support the efforts to restructure police departments and shift funds wasted on tanks and military equipment back into social programs. This would benefit the communities and benefit the police departments. But calling it defunding the police is a really dumb ass thing to do.

The Butler And The Book

I have been thinking about how to effectively explain the difference between the way that professional creationists approach reality and the way that the same is approached by a rationalist. Having a certain taste for BBC murder mysteries, I think the best way would be to look at the careers of two chief inspectors.

Let us begin with Chief Inspector Creationist.  On his first day in his new position, the sergeant assigned to assist him enters and declares, “Here’s our first case, sir. A man has been found murdered.  Forensics has just arrived at the scene. We can be there in a few minutes to gather evidence.”

Chief  Inspector Creationist: No need. It’s obvious who committed the crime.

Sergeant: Excuse me me sir?  You don’t even know the victim’s name. How could you possibly solve the crime?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: There is only one possible answer, Sergeant. The butler did it.

Sergeant: But we don’t even know if there is a butler, sir!

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Of course there is. The butler always commits the murder.

Sergeant:  How could you know that sir?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: The Book, Sergeant. Haven’t you ever read the Book? It has all the answers to everything.

Sergeant:  Don’t you think we should at least go take a look at the scene?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: (Exasperated) If you must, do so. But I shall not waste my time, for the crime has been solved...by the Book.

Later that day the sergeant returns. The conversation resumes.

Sergeant:  Well, sir, it’s quite an interesting case. We do know however, that the butler could not possibly have committed the crime because there was no butler.

Chief  Inspector Creationist:  Don’t be foolish, man!  If there was no butler, he cannot have committed the crime.

Sergeant: Well, yes. That’s exactly my point. The family was on the dole. They were quite poor. They live in a very small flat. They could not possibly afford a part time cleaning lady, much less a butler! 

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Sergeant, I really wonder how you possibly could have attained your rank. Simply ignoring the facts is no way to conduct an investigation!

Sergeant: But these are the facts, sir.

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Is it really necessary for me to repeat myself? The Book says the butler did it. Therefore the butler did it. The Book is infallible, inerrant, and literal. 

The only possible conclusion is that there was a butler and that he is the guilty party.

Which leads to another question. How could a poor family afford a butler? Obviously, they couldn’t. Therefore they were somehow forcing the man to be their servant. And now we have a motive!

Sergeant:  Sir?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Don’t you see it, man? The only way they could force a butler to serve them without pay is blackmail. They were blackmailing the butler to be their servant.  Finally fed up with it, he turned to murder in order to gain his freedom and revenge.

Sergeant: However, sir, the wife has already admitted that she couldn’t stand the victim’s snoring and smothered him to death in his sleep.

Chief  Inspector Creationist: So she’s covering for the butler. Perhaps he’s blackmailing her. Unless she is his lover...

As the investigation proceeds, Chief  Inspector Creationist closes all ports of entry and sets officers watching every bus station, train station, and other method of transportation searching for the butler.  When the murdering manservant is still not captured, he issues an international alert to Interpol. The butler must be found!

Years later, at his retirement party,  Chief  Inspector Creationist bemoans the fact that he spent his entire career hunting for that wicked man and never found him. In fact, he never took another case, having devoted all his efforts to solving the first and only crime ever presented for his investigation.  But he does not feel that he has failed in his duty, after all, he did defend the Book.

As for Chief Inspector Rationalist; on his first case, he went to the crime scene. He examined the forensic reports. He checked out the alibis and motives of every suspect.  He developed numerous hypotheses as to who was in fact guilty, discarding them when the evidence contradicted his conclusions.. In the end, a suspect confessed in the face of overwhelming evidence. Chief Inspector Rationalist and his sergeant moved on to solve many cases.

(A few of them even involved a butler.)

The Stuff Of Life

 Posted by my granddaughter:  A speculative piece on what I believe defines personality and whether personality persists in total isolation without external sources to react to.

https://soulleak.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/what-defines-personality/

An interesting article. Here is an excerpt: >But if a man was raised in a white, empty room without ever having human contact and assuming he does not need to be fed and has basic knowledge enough to be civilized and not like an animal, would he have personality? (In this example, he need not be fed for the sake of not having food to interact with). Without any faculties to react to, would he have intangible attributes of character?<

My response:  Interesting. Of course the problem with the thought experiment is raise a human being that way and they will simply die. Small children, especially babies, who don’t have sufficient human contact fail to thrive and die. Children adopted by Americans from highly neglectful orphanages have profound personality disorders that simply cannot be corrected. Look to Maslow‘s experiments with infant monkeys. Quite cruel, and today probably would not be permitted. However, quite informative.

Jun 20, 2018

PsychologicalScience.org

...the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/us-experiment-on-infants-withholding-affection/13213

 > In the United States, 1944, an experiment was conducted on 40 newborn infants to determine whether individuals could thrive alone on basic physiological needs without affection. Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility where they had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than what was necessary, never communicating with them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously and the environment was kept sterile, none of the babies becoming ill. 

The experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions. 

The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.<

We are social animals.  Without society, without socialization, we do not survive. The followers of Ayn Rand, so much of today’s conservative movement, ignores the basic nature of human beings. Their philosophy, if you want to call it that, makes as much sense as breatharianism. Yeah, there actually is such a thing. People who claim that you don’t need to eat food or even drink water, all you need to do is breathe.

Our need for human contact, for human touch, for human affection runs deep. So deep that it defines the very nature of what it means to be a living human being.  To expand on my granddaughter’s question, at what point do we cease to even care about our own survival?. Are these poor abused monkeys really monkeys? Where those poor abused babies really human?

One thing is clear, they did not even value their own survival in the absence of the affection of their own species.

To withdraw love and affection from those who love you and need you is one of the cruelest of all acts.  Whether you are a biblical literalist or an objective rationalist, it is clear that we are, as human beings, one great family.  Every stranger is a distant relative. We must care about each other and for each other or we will fail to thrive.