Open letter to Edward Snowden

News
21

Your are right in that, Elon Musk may have not been as good of an example in that context, as much as the “likelihood” of the achievements made for humanity by Nikola Tesla. Which, let me remind you, is merely a small scale example of how you look at “likelihood”

Anyways, all I am proposing is a larger scale approach that follows what Einstein stated "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”.

[quote=“Michael, post:20, topic:417”]Likely relative to… equally matched (no 1000X disparity advantage) humans perpetuating human violence here on Earth.

Because without a miracle source of almighty 1000X contained intelligence coming out of left field, that’s the “default” scenario we will practically have to deal with.[/quote]

I see you like to repeat 1000x often lol. This number was used as an example of a high number so that you can grasp a higher level of the meaning “advanced” consciousness / intellect

[quote=“Michael, post:20, topic:417”]Yes, I do think that, as you describe, it is reasonable that a technological superpower (“parent”) could contain a planet (“sandbox”) of comparatively technologically powerless (“children”).

That’s similar to the power paradigm of what exists right now with conventional military superpower governments having a monopoly on force over human civilization.

But I think it is a leap of faith to assume it will end up that way as billions of individuals rapidly gain competitive military superpowers.[/quote]

What you don’t seem to grasp is the fact that with this proposed solution, a child will not understand the approach of a parent. It is like trying to grasp the idea of the internet before it was invented. Which is now being used by virtually everyone on the planet.

[quote=“Michael, post:20, topic:417”]All possible. But that would take a miracle to control and end human violence in the manner you’re proposing… Discovering some ~1000X unknown source of intelligence that only stays on the side of maintaining a secure healthy planet, doesn’t fall into competitive hands, and outpaces all other sources of AI development. Possible. Miracle level odds, though.

There is no single known reference in human history to compare such a singular uncorruptable source of planetary stabilizing power to. None.

All possible. But it’d be the very first time in history that such a model has ever worked, where one single entity or close cooperative group of entities can benevolently and sustainably contain the entire planet.

You do realize this would be the very first time EVER that your “unified parent(s) vs. children” model would exist, and that there is no known source of such 1000X intelligence beyond all other AIs yet to come, as well as no known foolproof way to contain it on the side of one benevolent competitor, right?

It all just seems extraordinarily speculative to assume such a miracle, first time EVER, type of format for a proposed solution.

Not trying to knock you personally gh0st… But that massive leap of faith for believing such a rare feat (in fact never before done in human history) will occur is why not understanding the detailed “how” part of your proposal makes this highly skeptical as a real world viable solution.[/quote]

Global issues are a recurring theme that has been repeating through history because of the flaws of human nature. Do you really think that the solution to HUMANITY, would be something ordinary that your primitive mind can easily conceive and grasp? (not you specifically, referring to all of us)

[quote=“Michael, post:20, topic:417”]Ok. Are you open to receiving and assessing strategic pitfalls to your proposed solution in order to strengthen it? Or only positive encouragement that what your saying is possible?

If the latter… Then, yes, what you’re saying is possible. Anything is possible, including this.[/quote]

Never did I only ask for positive encouragement so I don’t know why you are acting as though I am. For the sake of everyone, it would be better if I didn’t have to literally quote myself again for you, just so that you read it well enough, then maybe you can do a better job at responding with proper assessment… just some advice.

22

This whole post is very speculative. I wouldn’t dare to claim any kind of certainty on these matters.

If any claims of ETs have on in common: they’re all biological. Good indication, that they failed yet to implement a strong AI or fixed theirs brains so no one is attempting to develop one.

I think ETs either fixed all their mental health problems so no one risks destruction of their whole race (more likely: would match existing common claims about ETs) or they’re using a system of total enslavement (total surveillance, mind control devices, maybe borg like) with a centralist power (less likely).

Most likely humans won’t receive help from ETs and most likely there is also no higher power that intervenes in human affairs.

Unfortunately, most likely human race will extinct itself with super technology before science progresses to deeply understand and “heal” human mind. I elaborate on “heal” later. “heal” assumes here, that there is no free will and that all evil actions can be isolated to a physical issue.

One source, podium discussion about consciousness: The Whispering Mind: The Enduring Conundrum of Consciousness - YouTube

Good intro on (non-)free will: - YouTube

Most likely there is no free will. Or at least that mindset will spread. Either we continue to act as if we had free will and/or at least scientists / policy makers / doctors / courts might adapt to the new paradigm.

Science is at the very beginning of really understanding the mind.

  • They can already tell when you will decide for what option before you’re aware of it. (“no free will”)
  • They can screen for sociopaths by showing them horrible material and their brain not reacting as “normal” (whatever that is). (“detect “evil””)
  • Know which selected youtube video you are watching depending on the pattern in your brain. (“read thoughts”)

Let’s extrapolate from there. Maybe there will be no technological or physical barriers calculating what a brain will do. I could imagine, that science may at some point be able to totally understand the brain. Being able to read thoughts. Make the behavior of the brain totally predictable, so at some point you could read on some screen what someone will think, say, do within the next minutes [unless X happens etc.].

When we are at this point, we would literally understand the evil parts of human nature. Maybe those can all be broken down pointing to some kind of illness that might be curable. If evolution is true (probably is), it is unlikely that evolution has produced “real evil”. We could get to a “all actions are positively motivated” paradigm. “Evil” could be seen as best as a byproduct that survived evolution that has no intention of its own. Maybe we’ll be able to isolate all the evil / flawed parts that produce irrationality, anger [ex: broken hormone release, imbalance], hatred [ex: constrict vein], violence [ex: miniature tumor] and so forth in any brain and be able to heal them. Just like a computer there is only a limited amount of things that can break and with enough effort all issues can be diagnoses and reliably fixed. A brain is much more complex than a computer, but perhaps conceptually it is the same.

In such a future with brain health scanners everywhere it could be possible that humanity survives peacefully in the age of super technology and that even freedom is provided to individuals.

23

True, this is indeed all very speculative.

you outlined some good real world examples how the study of the mind can be turned into a potential solution

We definitely need to put more resources into studying the human mind, as I mentioned in an earlier post with similar points on maintaining peace Whonix Forum

The evil in humans is almost as much of a sickness as any other mental illness.
24

Ok. I see no problems with humanity pursuing that avenue.

It was the “unified parent(s) vs. child” “sandbox” outcome that I see pitfalls with.

It’s logically hard to have faith that the parents will be unified and that the children won’t be capable of destroying the sandbox.

LOL! :smiley:

Yeah, I understand what you meant by using “1000X”. I just thought it was a useful communication tool you used and was accepting it and using it with you in return.

100X, 500X, 1000X, 5000X, 10000X, doesn’t really matter.

The underlying concept is a “power disparity” that creates a far superior advantage.

If a human invention, then if one person can understand it well enough to invent it, then most highly intelligent people can understand it as well (if laid out in logical procedural detail).

If it comes from human AI, then that AI/software can and will likely be copied, and we all become competitive AI superpowers.

What is suspect is whether a vastly superior, non-shared/non-distributed, intelligence will come along any time soon in the upcoming decades (21st century).

If it does, then you are right and we could/will all be children by comparison.

So this “solution” relies upon an extremely remote possibility occurring first, which you yourself admit you can’t gauge any real likelihood of occurring.

Nope. I agree with that notion.

It is just highly skeptical that this solution will actually come to fruition.

You’re on the side of having faith in something that has never existed before that has power lightyears beyond imagination.

And it all needs to happen very soon (within decades).

Classic faith-based optimism. But it’s your right to have such optimistic faith though.

It just doesn’t translate down to transferable logic in the details without strong evidence to support it.

Quoting a vague colloquialism that Einstein said is not a strong basis for taking a possibility on likely faith.

Many of your arguments pre-suppose that the solution just somehow, without explanation, overcomes all barriers and challenges and then sustainably works indefinitely from then on.

In my opinion, no answer is beyond technical question. Even if invented by super intelligence.

In principle, if the remote possibility of what you’re proposing happens, and it is robustly bulletproof against all indefinite natural entropy, technical hacking, and power competition, then… fine, you’ll have been proven correct.

Correct, you did not ask for it. However, you didn’t seem to like me logically challenging your proposed solution. And you’ve been talking about “encouragement”, “anti-cynicism”, and “optimism” and quoting inspirational figures and stories from mainstream culture.

Personally, I’m just primarily after technical truth and solutions and am trying to gauge the real world viability of such things.

All the social and emotional stuff takes a back seat compared to the soundness of logical concepts presented (for me at least).

You’re the one who brought these aspects of personality up, so I was assuming that based on you doing so, maybe you were not looking to have your proposed solution critiqued for its viability as a likely solution, but rather just have others be okay with it being “possible” and not question it any further.

Yes, gh0st, it is a possible theory you proposed.

As a viable real world solution, it has a lot left to be desired.

25

Maybe you should be asking yourself why you feel the need to make such long posts trying to critique a vague idea of mine (I admit it is vague lol… so?) It was simply a tangent I took after this post Whonix Forum in regards to understanding and advancing the human mind as the source of a potential solution. lol. Patrick put the subject of advancing the the mind into real world examples.

26

Agreed. But it likely has to be TOTAL across the entire species.

And any biological (likely emotional) species of any meaningful size is likely to have at least a minority, or more, of its population disagree and fight back against any alteration of their individual brain biology.

And so it could very likely be a state of “waring competition” of great destruction upfront, before a singular/united/centralist power ultimately wins out, gives itself a power advantage, and imposes its species wide control and security solutions. Whatever those specifics may be.

No matter what the species, I see that basic scenario likely playing out for any population of independently willed and powerful entities.

Unfortunately true.

Unfortunately true.

As we look deeper into the physical brain to understand our consciousness, we will likely find nothing physically special from other mechanical bits of the inanimate (molecules, atoms, quarks, etc).

There’s always logical philosophical possibilities that exist beyond our tangible data/experiences.

But it all (we all) could just be biological robots who are carrying out entropic reactions of mere colliding bits matter.

Our seeming sense of order, intelligence, consciousness, and cross-entity awareness between all of us is a peculiar feature, if we are pure physical machines with no consciously directed free will.

Yes, this is a technologically sound extrapolation.

[quote=“Patrick, post:22, topic:417”]When we are at this point, we would literally understand the evil parts of human nature. Maybe those can all be broken down pointing to some kind of illness that might be curable. If evolution is true (probably is), it is unlikely that evolution has produced “real evil”. We could get to a “all actions are positively motivated” paradigm. “Evil” could be seen as best as a byproduct that survived evolution that has no intention of its own. Maybe we’ll be able to isolate all the evil / flawed parts that produce irrationality, anger [ex: broken hormone release, imbalance], hatred [ex: constrict vein], violence [ex: miniature tumor] and so forth in any brain and be able to heal them. Just like a computer there is only a limited amount of things that can break and with enough effort all issues can be diagnoses and reliably fixed. A brain is much more complex than a computer, but perhaps conceptually it is the same.

In such a future with brain health scanners everywhere it could be possible that humanity survives peacefully in the age of super technology and that even freedom is provided to individuals.[/quote]

Possible. Kind of a “chicken and egg” problem of getting there, though.

Since raw technology is agnostic, and without squashing all the “evil” of humans, and taking out any malicious automated drones / AIs that have been released, then such advanced technological capabilities will also be used to pursue other objectives than globally enforced health/security policies (such as: ideological or other evil destruction, libertarian independence, etc).

Me, personally, I wouldn’t want to accept any heavily invasive third party regime over my body/life. I’d probably seek to use advanced technology to fight off such benevolent overloads to remain independent and free as an individual being.

Same reason I use Tor, Whonix, open source, etc, instead of centrally policed digital tools. I’ll never fully trust third parties. I go more and more towards independently robust solutions to living and securing my own life. The more power technology affords me to do so, the more I will seize and defend that power for my own independent existence.

I’m not an evil soul, but, would certainly defend, with superpower violence, my right to remain independent of any global regime/force. I don’t care if it is intelligent, benevolent, and accepted by mainstream norms. So, personally, I’d feel untrusting or hostile towards any centralized power over my life, even if it is what can best save humanity. Yet, it would be ideal (for any individual) to have the rest of humanity safely contained, but have their own freedom unhampered. Thus, even beyond “evil”, there is the intertwined self-interested competition for power / independence / security.

Even for AIs with non-emotional independent objectives, this non-evil-based competition is still a major factor for inter-AI interactions and decisions of power / independence / security, for asserting themselves to acheive more optimal outcomes for whatever objectives they are programmed with.

27

Probably a mixture of whatever drove you to respond to my posts.

Plus a real personal passion / interest in the subject matter that I have, along with a real hunger to find viable solutions.

gh0st, we’re on the same side here.

Truce. BFFs. :stuck_out_tongue:

28

Majority of my posts were not nearly as long as yours, lol. Anyways before I took a tangent on potentially exploring neighbors in the universe for helpful solutions

I kept by my original explanation which is this earlier post Whonix Forum

Patrick then seemed to provide nice real world examples along the same lines as this. So you can now have more detailed potential “technical” answers to your questions… Although Patrick did note that the human mind doesn’t even need such a high degree of advancement to potentially work out a solution

EDIT: also in regards to implementing a solution like this, it would just have to take advantage of human nature as I outlined previously. Just take computer chips for example. Literally just about everyone who owns a computer uses hardware that they don’t necessarily know everything that is inside it and how it functions. Yet probably 90% of PC owners use it because the benefit outweighs the risks.

ultimately you are right in that this is a chicken and egg solution and this is just the circle of life. That is why the only way to actually completely eradicate the chicken and egg problem, we will need a “miracle” solution as I mentioned above.

29

Yes. I am “verbose” in my thinking and writing. Just how I generally am.

But what’s wrong with fleshing out and sharing “detail”, especially on complex unresolved matters in life?

It often takes centuries filled with deeply technical book volumes for humanity to master subjects.

A handful of “long” forum posts, which are optional to read and respond to, doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me.

Thanks gh0st. Yes, I’ve seen and responded with my thoughts to Patrick’s most recent post.

–

gh0st you officially win this “social tussle” going on, okay.

We don’t need to keep critiquing past “he said, she said” stuff. Let’s just move on.

If anything further of intellectual interest comes up, we can share our thoughts, with an understanding that all of this communication is voluntary, pseudo-anonymous, and not to be taken personally.

30

I was simply reassuring you that Patrick provided technical examples in that regard, because you requested so much.

Nobody is taking it personally

(btw edited above post a little to respond to some of your points in response to patrick)

31

[quote=“gh0st, post:30, topic:417”]I was simply reassuring you that Patrick provided technical examples in that regard, because you requested so much.

Nobody is taking it personally

(btw edited above post a little to respond to some of your points in response to patrick)[/quote]

Cool gh0st…

Glad that’s resolved.

I have enjoyed multiple perspectives you’ve brought up thus far. :smiley:

You seem to believe in the spirit of human potential and that’s a really good thing!

32

And yet, remarkably little information from the supposed “leaks” has actually been published.

My tentative conclusion about Snowden is that he is a patsy (willing or unknowing) for the CIA in its rivalry with the NSA.

Now, considering Wikileaks: Their leaking is somewhat selective, the big omission being anything embarrassing about the US-Israel relationship. So I don’t take Assange any more seriously than Snowden.

What, then, might be the purpose of the Snowden affair or Wikileaks if they don’t actually reveal anything that would embarrass certain major interests? Perhaps the point is to let us know that we are being watched and to mind what we say or do, like the prisoners in the Panopticon who dare not break the prison’s rules because they are not sure whether the guards can see them.

33

The war on terror is a fraud, and therefore “distributed evil” can probably be dismissed as more than a minor concern for the world of the future.

It is well documented that:

  1. Most FBI convictions of alleged terrorists result from “sting” operations where the agents persuade some idiots to do something stupid, by giving them fake bombs and so on.

  2. The official account of 9/11 (i.e., the official conspiracy theory) falls apart upon close examination.

  3. The violence and deaths that result from the market in contraband goods is an artifact of those goods’ prohibition. Note, for example, the drop in narcotic drug use in Portugal after decriminalization, and the lower crime rates in US states that have more liberal gun laws.

Without the state, evil people will only be able to do damage on a small scale, and can be defended against by individuals or local communities.

34

Extraterrestrials! Just show me one and I’ll believe. :slight_smile: Until then, I’m inclined to dismiss the possibility.

The Fermi Paradox is a big problem. If they’re out there, why don’t we see them? In particular, given the age of the visible universe according to Big Bang theory, they should have had ample time not only to evolve well before us but to have colonized every habitable planet - which means that we shouldn’t be here. But we are here and they (evidently) aren’t (and if they are, then show me one).

Now consider the Rare Earth hypothesis, which, to my mind, is at least free of any obvious self-contradiction: That, because of chance, the conditions of the solar system are very, very special in being suited to the emergence of tool-using, intelligent life. the other side of the hypothesis is that somewhat terrestrial planets (such as Mars) inhabited by bacteria (because they are so amazingly tough) are ubiquitous. That’s good news if we are the only technological species, since we have a universe of planets for us to terraform and settle on.