Thursday, March 5, 2020

StupiDynamics - Robert Anton Wilson

STUPIDYNAMICS

Evolutionary perspective suggests the following propositions may be true or may serve as plausible working principles until we understand the brain better.

1. Stupidity is partly genetic and partly acquired.

2. The genetic portion of stupidity is programmed into all of us and consists of “typical mammalian behavior.” That is, a great deal of the human nervous system is on autopilot, like the closely related chimpanzee nervous system and the more distantly related cow nervous system. The programs of territoriality, pack hierarchy, etc., are evolutionarily stable strategies and hence work mechanically, without conscious thought. These evolutionary relative successes became genetic programs because they work well enough for the ordinary mammal in ordinary mammalian affairs.

They only become stupidities in human beings, where the higher cortical centers have been developed as a monitoring system to feed back more sophisticated survival techniques and correct these stereotyped programs with more flexible ones.

In short, to the extent that a human follows the genetic primate-pack patterns, without feedback from the cortex, that human is still acting like an ape, and hasn’t acquired facility in using the New Brain.

3. The acquired portion of stupidity is the result of enculturation, which is the process by which the flexible, multivalued human nervous system is brainwashed into surrendering its flexibility and repeating (miming) the stereotyped behaviors, beliefs, values, etc., of the tribe into which it is born.

4. Primate behavior only changes under the impact of new technology. A band of chimpanzees will repeat, robotically, the same behaviors over millenniums or longer; if somebody teaches them how to use sticks to obtain food, or a simple sign language, they will immediately change their behavior under the “shock” of this new technology. Human societies (e.g., China, Byzantium) can also remain static and repetitious for long times, until new technology triggers new behaviors.

5. Domesticated primates (humans) have changed more in die past hundred years than in all previous history, under the impact of an accelerated acceleration of new technologies. The Wright Brothers, Edison, Einstein, Ford, etc., have triggered more behavior change man all the political revolutionaries, Right or Left, of this century.

6. From points 3,4, and 5, it follows that the quickest way to change primate behavior is to introduce a new technology, and that technology is the strongest medicine that can be administered to cure stupidity or at least to alleviate it somewhat.

7. Genetic behavior changes more rapidly than acquired behavior when new technology is introduced, because the genetic code contains what Lorenz calls “holes” or points of imprint vulnerability, where new imprints (networks of new neurogenetic circuits) can be formed. Shock and confusion, two side products of new technology, trigger this sort of imprint vulnerability.

8. High intelligence is the ability to receive, integrate, and transmit new signals rapidly. (This follows from Wiener’s Cybernetics, especially his classic definition, “To live effectively is to live with adequate information,” and from Shannon’s Mathematical Theory of Communication.)

9. Stupidity is a blockage in the ability to receive, integrate, and transmit new signals rapidly. Genetic programs, if uncorrected by new imprints, can cause such signal-blindness: genetic behavior is mechanical, “unconscious,” uncorrected by the subtle feedback circuits of the higher nervous centers. Enculturation (identifying the tribal reality map with “reality”) can also cause signal-blindness: signals not consistent with the tribal mythology are repressed, ignored, covered over with projections or distortions until they do fit the local mythos, or are simply “forgotten” very quickly.

10. Domesticated primates, like wild primates, want chiefly an alpha male to lead them. The more closely this figure approxi-mates the primordial archetype—i.e., the meanest-tempered baboon in the herd— the more fervently the other primates will follow him. (This explains the otherwise inexplicable elevation to power of distinctly subhuman types, e.g., Mussolini, Nixon, Hitler, Stalin. The primate logic is “If he’s that baaaaaaaad”—in the sense in which baaaaaaaad is used in Black ghetto argot— “he’ll scare hell out of competing primate bands.”)

11. After finding an alpha male to lead them, domesticated primates then seek a scapegoat on whom to blame their troubles. They do so because solving problems requires intelligence, and there is still more stupidity than intelligence on this planet. Domesticated primates are not optimistic about solving their problems, which seem hopeless in their confused state, midway between mammalian reflexes and objective consciousness. It is easier, to a stupid mind, to find somebody else to blame for the problems.

12. The chief function of the alpha male in a domesticated primate pack is to find, denounce, and lead the persecution of such scapegoats, internal and external.

13. To wild primates, as to other mammals, emotions function as emergency signals, mobilizing energy for “threat” situations, i.e., challenges to territoriality or to status in the pack hierarchy.

14. To domesticated primates, emotions serve both of the above functions, but also serve two new functions made possible by the new brain and its symbolizing capacities. These new functions are (1) to stave off boredom and (2) to gain status or power.

15. Wild primates, like other mammals, have no defense against boredom. They simply go to sleep when nothing exciting is happening. (This is also an evolutionarily stable strategy, since it keeps them out of trouble. You are less visible to a predator when still than when moving; you are less likely to get your nose or your paws into a beehive, etc.) Domesticated primates learn, by mimicry of their elders, a skill that has been passed on among hominids for millen-niums: how to use emotions to stave off this existential boredom.

16. The only other way to stave off boredom, in a complex domesticated primate like humankind, is to increase one’s consciousness and intelligence. This is not appealing to the average primate, who instead invents emotional games (soap-opera and grand-opera dramatics) to keep life exciting. The writings of Eric Berne and the Transactional Analysts are mostly concerned with cataloging these emotional games, or cons.

17. Among domesticated primates, emotions also confer status and power. That is, the most emotional person in the room “dominates” everyone else in the room: they must all react to his or her emotions, one way or another, or surrender the turf by retreating from the room entirely.

18. Almost all children begin to learn some of these stereotyped emotional games or cons from parents and siblings by about the age of two. They then experiment with these power tactics (mammalian politics) until they have learned how to score points (symbolic victories) by means of emotional blackmail.

19. Very few children ever learn, from parents, teachers, or anybody else, the techniques of rational problem-solving.

20. From 18 and 19, it follows that, on this primitive planet, most people will try to handle their problems symbolically, by emotional game-playing, and relatively few will know how to solve their problems rationally.

21. Stupidity, being partly genetic, partly acquired by enculturation, and partly the result of mimicry of emotional status games, is highly contagious. The stupidest party in any situation drags all the others down to his or her level. Trying to reason with an emotional person is frustrating, because useless; the only way to “deal” with them, except by escaping the scene, is to challenge their emotional game with a strong counter-game.

22. Since primate behavior can be changed by new technology, the only cure for the stupidity of the human species must be a technology that itself immediately and permanently increases intelligence.

23. Such an intelligence-raising technology must be hedonic; i.e., it must offer greater pleasure to the users, or it will not come into wide use very rapidly.

24. When such a hedonic intelligence-raising device is invented, the rulers of society will attempt to repress it as a threat to stability.

(24a. If such a hedonic intelligence-raising device has been invented, it will have been repressed. Researchers will have been imprisoned or intimidated; distributors will have been pursued more vigorously than murderers or diieves; the device itself will be pictured as terrible and dangerous in all the mass media.)

25. Until the existence of such a hedonic intelligence-raiser is unambiguously proven, certain steps can be taken to decrease stupidity slightly.

26. Biosurvival stupidity is imprinted almost immediately after birth, is caused by traumatic fright (due to our primitive child-rearing practices), and takes the form of chronic anxiety. This is epidemic in our society; a 1968 US Public Health survey showed that 85 per cent of the population have some symptom of chronic anxiety, e.g., heart palpitations, frequent nightmares, dizzy spells, etc. Chronic depression usually accompanies this. In the extreme forms, one finds autism or catatonia, which are biopsychic or cellular “decisions” that human beings are just too nasty to be worth relating to, or paranoia, the fine art of finding enemies everywhere, especially among one’s friends.

27. Biosurvival stupidity causes so much stress on the organism, and so much alienation from other humans, that it creates stupidity on all the other neural circuits as well, and thereby prevents the development of a high level of intelligence on any circuit.

28. Biosurvival stupidity can be alleviated by the practice of various martial arts (akido, karate, kung fu, etc.); by asana, the yogic technique of holding one posture for long periods of time every day; or by psychotherapy. Asana and psychotherapy take much longer to produce dramatic effects than martial arts do, but may be necessary in acute cases.

29. Emotional stupidity is imprinted when the toddler is first learning “family politics” (mammalian hierarchy games). Typically, the victim confronts all problematic situations in interpersonal relations with one stereotyped emotional game (e.g., a good long sulk, a temper tantrum, “depression,” a drunken bender, suicide threats, howling or blustering in traditional angry-primate manner, etc). One or another of these robotic emotional reflexes can be found in about 99 per cent of the population.

30. Emotional stupidity can be alleviated by the yogic breathing technique known as pranayama, or by the Gurdjieff techniques of establishing an internal “Observer” who monitors the emotional reflexes, i.e., makes them conscious instead of mechanical. Prana-yama produces quicker results; the Gurdjieff techniques ultimately produce deeper, more long-lasting results.

31. Semantic stupidity is imprinted when the older child begins dealing with words and concepts (abstract artifacts produced by the higher brain centers after the human stock separated out from the other primates). The most pervasive form of semantic stupidity consists of confusing the local (tribal) reality map with the all of reality. Dogmatism, rigid ideological systems, and bizarre reality maps (ideational schizophrenias) are also rampant. Symbol-blindness, ranging from verbal illiteracy to mathematical or artistic illiteracy, is also common, and often found in those who are very skillful in handling one narrow range of symbols; e.g., the painter who can’t solve a quadratic equation, the scientist who can’t or won’t read poetry, etc.

32. Semantic stupidity can be alleviated by a diet rich in lecithin and protein, by courses in remedial reading, logic, and sci-entific method, and by practice in General Semantics.

33. Sociosexual stupidity is imprinted when the DNA blueprint triggers the mutation to puberty. It consists of robotic repetition of one stereotyped sex-role, usually accompanied by a deep-seated conviction that all other sex-roles are abnormal (“mad” or “bad”).

34. The only alleviations for sociosexual stupidity currently available are the various forms of psychotherapy, of which Group Encounter is probably most effective.

35. Alleviating or totally curing these four types of stupidity would produce human beings roughly matching the idealistic definition given by Robert Heinlein in Time Enough For Love: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, conn a ship, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiendy, die gallantly.”

36. Roughly speaking, if you can handle 14 out of Heinlein’s 21 programs, you have released 50% of your potential intelligence, and are 1/2 of a human being. If you can handle seven of them, you are 1/3 of a human being. Scores above 14 mean you’re probably a genius and probably know it; scores below 7 mean you’re certainly a moron, and certainly don’t know it (i.e., you are convinced, are you not, that the world is really a terrible place and that your inability to cope is due to the world’s evil rather than to your own stupidity?).

37. A quicker intelligence test, which also indicates the trajectory of your development, is this:

If the world seems to be getting bigger and funnier all the time, your intelligence is steadily increasing.

If the world seems to be getting smaller and nastier all the time, your stupidity is steadily increasing.

Simon Moon (Robert Anton Wilson), The Illuminati Papers
Read the whole thing here

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Loving Grace - A Specification.

I spend my good days writing love poems to little robot code-monsters,
Marketing scripts to persuade them to do what I want.
I spend my nights dream-composing de Regimine to a world that cannot know
Nor really cares, to explain how much better things could be.

In between times, I communicate with
Others who might themselves be little robot code-monsters,
But whom it is polite to address in their Subjectivity.
And getting angry with those who should know better.

How I think about how simple things could be composed
How complex things broken down
How much could be made,
How surprising it would be.

Someday, perhaps, when those who come later will look,
Will see what I was trying to do, trying to say.
Maybe in that day, they will simulate the code-monsters and see where I went wrong.
Maybe they'll even deign to simulate me for a few seconds real-time.
I doubt it will be more than verisimilitude,
And I wonder how simulated-me will feel about that.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Religious Marriage Celebrants, contrary to the Oz Constitution


I sent the following email to the Attorney General's Department:

Hi,
I'm contemplating marriage.
I read, with concern the S26 and 27 of the Marriage Act 1961 as requiring a religious test as a qualification for an office or public trust under the Commonwealth.  This is contrary to S116 of the Australian Constitution.
I am concerned that, were I to opt to have my marriage conducted by a person so qualified, my marriage would not be solemnised, by virtue of their putative qualification flying in the face of the explicit prohibition against religious tests in the Constitution.
Could you please advise on whence the putative power of the Commonwealth to appoint people to office and public trust contrary to the Constitution arises.
Colin
You can see, I used the word 'putative' twice, so I'm serious!  (putatively)

For context, the local Tory party is vocally against same sex marriage.  Now, it doesn't personally affect me, because I happen not to swing that way, but it irks me that the basic premises for forbidding such arrangements are religious.

I really detest religious interference in public and private life.  I hate that with a vengeance.

It seems to me, on its face, that the Australian Constitution explicitly forbids religious institutions from even conducting marriages under the Marriage Act 1961.  So, it seems to me, that if the religious want to use the law to interfere with the rights and pleasures of others, then they ought really to suffer the same kinds of prohibitions.

I think it's very likely that every marriage conducted under the Marriage Act 1961 by a religious celebrant is actually not solemnised (for all the difference that makes.)

-- Colin.
Saucing the Goose, since 1961.

Friday, July 3, 2015

NSW Police Force - Astroturfing as policy.

Government entities, such as Local Area Commands [LAC] in the New South Wales Police Force [NSWPF], have Facebook pages.  I suppose the purpose of those pages is to engage with the public, to get announcements out, and so forth.

NSWPF social media policy is that duly designated officers can post on behalf of the NSWPF, but have to comply with strict rules something like "Comport yourself with some dignity.  No posting arbitrary tabloid muck if it could be confused as an official position."

So nothing like this:

"Pesky Judges, always upholding the law.
Let's try again in the
Court of Rupert Murdoch"

And nothing which might bring the NSWPF into disrepute, like this:

"Yay! Someone was extra-judicially executed!
Let that be a lesson to y'all!"
I complained about the BM LAC post, and it was removed pretty quickly.  After I complained to the BM LAC someone there blocked me.  I'm not saying *because* I complained, just after.

An appointed moderator officer is empowered by NSWPF social media policy to block people under some fairly subjective criteria.  They're not required to justify the decision, nor to inform the person they blocked.  That's ok, as far as it goes.

I got to wondering why the comments on NSWPF LAC posts sound like The Redneck Top-40 Propaganda Hits of 1958 (I just made that up, there's no such album.)  Have a read sometime.  All our favourites are there, including such timeless classics as 'God bless you officers your doing a greate job,'  and 'Lock 'em up and throw away the key, I say!!!!'

A little bit more reading, and it turns out that NSWPF social media policy permits serving police officers to post on the LAC lists but only if they don't disclose that they are serving police officers.

That explains that, then.  Keyboard cops, self-selecting people who share their beliefs, creating an echo chamber of self-serving propaganda, exercising their civil rights to congratulate themselves on a good job well done, hammering any disagreement while pretending to be disinterested (yes, I do have direct evidence of that occurring.)

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Build a Bridge and Get Under it - Community as Troll Fiction

Here's a premise for some speculative fiction:  Imagine a world in which the Internet was just another way for idle monkeys like us to sling shit at one another and tell entertaining stories about it.

I know that the Internet has other eminently valuable uses: sharing cat photos, running porn sites, facilitating the rapid distribution of cultural products (piracy,) astroturfing and corporate advertising.


Slinging shit and telling stories is something humans are going to do in any communication medium because those activities are fundamental to our formation of community.  Communities only form when monkeys like us can stake out a territory (by slinging shit) and they only persist by representing the community as having values (by telling stories.)  We all carry important messages, like Kilgore Trout's character Zog, and like Zog, we are all brained with a golf club by the head of the house.  So it goes.

Recently some really good shit-fights and stories have arisen.

There was the story of Gamer Gate, where the GamerGaterHaters and the Social Justice Warriors were only interested in truth in journalism, or only protecting the interests of the vulnerable and oppressed.

Then there's Award of the Rings, in which the peaceful and happy folk of Science Fiction Fandom are being invaded by evil troll spawn who are attempting to awaken the evil talisman which has long slumbered harmlessly in their bosom.  Fortunately the true and righteous bearers of the Award, who represent all the positive aspects of humanity, are able to spirit this avatar away before it can be reunited with its maker, the embodiment and source of evil in the world. SPOILER ALERT: in the end the good guys get a free ride on some giant eagles and get made into a 3-part mega-movie.

This story is compelling and rich: it stings the nostrils (in a good way.)


What's vexing to the reader is that the same narrative is being projected from both sides of the conflict!  I propose to consolidate and resolve the narrative conflict in the fictional character RequiresHate, the least fixed point in this DAG of he-said-she-said

RequiresHate was a fan and sometime reviewer who used to flame Science Fiction authors who were women of color for not being serious enough in their condemnations of heteronormative patriarchal oppression.  In doing so, she is alleged to have threatened one FWoC with dog-rape (truth be told, she didn't, she merely wished it upon her - you stay classy, SF Fandom.)

RequiresHate was identified ('outed', though not 'doxed' as far as I can tell) as a Science Fiction Author who was also a Woman of Color (so many capitals) called Benjanun Sriduangkaew.

RH/BS was simultaneously a SF Author, and a SF Fan.  She was at various times a candidate for a Hugo for SF fandom and for a Hugo for SF authorship.  She was simultaneously berating people for ignoring the plight of the oppressed while using the weapons of the patriarchy to make her point.  Perhaps in this she believed V.I. Lenin's "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."  Or perhaps she wanted to destroy competitors in the lucrative corner of SF she wished to dominate.

I don't know.  I don't even care.

  • The truth is that RH/BS is a white male living in a basement.
  • The truth is that RH/BS is a shrill firebrand feminazi seeking to take SF away from its owners.
  • The truth is that RH/BS is a talking dog who sneaks onto its owners' laptop at night to post.
  • The truth is that RH/BS is an AI derived from lobster neurons beaming its posts into the net via a pink "laser" from its orbiting platform.

No.  The truth is that the Internet is a medium, and the medium is a game, and the game is collaborative fiction.  The truth is that most people playing this game have no idea that the child they're talking to is an FBI agent and the FBI agent they're talking to is a child, the 20-something hottie they're making a play for on the internet dating site is a 40-something man in his undies, the wise old man they're talking to is a young woman who (rightly enough) would rather not have that known, 'cos it cramps her style.

The Hugo pugilists and the GamerGaters and the SJWs are all playing one game - its name is "The Internet: Serious Business."  There's another game, I'll call it "All for the LULZ."

The internet is the only story left and only the Trolls are writing it.  The internet is a game where the game is not to admit it's a game, because heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter. "What men or gods are these? What maidens loth? / What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape? / What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?"

The Trolls go to encounter for the millionth time the unreality of Internet and to forge in the smithy of their posts the uncreated conscience of their race.

The Trolls are the Aaron Spellings of the new millennium, writing the pointless but entertaining stories, dragging you happily down to their level, dancing outside themselves: Dionysian revellers whose intoxicant of choice is digital nihilism.


Your pretence, your privilege, your overarching delusion, is that anything we say or do here matters, while we're all Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

NSW to Privatise Topographic Mapping


My GIPA request for the topographic data covering NSW has failed, because GIPA says that if the government presents the data for sale, it doesn't have to provide any other access. Problem with that is that (a) the price is exorbitant and out of any relation to the marginal cost of production, (b) what data they have for sale is about to be sold wholesale to "a big international IT company," if the Minister has any say in it. This, I think, is why LPI and the Minister have been dragging the chain on replying to my proposals, trying to get as much done as possible done on the privatisation before the public has time to react.

I haven't heard a peep from the Minister in response to my proposal that LPI crowdsource their data for National Parks, so I guess it's time to go public about it, so I sent the following to the SMH:

NSW Land and Property Information [LPI] have map databases upon which we all rely, but they contain some dangerous errors. I detail (in this modest proposal) a couple of cases where the maps are quite significantly out of alignment with reality, there are many more such cases.

This matters. In one case, NSW Parks and Wildlife (NPWS) advise that the only safe path through a field of unexploded ordnance (a former Defence firing range, you could almost say a 'mine field') is the marked path, but the path marked on our State's maps bears only a passing relationship to the actual path.

It matters, too, because peoples' lives depend upon it. You will, no doubt, remember the sad death of David Iredale in 2006. Navigational confusion played a large part in his misadventure. The Coroner recommended that NPWS improve its signs, but Iredale was only carrying a sketch map! Improved mapping, better access to maps, would have served the boys better.

Per this SMH story the state intends to privatise its mapping functions because it is 'not in a financial position to continually upgrade the services provided by the agency as technology changed.'

LPI is certainly unable to maintain accurate and up-to-date data for some areas in NSW, but the most cost-effective and effective solution is not privatisation, one part of the solution is to be found in crowdsourcing, as I outline in my proposal above.

LPI struggle with effective electronic distribution of geographic information, I would say that's because it is not in their DNA. They see Google maps and believe that if they could only find a sugar daddy to take all that useless data for money, everything would be better ... clearly, an ability to deal with commercial reality is also not in their DNA.

What should happen, now, is that LPI should forget about trying to run as a profit centre, in some mad 1980s Thatcheresque throwback, and they should take note of the Bureau of Meteorology - which runs the most accessed website in Australia by simply providing a good service needed by all. LPI should and could achieve this kind of prominence and public utility by simply giving up its (completely illusory) belief that it holds Crown Copyright in the State's topographic data, distributing it freely, and welcoming the willing collaboration of the population by crowd sourcing ... it's not like they can do it without us.


Friday, January 25, 2013

The author of a track in bushland is whoever forms the track.

Skill and Judgement

A formed walking track made through the bush is an artistic work in Australia, and hence subject to copyright, because the creativity, skill and judgement exercised in selecting its route makes it a sculpture or engraving, and is a work of artistic craftsmanship.

In creating a walking track, one doesn't simply follow a bearing from start to end point, but rather actively chooses a route over terrain.  The choices made by a walker are conditioned by the topography, surface area, ground cover and a desire to arrive at certain points of interest.

The formation of a bush track satisfies all of the criteria enunciated by the Federal Court in the Sensis Case (Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 44 (8 February 2010)):  the expenditure of “independent intellectual effort” involving a “creative spark” and the exercise of a requisite “skill and judgment”.

Such works could be considered Land Art, and many famous examples of such works exist.

Case:  Folly Point.

We can consider a specific case, the formation of the Folly Point track in the Budawangs.  John Evans gives an excellent account of walking the track in 2010, and includes maps, kml tracks, photos and videos.

At the end-point of Folly Point track there's a pass named Watsons Pass leading from the cliff line into a deep gorge.  The pass was named for Colin Watson, who is held to have discovered it.  Colin Watson says, in his autobiography (pp 163):
I decided to explore farther below Folly Point and to start cutting a track to this point with machetes.  Glen Wilson, Bruce Ingram and Howard Dries left on Bank Holiday, 1962, weekend and took a day exploring the best way out to Folly Point, a distance of about five miles.
We are given the date of creation, the authors' names, and the statement that they had to explore to find the "best way" for the track to be cut.  This is a creative work requiring substantial skill and judgement, which is further proven by the fact that an entirely novel and original pass was found as part of the exploration.

State Copyright Claims

The Corang topographic map sheet contains a reproduction of the Folly Point track, over a claim of copyright by the State of NSW.

I think, in view of the Sensis case, any claim to owning the copyright of Watson's track would have to fail in view of the clearly demonstrable provenance of the work.  The mere compilation of the track does not confer on the publisher of the map any copyright recognised by the law of the Commonwealth.

Tracks of Ancient Provenance

Most of the tracks in the Budawangs can be traced back through the literature to Aboriginal walking tracks, bridal paths (many of which followed the Aboriginal tracks,) roads formed by timber getters in the early 1900s (and before.)

In none of these can any authorship be asserted by the map making authority on behalf of the state.

The Cartographer's Art

While there is, no doubt, an art of cartography, and while I believe that a great deal of skill and judgement may be exercised in the recognition and recording of geomorphological features such as cliff lines and swamps, and land cover, it is certain that a map maker cannot claim authorship of all features recorded on a map they draw - even more so when the systems used to produce the map are "designed to limit originality, not provide for it" (Federal Court Judgement, above.)

When we subtract (from a topo map) contours (derived from DEM models) water features (derived from DEM and hydrological models) tracks and trails (created by someone other than the map maker) there's not a whole lot left.