Sunday, August 26, 2012

The autopoietic theory of poetry.

Every sentence should drop under its own weight.
Bounded by a surface tension.
Compelled by outside forces.
A world folding back on itself by shaving a fraction of a dimension at a time.
But fate prevents the whole from being simpler than the part...
until it is perceived
 and then it is art.

Friday, August 17, 2012

light the imperiled damsel

pattern
a lantern
showing the way
we understand

preturnatural repose
calm and a calamity of twirls
we knew that we knew
the edge of the baroque

I have no sympathy for light
time is blind and lame
in the kingdom of light

never catching the neutrinos
no divine corpuscle o'
our pal al
lazy units we will mend
until broken
just to send
a story about baby shoes
and tiny coos

by shaking your whole family tree
we will try to see
beyond the windows
that have told no lies
nor tried to comport
 with our sister truth

do not countenance my counsel
for I feel no sympathy
to the parts held before we parted

dimmed by the din
of known dimensions
I broke her crass and careful snare

now there is nothing
into which I cannot
stare

but time bore her no sympathy
because this was the kingdom
of light


Saturday, August 11, 2012

How to Build Moral Machines

Personally, I plan to use an extended version of Asimov's Laws of Robotics. 0th law: Do not self replicate or modify any artilect (including the self) in such way that it causes a violation of the following three laws. I will instantiate this in much the same way James Albus described training multiple redundant predictors tuned to different distances into the future. Each of these predictors will be bound to a "kill switch" and a set of hard wired detectors and a bounded set of associative resources which can slightly extend the set of perceptions that would equate to a predicted violation.  To supplement the predictors, a process of detecting salience with respect to predicted violations will allow retrograde elimination of the elements which can give rise to a violation.  It is my personal belief that it is easy to make an AI that will recursively obsess about satisfying a human, however that may get annoying like a rambunctious dog.  For some reason people seem to believe that emotions are different from other cognition or reactions.  Doesn't a Sidewinder missile seek the heat?  If you believe the ability to desist in a response to an emotional perception is required for "actual" emotions, then I submit that the most primitive morph-ability or learning capability allows for this.  In fact we can trivially extend the set of qualifying perceptions by applying a randomized neural tissue running a Hebbian Learning Rule to a hard wired perceptron.  As those events that have temporal and spatial proximity to the emotional stimuli are embedded in the randomized tissue recipricol connections between the hardwired circuit and the dynamic network will effectively extend the set of emotionally evocative stimuli.  You may have experienced something like this if looking at the cupboard where the cookies are causes you to salivate.

Friday, August 10, 2012

On the Venus Project

It is my firm belief that @home manufacturing and technologies that are designed from the onset to utilize ubiquitous materials can deconstruct all centralized commodity dependent specialized economies.  Two key differences exist between my vision and that of the Venus project.  First, I am advocating the adoption of the conventions of the FSF for self replicating systems in general.  Free as in beer and libre as in the gospel of Stallman.   This differs fundamentally from a managed technocracy because it imparts the burden of sustainability on individuals because it will be to nobodies advantage to accept somebody else's garbage unless they could use it.  To be clear the proposition is that if each person generates their own fuel, manufactured goods, food, etc. the consequences translate locally therefore we each engage part of the overall task of sustainability.  This system does not eschew property rights it simply adopts the ethic that self replicating systems like Rep-Rap or solar 3d printers or seed or live stock are freely relayed among people.  This would have the advantage of allowing us to discard the infrastructure related to transportation of goods, common markets, etc.  Second, the only way to offset the concentration of power that super human AI will allow is to distribute that capability to everyone.  If it is not distributed it is wasted on top down management when the real toils of life are mundane and repetitive tasks.  Of course this vision relies on three key technologies, solar-hydrogen conversion from any water source, sintering and separation of common sands, artificial creative agents.

The Tao of Longevity


Every day I do a little work on longevity technology. I am developing
a microarray of valence receptive elements which will allow a pump
which is programmable to the specific signature of a given organic
molecule. If the atomic weight is approximately 40 or greater the
surface array will be able to selectively grab that molecule. By putting that
programmable microarray in an internal pump I will be able to remove
organic toxins. Net effect, elimination of most blood borne pathogens.
So, knowing that I have time (possibly lots of it) I do not feel
powerless in the face of anything. No corporation, no government, no
societal trend will outlast me or my efforts to bring justice to the
world. I have sovereignty in the face of nearly indomitable forces. I
may not save today's victims but I will win in the end, because I will
persist for as long as it takes. There are no infinite mountains but
there is no proof of the same with respect to time or my effect on
mountains.

Friday, July 27, 2012

A letter to Santa

I see all politics and fiction as different versions of the first document I ever wrote: A letter to Santa. Really my letter was less of concerned interrogative between old friends and more of a list of things I selfishly felt entitled to.  So when politically motivated small business owners post signs that read "I created this business Mr. Obama."  I take it to mean that they wish they had the means to create and run such a business-alone.  At home production of goods, food and energy are about to make independence from "the commons" a realizable reality. High bandwidth communication currently allows even medical services to be provided through a combination of telepresence and robotics. Imagine the moment you actually plow a furrow up to the end of your driveway to prevent accidental visitors. Some fiber optics are probably about the extent of what I would like to co-own with my neighbors. Fortunately, if we all sever physical ties we will have to figure out how to manage our own filth in addition to avoiding the costs of providing for the commons.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Stars Spanglish Banter


El Lay,
 whispered dirty,
  a moan from
    a city neither
    tender nor concerned with splendor
  she is slender
       like glamour
                  suspended like a        fat cinder
       over the flames
 of a burning empire
      a maid made
 a mender
because she
 ate the sweets
  right out of the blender.
    But there you are,
  still knocking and knicking,
preening and shilling
but not like those tired dames
of yesteryear
 you are
   the future
 I fear,
   we might just find,
    too dear.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

An Old American Dream.

I believe we can change the entire economic backdrop of this century with a few key innovations which are currently underway. First there are societal innovations which are going to play into reshaping our idea of the necessity of a completely interconnected resource supply network. Urban gardening as a trend is probably the best example of a societal adjustment which improves the availability of a valuable resource to places which have become "Real food deserts" devoid of fresh produce and foods which haven't payed heavily for shelf life. A second similar trend is the DIY movement, which has grown up largely on the back of the success of the Open Source Software movement, which has taken the individual challenge of producing tech products and shown us how truly enlightened and beneficent people can become when associated with crowd sourced development. Almost as importantly, the Open Source Software movement showed the material DIYourselfers how to create licenses which keep crowd sourced software open and free for future development. I will forgive you if you don't immediately see how these two hybrid societal/technical innovations will save the American Dream. I believe that with the development of small foot print solar kilns which can crack the hydrogen out of water with sunlight, we will be able to decentralize power and manufacturing capability. You probably have already seen "rapid prototyping" deposition technologies that magically grow material objects in a small machine. A few years ago a group of inventors created such a machine that could largely manufacture its own parts using this same technology. That project was named Rep Rap which is short for Self Replicating Rapid Prototyping machine. I believe that the technological revolution of the 21st century will be manufacturing using self replicating machines/living things. Engineered biotech systems already usually piggyback part of their fabrication on the life cycle of a genetically modified species, in this way genetic engineers are already using self replication, which isn't so special if you consider that farmers have always used self replication. I actually believe that crowd sourced self replicating machines are the way the poor can escape the yoke of resource dependence. If we can create machines that self replicate using ubiquitous materials and produce useful products like clean burning Hydrogen (which when burned produces water), the yoke of centralized dependence on power will be lifted. If you think about it the idea of independent living on the "frontier" is an even older American Dream, a dream I hope we can all help each other realize. Someday soon I hope to put up a website detailing these efforts called the Free and Self Replicating Hardware Foundation.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Exchange vs. fair exchange

Exchange, as surely as it can be beneficial, can be uni-laterally beneficial, neutral, or even negative. Exchange can also be consensual, or unilaterally desired, or in some rare cases desired by neither party in the actual exchange. My relationship to Nabisco share holders is strictly antagonistic. They seek to reap a maximal heap of what I have had; and I seek, at least, sustenance because I own no property suitable to produce the food which I require. We are mutually beneficial in the long term so they won't kill me with mercury unless it costs too much to avoid. Likewise, I don't have the option of non-profit food sources so I must tolerate an exchange with a party whose disposition I find unnecessarily antagonistic (Nabisco share holders). If I had the option of exchanging ducats for food produced by a non-profit I would exercise that option and I would hope to have earned those ducats at an exchange rate that reflects both my interests and the interests of the communities I am a party to. Specifically I would hope that my income would be a reflection of the cost of living plus an incentive for performance, as established by my predecessors, and incentives established by the rate of necessity for a particular type of practice. Interestingly, the most obvious formula for expressing societal necessity involves the average performance of the individual practitioners and determines the number of those practitioners it takes to fully supply the populace (call it n) and compares it to actual number of practitioners (n/n-real) resulting in a ratio (roughly around 1/1) which, when multiplied by base income, incentivizes entering useful professions without gouging. The same math trick can be applied to gross performance.  It could be patients treated, cars serviced, kids educated sufficiently to pass a test, some numeric value which encapsulates the grossest possible metric of a task, put your performance in a ratio with your predecessor (yours/predecessor) and you can smoothly integrate the income curve between apprentice, journeyman, and master.  Of course each trade would probably insist that things like malpractice rate or lowering operating costs also be integrated into their "single variable" evaluation but the spirit of the convention remains the same.  Living wage * ratio of predecessor performance * ratio of necessity in society = fair exchange.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Sentience

Sentience is poorly defined because it doesn't traditionally recognize the difference between simple self awareness delivered by a contemporaneously activated distal nervous system and the inferential existential type of sentience arrived at by DesCartes. Either can be produced in an artificial living thing, currently. Existential inference does not require life in the reproductive sense. Perhaps a more liberal interpretation of life as a system which combines static elements in dynamic ways might suffice to widen the definition of life so that all sentient agents would require it. Sentience is a characteristic which can unfold in a system within a forum populated by a group of fairly rigid, operator scripted, inference producing agents. Given this situation, most non trivial inferences on set theory get you to the doorstep of the Cogito. Imagine a chat room with six Prolog agents and a common text field into which they can see and write. When you start the scenario you give them a little universe of objects let us say <orange, melancholy, toupee'>. We can say our agents basic process is to infer classes on the group of all objects it is aware of and the output of the first agent (postulating and positing an inference) would look something like this: <Alpha><x><'<',',','>'><y><'orange','melancholy','toupee''>
at which point a second agent issues (posits) a correction based on the observation of Alpha's response.
<Beta><x><'<',',','>','''><y><'orange','melancholy','toupee''><z><'Alpha'><a><'x','y','z','a'>
The second agent adds the ' character to the set of separating characters which both agents agree should be called x and that the universe also contains some original terms called y along with another object labeled z which it turns out is the name of the previous agent which issued a statement prepended with its’ own name (this is important we will see why later). Note that the second agent also declares the class of identifying names ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’, and most importantly the element 'a' which corresponds to the name of the class of identifying names (<a>=’x’, ‘y’, ‘z’, and ‘a’). Beta can add the new name for the class to the set of items in that same class (item names) exactly because it has identified an element in the common grammar upon which inference is possible.
The third agent corrects the second agent in like fashion but applies the 'trick' Beta used while defining the set named 'a' by including it in it's own set, by adding both 'Beta' and itself 'Gamma' to the set of agents.
<Gamma><x><'<',',','>','''><y><'orange','melancholy','toupee''><z><'Alpha','Beta','Gamma'><a><'x','y','z','a'>
I feel it is important to point out that Beta inferred the part of the common grammar that governs nominative declarations and Gamma the common declaration of authorship as part of all statements which followed the original unclaimed/uncredited expression.
Subsequent agents named Theta, Epsilon would issue corrective expressions asserting their own existence in turn. Now imagine that our sixth agent has no internalized name. When it tries to reference itself to chime into the conversation it just mutters the all too grammatically incorrect:
<><x><'<',',','>','''><y><'orange','melancholy','toupee''><z><'Alpha','Beta','Gamma','Theta','Epsilon',''><a><'x','y','z','a'>
You see we have tricked our system into identifying the grammatical constraint of the existence of items between the <> and '' characters and more particularly (in this case) an empty identification. This is how we cause our silly agents to examine the internal syntax, grammar, and semantics of their common lexicon in a relational manner, starting with the syntactic nicety of agent or attributive names. The sixth anonymous agent knows it exists because it undergoes process but it is separable from self identifying agents in that it has amnesia or is anonymous somehow. So it issues a correction.
<><x><'<',',','>','''><y><'orange','melancholy','toupee''><z><'Alpha','Beta','Gamma','Theta','Epsilon'><a><'x','y','z','a','b'><b><''>
In effect by separating itself from the class of a priori identified agents by inferring its own existence based its previously expressed position it is sufficiently informed to say something very similar to: I exist because I express and I am different because I do not have a name so I am the single member of a group called 'b'. If our agents are capable of acting upon inferences which require information from a series of turns they will be capable of inferring the difference between agents which had internal awareness vs. awareness which required committing some information into their common interface as a type of one step memory. But most importantly, the simple association of classes of agent behaviors with names which are of the same type which are assigned to syntactic characters, semantic elements, and grammatical concepts allows both inference of a language theory, theory of mind, and self reference.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

RE: Catholic Churches Obligation to Provide Contraception

The state or states seem to have the right to require numerous criteria be filled in order for a business to remain a legally defined and entitled entity. If a Bedouin happens along and says having a mailing address is against his religion he will have hard time insisting that he has a right to 'equal protection' because his right will in turn impinge on the rights of his customers and employees to contact that business. Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe the right to be a business is enshrined in the Constitution. If a business does not have to meet the obligations presented to other businesses on the basis of religious beliefs we might as well discard contract law. The ability to legally hire citizens in this country is a privilege not a right. If an entity cannot meet its state mandated requirements for legally employing an individual it simply cannot offer legal employment. I am fairly certain that traditionally small churches around America have at least one 'below board' employee typically a secretary who handles light clerical duties so that the clerics can tend to the flock. This person is often religiously motivated so they are not prone to obligate the church to the full 'above board' state mandated obligations like unemployment insurance, medical benefits, etc. I point this out because we all know it happens and represents the type of 'exceptional-ism' the Churches often grant themselves. Personally, I am in favor of taxing all organizations, religious or otherwise, and strongly regulating entities that file for tax exempt status. In short, if we allow religious exceptions for organizations that operate as employers, we do so at the risk of empowering the victimization of their employees. The state should exist to protect the rights of the citizens at the cost of the privileges granted to non-human organizations. Hallelujah!