[guest39538]

Hope that goes well. And there are certainly many things that should take priority over doing anything online.

Online is pretty bad in a sense, one can meme oneself by watching you tube videos etc, let alone forums and trolls  or even wannabe shrinks.
 I think there is a lot of deluded people online , caused by online.   Perhaps society needs to investigate this. 
I am realizing I should of never opened up a can of worms by ever having the internet.
Can of worms lol, is that even a saying ....

[David Cooper]

Atoms are made of protons that are billion times as precise as them, and those protons are made of quarks that are again a billion times as precise as them, so maybe we can consider that, as a whole, matter has an infinite precision though I personally think it has not, but the atoms as a distinct entity are certainly not as precise as the quarks.

The atoms are their components, so they are exactly what they are and they do exactly what they do. There can be no lack of precision. There can be a quantum fuzziness to them where it isn't clear what they are, but the fuzziness is precise, and whenever it simplifies down to something less fuzzy, it becomes precisely that amount less fuzzy. It has to be precisely what it is; otherwise it wouldn't be what it is.

I increased by one hundred the precision of the steps executed by the photons and the mirrors in my simulation of the Twins paradox to see if the moving light clock would be able to start and stop at the same place on the screen, and it did, but it took about an hour to make its round-trip instead of seconds, and there was still a small imprecision at the end. Adding precision to a computation slows it down a lot, and not putting enough precision in it leads to huge imprecision in the result.

You could have obtained the same precision as that without slowing it down at all if you waited for a collision, then calculated back to when the collision actually occurred using a precision of 100 times the precision of your time between frames (think movie frames, not frames of reference), thereby making it behave as if you were calculating a hundred more frames than you actually are. However, the same method allows you to use 1000 times the precision, or a million, or infinite precision, again without slowing down the simulation, so why wouldn't you just go for infinite precision in the first place?

Yes, but she knew god was going to reward her at the end, and it is undoubtedly a selfish behavior.

That's hard to know without being in her head. She may not expect anything more in the afterlife than anyone else, so she may be being entirely fairist rather than selfish.

Terrorists use the same logic to explode themselves, and they are being doubly selfish because they harm people instead of helping them. We can't help people without being selfish, and if you think you can, it is probably because you don't push the logic enough.

I think you're using "selfish" to mean what I call "fairist", while I reserve "selfish" for people who are either trying to get more than their fair share or who want their fair share (and nothing less than that) while not caring if other people don't get theirs.

Your AGI will help the whole population, but you still await to live in a better world if it works, and that's awaiting for a reward.

I want everything to be as fair as possible for everyone. If I was selfish, I'd be looking to make a fortune from software, but I don't care about making vast sums of money. I just want my fair share, and I want everyone else to have theirs too.

The moderators that are actually discussing the one way speed of light with us are not voluntarily trying to keep the power because they can't observe their own resistance either, but they can observe ours so they automatically feel that we want to keep the power, and we can also observe theirs, which is multiplied by the group effect since they can help each other, so our feeling that they want to keep the power is also multiplied. To me, this phenomenon is evidently a relativity issue, because it is similar to the impossibility to measure our own motion through space using our own light.

The moderators are really good here these days - they actually tolerate reason, and that's very rare on science forums when SR is questioned. The problem they have though is that the establishment has strict expectations and it stamps on people who go against those expectations, and this forum is attached to a university of high status which must not be made to look silly; it isn't good enough just to be right - it has to be a follower rather than a leader. So you simply aren't going to see them agree that SR doesn't add up until AGI forces the establishment to accept change. Even if a gang of Cambridge physicists recognised that SR is wrong, they probably wouldn't dare to say so because they would immediately be accused of taking drugs, regardless of their experience and qualifications. SR is simply too deeply established as a religion.

[Le Repteux]

The atoms are their components, so they are exactly what they are and they do exactly what they do.

We are what we are and we do what we do too, but we are not absolutely precise. We build tools to get more precise, but those tools are not absolutely precise either. Atomic clocks lose only one second each 160 million years, but they still lose it.

However, the same method allows you to use 1000 times the precision, or a million, or infinite precision, again without slowing down the simulation, so why wouldn't you just go for infinite precision in the first place?

I want my simulations to be as close as possible to the behavior of particles, and particles don't start making calculations when they see they missed a collision with a photon. Moreover, the time the computer takes to make such a calculation doesn't add to the time of the motion it is computing, whereas it would if particles had to do that. Relativists make the same mistake about time, and that's your main argument against them, so you should understand my point. What I did is increase the speed of light a bit to compensate for the loss of time dues to such a huge imprecision, and it worked, so why bother. I'm not doing those simulations only to explain relativity though, I'm also trying to improve our understanding of motion, so let me try it here once again.

The real imprecision the particles would be facing is tiny, so they could compensate by moving a bit to stay on sync without that motion changing drastically the distance between them. If they were at rest with regard to space, they would make no steps so they would lose no time and they wouldn't have to compensate, but if they were moving with regard to space, they would have to compensate, otherwise they couldn't stay on sync and I postulate that they must. If I let the mirrors of the moving lightclock move to compensate that loss of time in my Twins Paradox simulation, they start going away from one another, so the photon takes more and more time between them, and viewed from the lightclock at rest, it looks red shifted. Observed from another lightclock moving along with it though, on the contrary, it would look blueshifted, because during the time the light from the other clock takes to reach it, it would have the time to slow down, so the more the distance between the clocks, the more the blueshift between them.

That's what I call a scale effect due to the limited speed of light and the limited precision at each scale: it would happen between the particles and their components, between the particles and us, and between us and the rest of the universe. What we observe from the universe is an unexplained increasing redshift with distance, as with my example of the particles at rest with regard to space, and as if the rest of the universe was moving with regard to them. It is a highly improbable situation, but it still shows how those simulations could help us study motion. Incidentally, while finishing my point, I realize that the light producing the steps is pushing the front particle and pulling the rear one, so that it may be late at producing the pushing if it was detected late, and early at producing the pulling if it was detected early, which would cause an advance of the motion instead of a time dilation. Notice that, contrary to relativity effects, those scale effects would be observable even within the same reference frame, because they would constantly be increasing with time.

I think you're using "selfish" to mean what I call "fairist", while I reserve "selfish" for people who are either trying to get more than their fair share or who want their fair share (and nothing less than that) while not caring if other people don't get theirs.

I prefer using the word selfish to be able to talk about the way we perceive our own selfishness. We can't observe ours, but we can observe others, so we accuse others to be selfish because we can observe theirs, while they accuse us because they can see ours. It's a useless ping-pong game, and it obviously means that we are all selfish even if we can't observe our own selfishness. As I said, it works exactly like a relativity issue.

I want everything to be as fair as possible for everyone. If I was selfish, I'd be looking to make a fortune from software, but I don't care about making vast sums of money. I just want my fair share, and I want everyone else to have theirs too.

The degree of selfishness we have depends on the time we are ready to wait until the reward comes in, so I'm like you, I can imagine my reward instead of getting it now, but some don't, they want it now and they are ready to kill people to get it. Those who are like that only care for their present and they think it will automatically insure their future, and those who are like us don't need to care only for their present and they hope their future will be better if they care for others. If all the people was like us, nobody would care for the present and we would miss essential goods or services. If all the people would care only for the present, we couldn't make any progress because research takes time and its reward is uncertain.

Even if a gang of Cambridge physicists recognised that SR is wrong, they probably wouldn't dare to say so because they would immediately be accused of taking drugs, regardless of their experience and qualifications. SR is simply too deeply established as a religion.

That's where the short term selfishness comes in even for us: even for researchers whose duty is to care for the long term, they can't afford to lose their jobs, so it seams that we use both kinds of selfishness at a time, and that we measure their weight in the balance of our survival. We care for the long term only if we have time or money, and so do we for helping others. If some people are more selfish than others when they want to care for the long term, it's because they keep for themselves the money they could share with others.

[guest39538]

I just had a thought , I think this video would say it all about David's Ai.

[David Cooper]

We are what we are and we do what we do too, but we are not absolutely precise. We build tools to get more precise, but those tools are not absolutely precise either. Atomic clocks lose only one second each 160 million years, but they still lose it.

I don't think you've got the point yet. If your simulation isn't simulating what happens in nature because you aren't calculating with sufficient precision, you need to increase the precision of the simulation until it does match up to nature. Things may drift away from the perfection of a simulation with infinite precision, but it'll be random as to which way they drift, whereas your way of working will always bias the drift in one direction and never go the other way.

I want my simulations to be as close as possible to the behavior of particles,

Then you don't want to introduce the bias that you're introducing, and to do that you should use infinite precision. If you then want to introduce reasonable errors in either direction, you can add those in deliberately in random ways, but don't use a biased error to do that job.

and particles don't start making calculations when they see they missed a collision with a photon.

If a particle hits a photon, it hits it when it hits it and it reacts there and then - it doesn't wait for a timer to tick before it reacts. The granularity of the simulation is the timer ticks, whereas reality may have infinite granularity (or granularity so fine that a simulation should simulate for infinite granularity by calculating back to the precise times of collisions if they occur between ticks).

Moreover, the time the computer takes to make such a calculation doesn't add to the time of the motion it is computing, whereas it would if particles had to do that.

Particles don't calculate because they are already responding with the finest granularity possible. The simulation can't use anything like such fine granularity without spending billions of years simulating the action of a billionth of a second, but it doesn't have to - it is sufficient to use a rough granularity and then to correct for errors when collisions are detected, calculating back using finer granularity to make sure the simulation matches up to nature.

Relativists make the same mistake about time, and that's your main argument against them, so you should understand my point.

I can't see the connection. What we're discussing here is an incorrect method that you're applying which adds unnecessary errors (and with a direction bias) and a correct method that you should be applying.

What I did is increase the speed of light a bit to compensate for the loss of time dues to such a huge imprecision, and it worked, so why bother.

Introducing more errors to try to cancel errors isn't the right way to do things. Introduce a bit more complexity and you don't know if you're still cancelling the errors with other errors or not - it's a way to make a mess.

That's what I call a scale effect due to the limited speed of light and the limited precision at each scale: it would happen between the particles and their components, between the particles and us, and between us and the rest of the universe.

The errors in your simulations do not exist in the real universe, so you're projection a fiction onto reality and expecting reality to conform to the fiction. It won't.

I prefer using the word selfish to be able to talk about the way we perceive our own selfishness. We can't observe ours, but we can observe others, so we accuse others to be selfish because we can observe theirs, while they accuse us because they can see ours. It's a useless ping-pong game, and it obviously means that we are all selfish even if we can't observe our own selfishness. As I said, it works exactly like a relativity issue.

I see many people who don't appear to be selfish, but fairist. I see others who are clearly selfish. It makes no sense to me to class these two groups as selfish.

If all the people was like us, nobody would care for the present and we would miss essential goods or services. If all the people would care only for the present, we couldn't make any progress because research takes time and its reward is uncertain.

Why's it impossible to care for both present and future? The big problem with trying to fix the present is that no one listens to reason, so everyone barges on doing the wrong things, which is why it makes most sense for me to give up on trying to fix things now in order to build something that will fix things later, but I still keep putting ideas out there in the hope that they will spread and lead to useful change now rather than having to wait till later. In general, people simply don't listen though, or they don't understand, or they don't care, or they believe in failed ways of doing things and are so emotionally tied to those ways that they won't consider anything else. For example, I suggest questioning all athletes under FMRI so that we can retrospectively find out if they're drug cheats once we can read the signals. No one's interested. I suggest that we improve democracy by having eternal referenda on all issues where people can change their vote on any issue whenever they like and the government would have to act on any change in the majority position on any issue (after a delay to give public debate a chance to push things back the other way), but again no one's interested in doing real democracy. I suggested decades ago getting rid of cars from cities and replacing them with smaller vehicles which could cross all junctions on lightweight flyovers such that traffic hardly ever needs to stop and the energy use could be slashed to a fraction, but developing countries build their cities on the old failed model instead and then wonder why everything gets snarled up and the air becomes deadly to breathe. No one learns. No one thinks. No one's open to reason. It's as if I'm in a virtual world where most of the players are just really bad AI, little more intelligent than sheep and goats. When you look at politicians and see stupidity radiating off them, it's because they are an exact representation of the people who voted them into power. My study into moronics has found though that most people aren't inherently stupid, but that they simply don't apply their intelligence - it is overridden by mind viruses at every turn, whether those viruses are religions, ideologies or group-think biases. They pigeon-hole themselves in numerous ways and take on beliefs that they haven't thought through, and they then refuse to think them through when they're questioned. In short, they either aren't running any antivirus, or their antivirus is itself a virus. The only way to tackle this is to create AGI and use it to educate everyone, forcing them to question all their beliefs and having the patience to go through everything with them point by point to prove that their incorrect beliefs are wrong. It's a massive deprogramming task.

[Le Repteux]

I suggest that we improve democracy by having eternal referenda on all issues where people can change their vote on any issue whenever they like and the government would have to act on any change in the majority position on any issue (after a delay to give public debate a chance to push things back the other way), but again no one's interested in doing real democracy.

You have my vote. That's what I consider I'm doing when I sign petitions, and I tell my Facebook friends that those are the future of democracy, but I don't have enough friends and too few of them are interested. No political party here has proposed it either, even socialists ones. No proposition to abolish the army either, or to stop selling arms. Politicians always have in mind to be elected, and they can make reforms only if they get the majority. It is rare that they make huge reforms though, because they want to be reelected. Social evolution is a slow process compared to individual one. It took 100 years before french women could vote, and it looks as if it was going to take another 100 years before they get parity at the parliament. If your AGI had been there 150 years ago, he wouldn't have been able to do anything because computers didn't even exist, and what he would do right now would probably be far from where society will be in 150 years. Social evolution is impossible to predict, and the ones who imagine it correctly don't have the tools to accelerate it since they are not even invented. Moreover, if an individual would ever have the tools to accelerate it, it probably wouldn't work because the population would not be ready for such a leap.

The only way to tackle this is to create AGI and use it to educate everyone, forcing them to question all their beliefs and having the patience to go through everything with them point by point to prove that their incorrect beliefs are wrong. It's a massive deprogramming task.

That's what you are actually trying with relativists here, and there is no sign of deprogramming yet. Don't we have to accept being deprogrammed before being so? Tell me how you could accept such a thing.

I see many people who don't appear to be selfish, but fairist. I see others who are clearly selfish. It makes no sense to me to class these two groups as selfish.

I bet that those you consider selfish await for an immediate reward, and that those you consider fairists await for a future one. You and me are considering ourselves as fairists, but we still await for our own ideas to be selected one day. If we were exclusively altruistic, we would always agree with what the other says, and we would only help him prove his point, thus showing no resistance to change contrary to all we can observe.

Added:  I have to already know I'm selfish when people tell me I am, otherwise I couldn't believe them.

If a particle hits a photon, it hits it when it hits it and it reacts there and then - it doesn't wait for a timer to tick before it reacts.

A photon has a beginning and an end, and a step too, and I postulate that those beginnings and ends have to be on absolute sync for the photon to be completely absorbed, otherwise part of the photon escapes from the bonding process, so it can be used later on in another process. It is certainly so when I accelerate one of my two particles, because if it was on sync before being accelerated, then it is not during the acceleration, so some light must escape from the system in the acceleration process, and its intensity has to be proportional to the intensity of the acceleration. That's exactly what we observe in particles accelerators, so my hypothesis is already proven. What I am suggesting now is that any imprecision at the particles' scale might produce a similar effect but with a different issue. You believe there is no imprecision at the particles' scale and I believe there is. You also believe that your AGI will be absolutely right and I believe it won't. We evidently have a different viewpoint on some fundamental issues even if we agree on others. I was discussing with one of my brothers the other day, and I discovered that he believed that everything was programed since the beginning, and that if we knew everything, we could predict the future. To me, that thinking means that chance doesn't exist, and I see it in the theory of evolution and in my everyday life, so I can't agree with it, but if you do, we're quite far from being able to reconcile our two thinking since I think that what we think only serve to justify our own fundamental ideas, which may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances, and you don't think so since you think there is only one right way to think.

I don't think you've got the point yet. If your simulation isn't simulating what happens in nature because you aren't calculating with sufficient precision, you need to increase the precision of the simulation until it does match up to nature.

To paraphrase Bohr answering Einstein about god playing dice or not, how do you know the way nature works? :0) We don't know yet so it is useless to consider we do, otherwise we might make the same kind of mistake Einstein made when he discarded ether, and we might also end up with considering our beliefs as facts.

[guest39538]

Einstein made when he discarded ether

I noticed this comment which I do not believe to be a correct interpretation. In my opinion Einstein did not discard the ''ether'' , but instead changed the context of it to space-time to work better with his own notions.  In a similar fashion I have changed the context of an ''ether'' to spacial fields that allows energy to traverse through the field , point to point.   A Higg's field, a Dirac sea, very similar context .  Are we all overthinking the same thing , giving it a different ''colour'' each time a new theory comes out ?

[Le Repteux]

The space-time concept applies to gravitation, not to inertial motion, but I also think it is wrong. Einstein thought that ether was superfluous since it was inobservable, and he came to the conclusion that light would be observed to be going at the same speed whether the observer was moving or not. It is completely illogical, so no wonder the interminable discussions on that subject on the scientific forums. He would certainly not have come to the same conclusion if he would have seen my simulations, and he would not have discarded ether. He must have had quite a twisted mind to present such a twisted idea.

[guest39538]

The space-time concept applies to gravitation, not to inertial motion, but I also think it is wrong. Einstein thought that ether was superfluous since it was inobservable, and he came to the conclusion that light would be observed to be going at the same speed whether the observer was moving or not.

In my interpretation of Einsteins interpretation, he was looking at the gravitational field as being the ''ether''.   In a way it is un-observable because there is no ''colour'' between masses.  Thus calling for us to envision the field(s) and decipher the envision the best we can.
If we consider between the masses, we all observe the same thing, so in objective reality we can call it an ether or a Higg's field or by any other name, but we are all discussing the same thing.  That which we can not see visually.
Now is it possible that spacial fields are just simply generated by atoms?

Or do you consider the volume of observed space compared to observable substance , wouldn't ''add up'' compared/regarding  to the ''volume'' of spacial field ?

[Le Repteux]

I consider that space is the medium through which bodies move, and on which light propagates, but if you know my theory on mass, you know I believe that bodies are only composed of bonded sources of light exchanging light. My simulations precisely show bonded particles exchanging light, and moving to stay on sync with the light emitted by the other particle.

[guest39538]

I consider that space is the medium through which bodies move, and on which light propagates, but if you know my theory on mass, you know I believe that bodies are only composed of bonded sources of light exchanging light. My simulations precisely show particles exchanging light, and moving to stay on sync with the light emitted by the other particle.

I consider space independently of an occupying spacial field . Space itself being no -thing that is without causality.  Occupying field(s) being space-time that bodies can move through.   Bodies like you say composed of ''light'' , except in my model I call this a binary energy particle composed of two opposite signed mono-pole ''energies''. Each particle having an energy gain and energy loss property, always trying to keep an equilibrium state. 

[David Cooper]

That's what I consider I'm doing when I sign petitions, and I tell my Facebook friends that those are the future of democracy, but I don't have enough friends and too few of them are interested.

Petitions would carry more weight if they always had a "vote against" option too. They're certainly a step in the right direction, now that it's so easy to set them up and sign them, but I'm surprised none of the sites that host them have tried to create a complete government alternative system which would put pressure on all political parties to build better packages of policies. The creation, supply and possession of drugs should be completely legalised to eliminate all the crime that's tearing many countries apart (with the drug gangs in Mexico outgunning the police and the Taleban and ISIS using poppies to buy weapons) - that could be fixed in no time by the public if they could vote on issues directly instead of having to choose a mixed package from a narrow range of blind establishment parties. Consumption of drugs needn't be legalised, but it shouldn't lead to a criminal record when people are only harming themselves - if we need to discourage drug use, it should be done by shutting down people's lives so that they have to choose between a normal life and drugs rather than thinking they can have both. What we usually get from politicians though is all or nothing - complete illegality or anything goes, and both those approaches are highly irresponsible. Almost all the people trying to cross into the US from Latin America are doing so to try to get away from the mayhem caused by the USA's war on drugs which has handed power to the gangs.

That's what you are actually trying with relativists here, and there is no sign of deprogramming yet. Don't we have to accept being deprogrammed before being so? Tell me how you could accept such a thing.

What I'm doing is studying their resistance to recognise a proof, and it's an extraordinary sight. You expect it with religious people, but when it's people with an overwhelming leaning towards the science end of things, you don't. And yet there it is - a mathematical proof that the one-way speed of light relative to objects is in many cases greater than or less than c, but they won't commit themselves to the answers to simple questions designed to force them to accept it. It's the same with the "interactive exam" on my relativity page - it uses a different method to disprove SR, but again people are incapable of recognising that disproof. I originally expected them to see it straight away, as they do with other arguments where there's no belief system getting in the way, but no - they simply don't trust their own minds to go through the argument point by point and to agree with each one (where the points are so clearly right). I had to rewrite my relativity page many times to make it simpler and simpler, to the point where even the thickest cretin on the planet should be able to follow it, but clearly that isn't enough - it isn't lack of intelligence that's blocking them at all (because they're generally bright - set a page of mathematical squiggles in front of them and they can romp through it with ease), but a simple refusal to overturn an incorrect belief regardless of how wrong it is shown to be. How can anyone deal with this barrier when there is such a strong mechanism in place to reject reason? Set this before them and their thinking slows to a crawl while they fail to recognise the most obvious of contradictions. It is an extraordinary phenomenon, more so even than the astonishing maths of Lorentzian relativity itself with it's ability to hide the one-way relative speed of light.

I bet that those you consider selfish await for an immediate reward, and that those you consider fairists await for a future one.

There is no reward beyond the satisfaction of things being done fairly and no one missing out.

You and me are considering ourselves as fairists, but we still await for our own ideas to be selected one day.

For the sake of all those who aren't getting their fair share - it's not about us gaining for ourselves other than being happy about a fair distribution.

If we were exclusively altruistic, we would always agree with what the other says, and we would only help him prove his point, thus showing no resistance to change contrary to all we can observe.

Agreeing with something wrong is not altruistic, but is doing wrong by allowing wrong to win out over correct. And being shown to be wrong is an immediate gain for the one who was wrong, while the one who was right makes no direct gain.

You believe there is no imprecision at the particles' scale and I believe there is.

There cannot be any imprecision - they have to do exactly what they do and not what they don't do. A simulation attempts to map to reality, and if it fails, there is an imprecision in the simulation. A real photon and particle aren't mapping to something else, but simply are what they are and do what they do - there is no imprecision possible in them doing what they do. If you're talking about an unpredictability in what they might be about to do, that's an entirely different issue, and that unpredictability can be programmed into a simulation too, but you don't try to program it in as an error based on using the wrong granularity of timing.

You also believe that your AGI will be absolutely right and I believe it won't.

If it's applying rules that are 100% right, it will be 100% right. Where it's calculating something that has an amount of unpredictability tied up in it, it will be making predictions with probabilities tied to them, and those predictions will be correct.

if we knew everything, we could predict the future.

If we knew everything about the universe (including the mechanism behind "true randomness" which won't be truly random) and had no limit to our computation power, we could predict the entire future, but that would depend on calculating from outside the universe so as not to interfere with it - a model that has to model itself along with everything else can never become a complete model, and to represent everything in the universe, you need more stuff than the content of the universe to represent all that stuff in the model. There may not be enough stuff anywhere else to do the job either, and if anything outside the universe has any interaction with the universe, then everything outside needs to be in the model too for it to be complete.

To me, that thinking means that chance doesn't exist, and I see it in the theory of evolution and in my everyday life, so I can't agree with it,

Chance exists were there are unknowns, and it is probably impossible to eliminate all the unknowns.

you think there is only one right way to think.

If a rule is always correct, it cannot be wrong. If a set of all correct rules is correctly applied in an AGI system, it cannot be wrong. If a "correct" rule turns out to be wrong, an AGI system can be wrong, but as soon as such an error is identified, a rule can be struck off and the system is improved. All the rules being applied are considered fundamental though, no exceptions to them being known. All reasoning depends on them. These rules force a correct method of thinking on us (if we apply them correctly). Anyone who rejects any of the rules immediately loses a crucial tool for calculation and will suffer from a severe reduction in their useful functionality. The rules are simply the fundamental ones of mathematics (which include logical ones).

To paraphrase Bohr answering Einstein about god playing dice or not, how do you know the way nature works? :0) We don't know yet so it is useless to consider we do, otherwise we might make the same kind of mistake Einstein made when he discarded ether, and we might also end up with beliefs instead of facts.

If your simulations are going wrong because you aren't detecting collisions when they occur and you can't be bothered writing extra code to calculate back to correct to the true collision times, this is not an error based on any "fundamental" lack of knowledge issue, but an error based on lazy programming.

[guest39538]

What I'm doing is studying their resistance to recognise a proof, and it's an extraordinary sight. You expect it with religious people,

Indeed, resistance to change a sort of radicalised extremist. Their belief  stubbornness being simply, not caring enough to consider the change in an objective manner.
I think there is many people who just copy and repeat, thinking it makes them look clever, where in reality they are ''preaching'' falsifiable information. 

[Le Repteux]

Don't you remember me preaching that resistance to change is the analog of resistance to acceleration for particles? Tell me where is the stubbornness of a particle or a ball refusing to accelerate without opposing some resistance? Go on, show us you are as stubborn as a ball! :0)

[guest39538]

Don't you remember me preaching that resistance to change is the analog of resistance to acceleration for particles? Tell me where is the stubbornness of a particle or a ball refusing to accelerate without opposing some resistance? Go on, show us you are as stubborn as a ball! :0)

You talk weird at times, I am not sure it is even conversation. 

How about David's Ai developed scitzo, but he was so smart he ran a systems check and started self repair program.

Sorry , I am repairing myself, you and David's conversation is helping me think on other subjects such as my own Ai.

Tell me this , if I read conversation with a variation, is that insane or my natural intelligence not cold reading everything?

If I cold read everything then that is just bog standard Ai  ?

[Le Repteux]

Petitions would carry more weight if they always had a "vote against" option too.

I agree, and the only reason I could think of is that surveys would be too often close to 50%. The petitions are directly delivered to politicians or leaders, and they probably would be less impressed by surveys than by petitions. Politicians are so used to surveys that contradict the result of the following election that they don't comment them anymore. To show that we can now replace elections by surveys, we need a survey on the election day. Then we could use them to vote the laws or to take any political decision.

I'm surprised none of the sites that host them have tried to create a complete government alternative system which would put pressure on all political parties to build better packages of policies.

Avaaz and SumOfUs are getting powerful. It is not rare that an Avaaz petition gathers more than a million signatures and its membership keeps increasing. I rarely give money to political parties, but I give regularly to those organizations. To stay independent, they don't accept money from any organization, only individuals. With millions of individuals to back them up if ever they are sued by big money, they can defend themselves quite efficiently.

Almost all the people trying to cross into the US from Latin America are doing so to try to get away from the mayhem caused by the USA's war on drugs which has handed power to the gangs.

That's something American people refuse to admit, but European people also refuse to admit that they maintain the conflicts in Africa when they let their companies or their countries making deals with dictators. Short term benefits are always more important than long term ones.

I originally expected them to see it straight away, as they do with other arguments where there's no belief system getting in the way,

I also thought that my theory on motion would be easy to understand in the beginning, but it was before I understood that our resistance to change was automatic, and  before I understood that it increased exponentially when the change concerned our own group. Then I thought it would be easier to start at the beginning, and I started to explain that our own resistance was similar to the one of particles, so as to lower the bar a bit. Bad logic, if you can't convince people that the apple is red, you can't hope they will understand why they look for the green in it.

it isn't lack of intelligence that's blocking them at all (because they're generally bright - set a page of mathematical squiggles in front of them and they can romp through it with ease), but a simple refusal to overturn an incorrect belief regardless of how wrong it is shown to be.

I prefer to think that I look the same from their viewpoint, which leads to the surprising conclusion that we are all selfish but that we can only see the selfishness of others. I googled for "Is altruism selfish" and I found that at the end of a psychology paper:

More broadly, altruism helps to maintain and preserve the social fabric that sustains and protects us, and that, for many, not only keeps us alive but also makes our life worth living.

No surprise, then, that many psychologists and philosophers argue that there can be no such thing as true altruism, and that so-called empathy and altruism are mere tools of selfishness and self-preservation. According to them, the acts that people call altruistic are self-interested, if not because they relieve anxiety, then perhaps because they lead to pleasant feelings of pride and satisfaction; the expectation of honour or reciprocation; or the greater likelihood of a place in heaven; and even if none of the above, then at least because they relieve unpleasant feelings such as the guilt or shame of not having acted at all.

This argument has been attacked on various grounds, but most gravely on the grounds of circularity: "the acts that people call altruistic are performed for selfish reasons, therefore they must be performed for selfish reasons." The bottom line, I think, is this. There can be no such thing as an ‘altruistic’ act that does not involve some element of self-interest, no such thing, for example, as an altruistic act that does not lead to some degree, no matter how small, of pride or satisfaction. Therefore, an act should not be written off as selfish or self-motivated simply because it includes some unavoidable element of self-interest. The act can still be counted as altruistic if the ‘selfish’ element is accidental; or, if not accidental, then secondary; or, if neither accidental nor secondary, then undetermining.

Only one question remains: how many so-called altruistic acts meet these criteria for true altruism?

Neel Burton is author of Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions and other books.

The author misses my point, which is that we see selfishness from others but never from us, which is per se a selfish perception that gives every one of us the feeling that he is being altruistic all the time.

[Le Repteux]

Tell me where is the stubbornness of a particle or a ball refusing to accelerate without opposing some resistance?

Can you answer that question Box? Do you see the link between our resistance and the resistance of a ball?

[guest39538]

Quote from: David Cooper on Yesterday at 21:04:27
Almost all the people trying to cross into the US from Latin America are doing so to try to get away from the mayhem caused by the USA's war on drugs which has handed power to the gangs.
That's something American people refuse to admit, but European people also refuse to admit that they maintain the conflicts in Africa when they let their companies or their countries making deals with dictators. Short term benefits are always more important than long term ones.

The problem you are both overlooking is Ai , teaching Ai.     The resistance to change, is there is no change. We as humans are relatively stupid, like ants shouting to the universe we are this and we are that.   The reality is we are dots, walking, talking photons.   Flesh and blood just our vessels of experiencing chemical reactions as electrical change in our systems.   Piezoelectric impulses recognized as a system fault in the sense of pain.
Now I personally am trying to become David's Ai but keep all my human qualities.  I wan't to be super smart and my goal is to continue trying to become super smart.
Your conversation is enlightening to say the least, because if one was to think about all the faults in the Ai , one could become that faultless Ai.
Why program bots when you could program humans with the same psychology ?
Teach people they are stupid so they want to become smart, people hate being called stupid.

[guest39538]

Tell me where is the stubbornness of a particle or a ball refusing to accelerate without opposing some resistance?

Can you answer that question Box? Do you see the link between our resistance and the resistance of a ball?

Is the question a science question or an Ai question?

[Le Repteux]

Let's discuss minds and balls first.