Privacy and freedom and reality

It seems that the idea of privacy is inherent in the nature of personal freedom. It might be said that if a person has nothing to hide that they should be completely free with information about themselves. The problem with this is that it is not known what will become of that information. It may not be information , but intent that is the key to this issue. Since the intent of the observer is not known, then the random dissemination of information may not be advantageous to the individual.

It is definitely a complex issue. It may resolve to the absolute right of one group or individual to control all others. It may be compared to software for a computer. If you control the software that is to be used and how it is used then you control the effect of the hardware. This means that if people are likened to hardware and their thought process is derived from the information that they receive , then the person becomes a slave of the information that they are given. Clearly it is possible to isolate a person from birth and make them become what you wish.

There is an issue of access. Selectivity is better determined by a method that can identify an association with source. The idea of trusted or effective source can be polluted by allowing open access. The very things that an individual must decide are mirrored in the use of information in the world as a whole.

Ultimately the physicality of the world decides what is real and what is illusion. Perhaps the most important tool in the information age is the tool that can decipher the quality of information as it pertains to the individual.

Those who deal in any power should recognize that it is not in their best interest to poison the waters. The problem in society is that those who seek power to control the flow of anything for the good of all, are the most likely candidates to ultimately poison the waters for their personal gain.

All of these problems seem to revolve around only one single factor, which is the intent of the participants.

An example of intent is the fact that a court could collect drugs or any other item that is considered a crime and keep that illegal item to themselves. They can say that they are doing this for legal and moral reasons. What it resolves around is the fact that these people in that position are trusted to act in a moral way. The problem is that they have no magic quality that differentiates them from others. They can just as easily be a criminal if they have the opportunity.

The only way to have a fair distribution of power is to have no concentration of power, unless you feel that there is some absolute way to identify that a person is somehow more gooder in their very nature than someone else.

The tools that allow for the interpretation and use of anything for the benefit of the individual would change the balance of power in such a way that though abuse is inherent in diversity, it's advantage would be limited.

The abuse of centralized power is very obvious in every corner of the world.

On a separate issue I just read an article of virtual worlds and virtual life and it implied that some form of immortality or existence could be achieved within that framework and though it can appear that all the little problems will resolve if you are optimistic ( or naive ) , the universe is a harsh dominatrix and her rules are very clear. The idea that a created imitation could have a physicality is similar to saying that dreams are a reality. Dream rules cannot be applied in physicality. Delusion is delusion.


Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen