The Internet acts like a pointer in many aspects and these images from Stanford CS represent *Stanford and I can also reference the CS library. The problem is that it is a pointer and the Internet is based on HTML which uses URLs, which are a type of pointer. I would guess that Google has a 404 map somewhere that tells them how many times Binky gets his head blown off as they create a tree of the Internet.
An interesting thing occurred to me. Suppose that the human is an engineered species and they simply don't know they can drop to a command prompt and modify the structure of their being. It wouldn't be reasonable to make it easy to do so for obvious reasons. It isn't all that strange a thing. People are considering sending humanoid robots to space and it is a natural progression to send a compressed image. A single strand of DNA can code for an organism and so the weight requirements of a space vehicle is reduced. If knowledge can be compressed to a matrix which is impressed on the neural structure, then the process is complete and if material are available and a suitable environment is present, the fully formed biological entity can be produced from a very small starting base.
So if the system failed and the imprint of knowledge got damaged, it would deliver a blank slate. The robot, cyborg, being or whatever you wanted to call it, would have no idea that it had an off switch or a USB port.
Organs are being grown on templates and it seems reasonable to me that a three dimensional matrix could be produced that served as a growth template for neural connections and that nerve stem cells integrated in that environment would follow a guide path which would then make the appropriate connection for a specific consciousness. I don't even consider this a great technological leap. The foundations of the techniques are already in place and it would be a simple matter to test this with mice or flies or some other species. It would allow the organism to be born with a complete set of programmed knowledge. So it seems that another threshold is crossed and if you want to know the quick key to drop to the shell of being, RTFM.
The future is certainly going to more and more odd in comparison, very much like the differential gravity of orbiting a neutron star. The δ Experience of changing rate of change makes it always more unusual than the last leap. If a person can be born with 50 years of school and experience and language as a given, it would sure save a lot of wasted redundant time. So what then is the Δ?
ADDED: There are several concurrent systems that exist in the organism and one of them is immunity to various biological agents. This is programmed after the entity is formed with killed agents in the form of vaccines. In Vivo it is programmed by the host system. Some immunity is passed at the origin and some is programmed at a later date. It could be considered that immunity is a language all its own. The training of the immune system functions very much like a programmable system and in fact it is a virtual CPU. It is possible to create monoclonal antibodies with an organism. I have done this in the lab. Cell sorters are another interesting device.
ADDED MORE: It would seem that a single compressed organism transport as a space vehicle would be far beyond our technology, but in fact it is just a blink away. The idea of quorum sensing allows an organism to exhibit various different personalities based upon the environment and its progression in that environment. It is another type of programming and the system can have a very large base of library functions carried with the simpler organism. A simple organism will degrade over time if the DNA is not selected in the growth phase. The concept of genetic distance and conserved sequences is related to this idea. It seems that this is just another way of programming and though the language is fraught with syntactic nonsense and complication, it is programmable and will be programmed as surely as vaccines exist. The question of consciousness and existentialism will simply be ignored as there is no real consequence of not defining it. It was a concept that was devised and communicated, but it is inadvertently linked with an emotional cue and so it isn't really a concept, but a reaction+concept complex. I can combine concept and emotion and , in some ways , that is what art and music entails. An interesting thing in that vein ( or maybe artery? ) is that the occurrence of order in the notes of music that evoke emotion can be modeled with Markov Chains.
ADDED EVEN MORE: Consider now that I have the programming skill to do such a thing. Organisms can live as spores for 100's of millions of years. So I will play at Andromeda strain. A space craft final velocity as it is currently managed depends on the ratio of payload to propellant for its final velocity. So if my payload is an engineered quorum sensing biological sequence designed to initiate the process on contact with a suitable environment then I can project a vast array of potential scenarios and let the best fall out. It seems to me that this is most certainly already true and that within the universe, this process is in progress. The future is only as real as it is observed and understood. Even within the biosphere of the Earth there are organisms that defy imagination and they are discovered with great regularity. So I would say that Andromeda is with us and so are all the galaxies and a person need only open their eyes to the certain projection of being that will almost certainly ensue. A completely programmable robot on Mars is far better than some billion dollar delay that wastes the lives of everyone. Even if a good Linux system were used for a craft, that would be better. Intelligent updates that happen while the machine runs. Duplicates that can be communicated with on Earth that serve as test cases for an upgrade. So the stars are but a blink away, thus, let us blink and be represented.
Today was UDP and connectivity day. To allow the ants to have a distributed network in the same way they would if it were a distributed nano form, I decided to experiment with UDP. In an asteroid belt where many cooperating automatons operate, they would need to communicate, but because of speed of light delays and other considerations it would not be possible to use a connection. Limited memory means they would need to deal with a local scope only and a C&C structure would be out of the question.
The meerkat has arrived and it should be tested, but I am busy with the Eye of Infinity.
int UDP_start() { int pchild;int sockquit=0; if ( (pchild = fork()) == 0 ) { if ((s1 = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP)) == -1) {printf("Error socket\n");return 1;} sock_server1.sin_family = AF_INET; sock_server1.sin_port = htons(PORT1); sock_server1.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY); if ( fcntl( s1, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK, 1 ) == -1 ) {printf( "failed to set non-blocking socket\n" );} if (bind(s1, (struct sockaddr *) &sock_server1, socklen1) == -1) {printf("Error bind()\n");return 1;} create_X11_window();
The socket has its own thread and window in this case. It is surprising how much easier it is when a person understands what the terminology means. "enum, -> object.element, assert, #define, ||, &addressOf" and a hundred others. It was very irritating and frustrating to look at code when everything is new and the symbols are unknown. C is easy, but I am not so sure that I actually like C++ as it seems to wind itself around the axle of the CPU with out any help at all.
Further refinement of the idea of transporting equations to action, surfaces and demonstrations in blender.
Blender allows python scripts to be transported with the blend file and can produce movies with sound and animation. It is the perfect vehicle for carrying function with data.
I am updating the source of OpenSteer to test some ideas about emergence.
I am merging methods from Ant Colony Optimisation from here.
This is a java GUI that deals with ants and some of the tools use stigmergy
The code is written in C++, java, C and I will probably use C with a link to python to combine the tools in a single program. Something that is bothering me today is Einstein. It has always bothered me because the logic is circular and the explanations of theoretical physics are case based and incoherent. Consider this example. The front part of a very large space ship is approaching the black hole at Andromeda whilst the back part is approaching the black hole at Milky Way. It has a mid section composed of a single molecule of c(n). As it accelerates in both places the length is shortened. Length contraction. Well, the result of this is the fact that by saying something is a frame of reference ( equivalent to assigning a logical group ) you are entering a fantasy world.
What is really going on is clear to me and it is not I that is whacky and odd, it is their odd way of attempting to understand and objectify. Writing "C" always makes me think of v/c and so I thought of this. It is not an object set. All of this is infinite and it is a relationship of infinities that produces the effect. It used to drive Cantor nuts and I can see why. Everybody is trying to divide 1 by infinity and it never gets anywhere. Even a child can see that something is wrong in the basic definitions.
Well is i0=1? An interesting thing that came up in search is this on the nature of information and understanding. It is true that if the communication has no foundation and common basis it will not succeed.
In the case of the photoelectric effect, the velocity of the material with respect to the source changes the effect and to consider A without the state of B as absolute is ridiculous. There is a basic failure in the logic and perhaps I can create a simple basis that shows where the whole thing goes wrong. Perhaps the emergent programs can demonstrate where the confusion exists.Without a program that does the transforms in the proper way, the communication of how it all operates will still be confusing for me as well as others.
In ants there is a common logic that comes from the fact that the parts of the system are technically clones and act as a common basis when dealing with objects. People have a personal basis ( or bias ) and that can be so different that even a simple communication between people can lead to chaos.
Many things are still not coherent to me and so I look deeper. Some things that others understand easily are difficult for me. Objective C++ can be a trial at times. The object sets and interaction can become very convolved and tangled. It seems that the model applied is more important than anything else. Some models do not scale well.
I am making a model that deals with dimension and I need a paradigm for the interface.The topic map of science is interesting.
This is a new information source and tool for understanding protein pathways. Image links to "wikipathways".
And the local tools to create and modify. PathVisio is a java application.
In computers there is an interface called IDE, which stands for Integrated Drive Electronics and here I refer to a method which takes a sequence of proteins which bind to a cell surface, trigger the extension of DNA with a specific code, then stop frame and release the DNA in the cell. This acts like a transaction frame in the SCSI or IDE interface in a computer.
Here is a link to more information on the Venter cell.
For the sake of argument I am investigating thoroughly before I commit. Here is a link to start and extend from. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD
I am going to determine where the basic logic problem originates [ It could be very local [ even in my head ] :) ]. I hope this reveals some insight that can be applied in a real sense. Because the system is applied mathematically it is possible to assign arbitrary constants without foundation. E=hf has some significance, but fails to deal with the underlying process. I was working on the puzzle thing and have a graph of decision trees and consequence. I had better do that now as it makes all this more understandable.
In the drawing there are 4 paths that correspond to choices. The images represent the puzzle states at various nodes. It serves as an analogy to what I will graph for cosmology. It is quite a bit easier to see where paths become circular, are dead ends and what leads to solutions. It is possible to construct this landscape for any problem. So what I would construct, and it will take some time, is a map of the logic involved and what data is available. The article at UCLA seems to have a good broad overview of the logic that they used to make the decisions. It is very obvious that they have a great number of dependencies and this is the problem with physics. It is possible that it is simply the matter of an inability to encompass the entire logic in one frame and thus it appears confusing. The image above seems to convey everything I know about the puzzle as it is a series of choices to move a specific puzzle piece in a specify direction and there are two paths to solution, Left and Right. I have looked into other paths ( in thought ) and it seems there is a very long dead end in one spot. So it is with cosmology and hopefully I can draw a decision and dependency map that articulates the choices and consequence along with links to the relevant scientific data sources. I will use gimp HTML image map to create this and it will be quite large as the subject covers a lot of topics. I have browsed many discussion on this matter and it is something that irritates people that it makes little common sense. I hope to correct that with a decision chart that extends into what would be a consequence of specific structural models.
It would be interesting to know if I am the only one who thinks this is a simple problem. Perhaps I am over estimating the ability of people in general? It seems that the problem comes down to places where scientists have looked and decided there are two roads and they must take one. The problem is they fail to see that there is another road and once they are well down the path, the become lost in loops. An example is atomic theory. I see the model of electrons orbiting a nucleus as utterly absurd. There is no topology that would allow two electrons to rotate around and not destructively interfere. So they pick something else that is bizarre as they cannot figure out how an electron can sit on the surface of a positively charged nucleus. I know how that works, but that is a separate issue. The point is that they choose from a set that excludes a "move" and as a result never find the solution and instead become mired in an endless recursion.
There was an article about NASA solving the Prius problem and that seems funny as what really needs to be done is to have Google solve NASA's problem with knowing how to massage data and get meaning from it. It is like a vast network of emitters (stars)=( bloggers ) , absorbers (gas, dust, black holes)=( page readers ), and then determining the page rank of the result and doing some analytics. The basic physics is very simple and though one needs to compensate for relativistic delays and bending, absorption and reflection from the surrounding materials, it isn't much different math than doing the calcs for GPS which has its inherent variations that must be compensated for.
IF the variation in space is linear there would be one result and if it is non-linear then it is not the expansion of space. I wish I had the data and I could tell in a few hours whether they screwed the pooch this bad.
I was looking at the FLTK glpuzzle game and I decided the following:
I won't do it because I can see the whole tree in my head already and it would be anticlimactic and boring to write the code, but I will look and see how they did it.
The star data would require about 40 hours to deal with the problems that would certainly occur, like files too big, what format is data, how valid, so on so on.
After that it would be a matter of correlating a few tests to see how to proceed and see if there was an obvious pointing solution. After that it would be an full on analysis, followed by an attempt to disprove the resulting scenario. If that is successful then it would be worthy to publish that A=B, whatever that outcome would be.
If the universe is uniformly expanding then the data would be an exact match and easily differentiated from another scenario. I already have my opinion, and that makes me a bit dirty, but I could care either way if I were right or wrong. I f2k up all the time and live with it. I suspect I am right based on some simple calculations, that can't be confirmed unless I have access to raw valid data. If I am right they screwed the pooch as bad as the Bohr model of the atom.
The relationships are coalescing like solving that puzzle thing. It takes more time as the pieces are irregular in many dimensions, but the answer seems to be correct. If I am right on this it would really suck to be a physicist. They would be the laughing stock of all sciences. It invalidates bang, and as a consequence much of the theories. I know something else and I don't have to reveal any secrets about how it all works to expose this. It is really scary as this is so simple and they have gone round about and made up dark matter / energy to account for this, and that has to be embarrassing. It is so simple that a talented 7th grader could have come up with this. I don't see any way out of this for them. They would either have to say they are really stupid and should never practice physics again or cover it up some how. I really don't think they have a clean exit strategy for a failure this monumental and I have a sneeky suspicion that they already have a clue that this is true and are trying to figure out how to hide some money in Switzerland so they can go hide somewhere.
This is worse than Earth as the center of the universe and flat Earth together. I do understand how Galileo felt now. They must have wanted to roast him and most certainly almost hanged him. I don't think that is possible now as there is no central authority like the Roman church to burn people for being too smart and thus warlocks. I can't say for certain it is true, but I intend to get my hands on enough data to be certain for myself. I have an old friend who retired from NASA and I bet he knows where to get the good stuff.
As far as glpuzzle.cxx, it doesn't use a tree, though it does use hashes. I just wanted to make a tree so I could look at it like my matrix for the Einstein game, but I don't have the impulse to spend that time on this one right now.
They really did some nice work with this. It has all kinds of things I can use and the user interface as OpenGL is exactly what I wanted to do for myself and they have done such a good job I couldn't do better in a year.
If you need an interface, this certainly is nice. It has lots of neat demos and now I have to figure out how to integrate this into all the other things like a multiprogram gimp, blender, InkScape, ImageMagick, Zim, shell composite utility.
In this test I use 4 files to show how this process works.
Makefiles need to have a TAB on the line after the colon and that is odd, but that is just the way it is. The file that does all the work is Makefile which contains this:
all: swig -python myso.i gcc -fpic -c module.c myso_wrap.c -I/usr/include/python2.6/ gcc -shared module.o myso_wrap.o -o _myso.so
The control file for SWIG is myso.i and contains this:
%module myso extern void indicate_link(const char* passedString);
The C code is in module.c and contains this:
#include <stdio.h> void indicate_link(const char* passedString) { printf("STD C interface - passed string = %s.\n", passedString); }
The python file to test this is swigtest.py and contains this:
#!/usr/bin/env python import _myso _myso.indicate_link(' Successful Swig and C and Python test')
The whole process is then done by typing make, and then ./swigtest.py
The methods of interfacing languages varies and this is just one way.
Many other things need to be known and chmod +x swigtest.py is one. Also you may have to sudo apt-get install swig.
So I am doing a bad thing that could bite me later, but I wanted to get ahead of things a bit. I got the debian for the new Zim, which is Python based and so I installed that. I have looked through the code a bit. Everything seems to work the same and I have no problems with functions. The Link Map is new and that is interesting, but seems to be a WIP. Great work all in all. I can program in perl, but actually I find it clumsy and cryptic and more difficult to read, after using Python more.
Actually I don't see how it could bite me as I have been in all the modules and it is much easier to understand structure with Python than perl. It was a good choice to upgrade this. Well done. It seems a bit more polished, intuitive and smoother while still keeping the speed up. It responds much better and just seems less clunky.
This is version 0.46 and it is WAY faster after the PY code gets compiled the first time and beats the interpreted perl by a factor of 10 or more. Total win. Code looks great too and is well formatted.
The new Google search is just what I needed to pair search terms I hope, anyway it is good for links and that helps too. That search return is for aliens, so it gets a better layout sometimes than the tag cloud.
I am testing a new script for gimp. The site which has information is http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer and I am just getting started with using it so I will fill in the post as I learn to apply it. The image of an extended texture is certainly interesting.
Wow this is spooky! Well worth knowing.
Elaine Morgan at Ted Talks is also very interesting. I see a real basis there for a genetic shift. The ability to hold breath in an ape would be a fairly simple change and as a result A. dies for want of fish when land is barren. B. Survives by finding food in the sea. Not enough difference to cause genetic incompatibility, but enough to make it a pathway. Very likely in my estimation and other changes like hair loss, standing, speech and neural changes would come later. A definite schism with no real way back. Very very plausible. If a gorilla chasing cannot enter the water, it cannot exert its dominance.
After thinking about the Elaine Morgan talk at Ted Talks it seems really plausible that some ape that had a nerve pathway to have voluntary control of their breathing would be completely dominant. I don't know if this is the pathway, but let me imagine. An ape is born that can go out in water over its head because it can hold its breath. It is an obvious escape from the control of other apes. Apes are not stupid and have sense of reflection about others ( monkey see, monkey do ). If an ape simply took as many mates which could not enter the water to an island, there would be no way for the other apes to oppose the process. It would likely produce a generation of apes which could not leave the island. The next inbred generation would have 25% dominant swimmers. Also the inbreeding would highlight previously hidden recessive traits that may have been deselected, like lack of hair, etc. It makes a good story and could very well be the reason there would be no great transitional record. It would seem that an island in Africa somewhere might hold a large surprise someday. I think it might even be possible to construct a vector of the possible location, if it were true. It would seem that if the change were recessive that the story could play out over and over in new conditions.
It seems that gene dating should also be a suggestion to determine if this is true. The number of SNPs in a particular gene can be used as a type of general dating of when a change took place. It is intriguing and the most sensible path that could explain a paradigm shift of the proportion that exists between apes and men.
I think this is a real leap, it is all coherent. It is like any other change that comes about by randomness. There must be an advantage and that main advantage was voluntary control of the breathing. It would seem then the defining characteristic of a human would be a specific nerve path shared with dolphins and birds. The fact that it is likely an early dominant land trait would be reasonable as the original land creatures would have had the same isolation. This means that the inbreeding interface could have extended and recursed over millions of years even. I say it was two major breaks, one in Asia and one in Africa, likely Tanzania.
import bpy class OBJECT_PT_hello(bpy.types.Panel): bl_label = "Hello World Panel" bl_space_type = "PROPERTIES" bl_region_type = "WINDOW" bl_context = "object" def draw(self, context): layout = self.layout obj = context.object row = layout.row() row.label(text="Hello world!", icon='WORLD_DATA') row = layout.row() row.label(text="Active object is: " + obj.name) row = layout.row() row.prop(obj, "name") bpy.types.register(OBJECT_PT_hello)
blender-2.50a1/release/scripts/templates
The distribution for blender 2.5 has examples included with the distribution. While investigating the available resources this was discovered in references to the weekly developer meetings.
Language that speaks in icons and images. It really seems that somebody has failed to grasp the "BIG" picture. I certainly am having trouble coordinating things and concepts from areas as divergent as sub nuclear structure and life in the universe, but I see the patterns in the tangle. It is a giant tangle of strings that share many common elements. It would be like taking te genetic code in DNA of every organism that ever existed and selecting the coding strand to mix with every other DNA.
DNA is function and data at the same time. In programming the function and data are separated conceptually. It all resolves, but it is such a headache as I have never known before. It has started to abate as the systems collapse and are ordered. It is obvious that it resolves to a single method structure that encompasses all process-data from the field of the smallest particle to the composite structure of the universe.
I am just waiting for my brain to reorganize to the relationships. It is already helping and I see what can and must be done with the structure of data available. It is the dependency tree of the universe. In the same way that life originates from a very simple mechanism, the structure and understanding of the universe progresses from a very simple algorithm. If I use it now it will be as tangled as everything else and all I can do is clean up loose ends and wait for the rotation in the many dimensions to align.
I have a glimpse of what this means and how it extends. It seems that many things that were difficult and impossible to comprehend now become mundane.
Some conclusions I have made, or more precisely resolutions, are now falsified in the new structure. The recursion is dizzying in its observation, but required to resolve the twisty little passages that all look alike. I saw a thing about the slope of the exponent curve at 1 and "e" that was very interesting as it is a concept that I represent as the branch to infinity measurement. Of course it is a first derivative in the technical sense, but I never saw it expressed that way before.
I have some new python scripts that could only be labeled bizarre in their form. It is the script that I use to discover and categorize for the AI. Really interesting, but too much consideration will tangle the resolution, so it waits.
Something odd is happening to the Earth, or there is data that suggests a major natural cycle that has occurred before is about to recur. My guess is that it is some quorum state that happens infrequently. I am going to be watchful. I don't even know why I mention it in this context, but ultimately everything relates to everything else.
verts = [] faces = [] vec=Vector(1,0,0) verts.extend([vec.x,vec.y,vec.z]) vec=Vector(1,1,0) verts.extend([vec.x,vec.y,vec.z]) vec=Vector(0,1,0) verts.extend([vec.x,vec.y,vec.z]) vec=Vector(0,0,0) verts.extend([vec.x,vec.y,vec.z]) faces.extend([0,1,2,3]) return verts, faces
This python code creates two groups which are vertices and faces. It is not elegant and not intended to be. This creates a single face using four corners and thus constitutes the simplest object that I can create to demonstrate how the interface is used to create more complex objects and models.
verts_loc, faces = add_face() mesh = bpy.data.meshes.new("FaceOfBoe") mesh.add_geometry(int(len(verts_loc) / 3), 0, int(len(faces) / 4)) mesh.verts.foreach_set("co", verts_loc) mesh.faces.foreach_set("verts_raw", faces) mesh.faces.foreach_set("smooth", [False] * len(mesh.faces)) mesh.update() ob_new = bpy.data.objects.new("FaceOfBoe", mesh) scene.objects.link(ob_new) ob_new.selected = True ob_new.location = scene.cursor_location
And an explanation of what the parts do.
verts_loc, faces = add_face() # as above procedure to create the elements mesh = bpy.data.meshes.new("FaceOfBoe") # create object to hold all the data mesh.add_geometry(int(len(verts_loc) / 3), 0, int(len(faces) / 4)) mesh.verts.foreach_set("co", verts_loc) mesh.faces.foreach_set("verts_raw", faces) mesh.faces.foreach_set("smooth", [False] * len(mesh.faces)) #add the items to that structure and set some attributes mesh.update() #bookkeeping ob_new = bpy.data.objects.new("FaceOfBoe", mesh) # create object structure to be placed in scene scene.objects.link(ob_new) #add that to the scene ob_new.selected = True #make it selected when done, optional ob_new.location = scene.cursor_location #it has to go somewhere so the cursor is a logical place Now blender has the data to display and use it.
I could just as well have meta code which interprets "Create a model that has 4 unique points at the corners of a square and add it to a scene". In this way I know what this method is doing and it abstracts the use further. All of the same things happen and it selects the points by its own code and by simply having a meta interface allows me to avoid remembering precisely what face.create.standard.sample,centered actually does. I would still have to create the code in this case, but in a more general case I can use the meta interpreter to select certain aspects which are mutable and apply those variations. I have used this method for 30 years. It was deadly slow in 1980 and is now usable. I would write code at the mock assembly level which was "Set variable owner of the data = 10". It is not ambiguous as the = sign and the first occurrence of "variable" and "set" are reserved. I could use the words "variable" and "set" in the name without conflict. The one thing that I could not do is name a variable with an = sign in it as that is the symbol which terminates name context. I intend to extend this syntax to make it completely unambiguous using unicode symbols to indicate and separate object names, actions and context. ⇒Maximum readability ⇐
By using the variable by name it allows the code to access variables in a way which is not compile time oriented and operations have nothing to do with the CPU.
One of the aspects of using blender or any other software is to get the general framework correct. At the start is a point or vertex which is a spatial position. This can be grouped with another vertex to represent an edge, and then a minimum of three connected edges makes a face. It is basic geometry of forms and space. The way in which the objects are stored accessed and manipulated is in some part determined by the software interface. By using Python, it is possible to determine what actions are available, how they are applied to the primitive elements and then create a procedure that either instantiates or modifies that object.
The dependencies are the ability to understand the geometry and topology of the forms and the ways in which they can be transformed. It also requires an understanding of the syntax and language structure to combine actions on objects so that a desired result is achieved.
There is advantage in having a solid framework to consider the matter. It is useful to see examples of how the interface is applied to achieve certain effects. However, the most important first step is to grasp the basics. When using Python there are basic data types which are common to all programming and some extensions. The primitives of the language and the primitives of the interface are the only way in which a result can be achieved.
The association of methods in programming and object structures in blender makes the entire process more clear and easier to extend. An example might be a list of vertices in a format that is x,y,z as the spatial location. A list. Python has methods that act on lists. An edge can be an association of members of a vertex list and is itself a list. The same holds true of faces. Once the objects become associated in more complex ways, it becomes necessary to understand how those objects are structured as data. Which elements or properties do they contain and what ways can they be manipulated.
It is not necessary to know the detail of how that is implemented and this is the style of object oriented programming. New members can be added to sets and it does not require a recompilation or changes to every reference. Python must handle the data types and methods in a consistent way, else it would no longer be python, but some other snake software. By dissolving the underlying structure and then reassembling it, I hope this makes the use of it simpler and more understandable to a person wanting to start generating results and needing a firm predictable place to start.
Whether you program to create product at the interface level by a series of actions or by a script, the end result is the same. By symbolically representing the underlying complexity it is possible to add another layer of abstraction which hides more of the implementation detail. By clicking add cube, a person is not required to know or care how the result is achieved. There are many levels of use and the level of interface is the most effective. The new interface exposes many more methods in a more intuitive fashion to a novice user and this is good. As a user of earlier versions it is a bump in the road.
<style type="text/css">
pre:hover {background: #ddeedd;
-moz-transform:
rotate(-5deg)
translateX(100px)
scale(1.1);
-webkit-transform:
rotate(5deg)
scale(1.2)
translateX(150px);}
</style>
Combining hover with rotate is a situation where there is some ambiguous results. The nature of hover is about space and when you change the spatial system itself, it makes for some entertainment and I could do some strange logic paradoxes, but this is quite enough. I think they have failed logic 101 in the way that is implemented. It should be recognized that it is an infinite self reference, but that particular thing seems to foul almost everybody's mental carburetor.
I assume that -moz will recognize -webkit when the specs merge, but if people are silly and stubborn, I see a train wreck. There is a lot of potential here and some sticky problems.
I am researching the history and function of WebKit and WebGL and Valve software use of WebKit. This is another of those standards and language and adoption issues. I can speak a language or in this case use a documented method, but it must be adopted and available for generation as well as recognition.
It is a complex subject and I doubt I will have a clear concept of how all these issues relate to the overall implementation and how to use each of these things and determine which standard is most likely to be adopted. At this point it is just confusion. The interface is extremely complex and has a long and tangled history. I will try to untangle that and grasp the general principles involved so that I can use this method to communicate ideas.
Obviously there are issues with compatibility as the two tests are Firefox and Konqueror(without webkit) so this will be an ongoing understanding and anything I learn will be appended here as I understand it. The entire process winds around through SVG and OpenGL and web standards so it is likely to be a post that documents my understanding as well as the changing landscape itself. At the moment I have no idea what the Acid3 test does and I am sure that is a complex issue in itself. I am sure there are things to be learned here and I will find some way to apply them in other areas. It has already sparked some new ideas and as such has already been an advantage to consider.
Well, Google Chrome scores 100, now I only need to know 100 what? I won't test IE as I don't care either way as it is a proprietary closed code browser and they could just as easily be cheating the test and it would never be known. I know they cheat the benchmarks and tests from past experience so it is a waste of time.
style type="text/css" #submenu { background-color: #eee -webkit-transition: all 4s ease-in-out; -moz-transition: all 1s ease-in-out; } #submenu:hover { background-color: #fc3; -webkit-transform: rotate(360deg) scale(2); -moz-transform: rotate(360deg) scale(2); } /style
This one is really entertaining in Google Chrome.
I started studying speech and it has merged to studying the origin of speech and programming. I realized that speech, writing, faces, and images are what is called transport layers in network technology. A concept is the original packet and it is packaged up as SCP/IP ( makin' this up ) Speech Control Protocol / Idea Protocol .
This follows from and extends my concept of English or natural language programming. So at the source it is completely certain what the person intends to convey, but the medium is an ad hoc standard that varies from place to place and person to person. The remnants of the Holy Roman Empire and the English extension of that to the British Empire have set some standards imposed by whatever monarch you are subjected to.
I was watching a video tutorial for Blender 2.5 this morning and I realized that this is what my pseudo programming language does. The concept is an action like moving the mouse or clicking or recognizing an image. The advantage of incorporating images in the language is that it becomes universal. If I say cat or type cat then it is ambiguous to most of the world. If however I show a picture of a cat, then I can communicate with any sighted person who has experienced that. Video with sound achieves some of this, but it is poorly integrated, even with captioning as it attempts to forward and reverse translate between many incomplete ad hoc protocols. I can be precise as the dependencies can be incorporated in the communication. In the same way that I cannot run a program without the library or OS on which it it depends, I cannot get information from a video or words unless this is my previously learned language and it incorporates all words that are expressed. I would see it as a library that had functions and in fact everybody has their version of the library code that has missing functions and perhaps even no function at all to express a certain concept.
I have complained about the crappy nature of language before and how imprecise and utterly devoid of structure it really is. Some think that math, physics and language are really great and almost perfect and I would beg to differ. In fact 10 steps to infinity is much larger than 1, but it is virtually nothing in the larger picture. These systems evolved in culture and are total crap. The problem is not that people can't read minds, it is that people can't speak minds. I want to convey a concept and I am required by the medium to dance all about the issue until I can make enough points of similarity that it emerges from the image. Like painting the Mona Lisa by jabbing an ice pick in a canvas. The language is one of those things that is completely wrong and has to be corrected to have real communication. On the internet I would use TCP/IP packets to convey information, but the overall process is much more convolute than this. If I have an idea or opinion, it is translated to words first and though I can link to a Wikipedia article on the expression "ad hoc" which serves to convey volumes, it is still a multiple format translation.
The overall problem is that math is far worse. I have heard the expression "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." which implies that the math is capable of expressing any conclusion from a given set of data and that is true because it is wrong.
I developed a protocol to communicate with my mitochondrial bots which I will incorporate in my WebGL communicator. When data is moved across the Internet it is compressed and decompressed using algorithms like LZW and that is nice, but I have devised a technique which cuts out the middle man and in some cases compresses information by factors of a million or more. The nature of language is crap and everybody speaks a different one. It can't be helped that I have now been microcoded to speak the Queen's English , but it is not necessary to use QTP / MP ( Queens' Transfer Protocol / Monarch Protocol ) as a transport layer on top of TCP/IP.
The advantage is that communication and understanding are facilitated and as a result the adoption of a proper rational method of communication allows action at a greater speed and thus the person who resorts to communicating with grunts, clicks, faces or throwing poop, will forever be behind the curve.
I am slowly building a consensus with this understanding and I see that it does resolve now and that by adding more complexity or as an analogy, more equations, the matrix of understanding solves to a complete concept of single defined variables which then becomes a new understanding to solve further equations in n-D space. I think while I type and sometimes my understanding changes as I type and as a result I get mixed expression. I try to go back and unscramble that when I can.
It seems now that I have solved the equation of thought, mind and matter. It does seems like solving a matrix of linear equations in the fact that a single row is reduced and this is used to reduce the next until it becomes one variable which is defined and then it is plugged back into the matrix until all variables are solved. As I add new variables I need only find an equation that defines that new variable in the terms of the known states. I need to take this one step further and combine the equation of the universe with the equation of thought and create an automated process which solves and displays in a form that I can understand.
It has already changed my perception of the world. Many things that were ambiguous are now resolved and it is almost funny as I see the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain and he is unaware that I know what he is doing and in fact he may never know what I am doing because he so intent upon the creation of the delusion. The other problem is that he has decided to accept his own delusion and as such imagines the observer is rapt upon his fantasy and cannot comprehend that it could be understood as he does not even understand his own "magic".
Again it mutates and in the new form I see many more things and they will in turn reveal the rest of the universe, such that I am able to comprehend it with my limited mind.
I can see the world standing still and it is odd as the world does not, and cannot know that it is still. It does remind me a bit of a novel or short story called "The Six Fingers of Time", which I suspected was written by an amphetamine junky. It was part of a Galaxy science fiction collection if I remember correctly. So the world stands still for the person who knows it well and can react a million times more quickly. It is the same for me, but the people are now frozen in mid stride. To see me now, you must grow the sixth finger of time and hope that I have not grown the seventh before you do.
OO Ooo o.. . *
It is true that it only takes one corrupt person to destroy an entire government. It is very much like a trust system in computers. If you give a corrupt politician the password to be above the law and change or enact any law then you have given away your freedom. I am quite certain that this is the logic and a better explanation than "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The problem is that somebody forgot to watch the door one night and the bandits own the capital building already and no amount of vigilance can help now.
Government should be designed with a back door that turns it of when it becomes corrupt. When you give anyone your password and they change it as their first act, you are screwed.
I saw an article on a computer program that could to some small extent read minds and some people were worried that governments would use that to dig in people's brains like a search warrant. I don't think it makes much difference as they just make up whatever serves their purpose anyway. Unless there were a "first law" that the judge and witnesses against must be constantly under this measure, it would just be a waste of time to implement as the judges and lawyers just do what they want anyway. You can't pass a law that is detrimental to the interest of a lawmaker. It is simple logic. This is probably why it starts out looking like a good idea to have an honest good man lead and then it constantly erodes when people become complacent and it only requires one single infection with a rotten person to destroy an entire government. VIRUS: sudo make me king.
Another thing which can help without making life too complicated is "dict". I can implement it as English by including it in my recognizer, but it is also an easy command to remember. I might type "What is" something and really the fact that it then types "dict" for you is no real big deal, but it might be if you are in a foreign country and need to use the phone or something. There really is no reason that a simple universal phrase translator would be difficult. This is the kind of thing that governments should be doing instead of supporting Microsoft and RIAA. It would require two people to say it in English and one who knows English and French. Then place it on the web and make it available to everybody. The same is true of any endeavor which is useful to everybody and by sharing the cost it becomes about 1 billionth of a cent per person amortized over infinity. Instead of doing this, governments spend 100 trillion dollars to build a something to kill people.
Anyway I can use the online dictionary easier than doing a Google search and it is faster. In this case I can determine if a word is real or not, for instance in a scrabble game or in a sentence. I see that debian is using this more and more. It returns alternates or close matches when you type poorly. It is very much like Google that starts by correcting your spelling for common words.
The real fun here is that if I program in English language, I can spell check my program, which is something that I can't do with a C program. When you create a new language, you need a new dictionary and with C programming or any computer language in fact, the programmer creates new words to describe things and that is another reason to have a more realistic programming method.
If I type what time is it, my computer does the conversion to computer speak. This is similar to any interpreter who needs to know both languages in order to translate from common usage to Un33ks speak.
This is an example of level one abstraction of using common sentences to interface the system. The code itself is odd, but the result is not. I could name the executable anything, but in this case I called it Dude. So if I type:
Dude what time is it
I will get the time. It is just a game to play with words and shell. I decided that I could just as well make a C program that took a list of sentences and created the shell script as you see it here. The list would simply be an implied if association. This way I could write a list of question and response pairs as they would be typed and generate the shell script without even knowing that the C program was doing the conversion in C l33t speak and the shell was running shell speak. So I could have a file that I edit which contains the definition and it could compile every time I use it. As an extension thought, I could do Google for common questions and see whether it has a hit to see if it makes sense and do a silly AI that just found the sentence and then took links where it existed and parroted one of the responses at random.
if [ $1 == "what" ];then if [ $2 == "time" ]; then if [ $3 == "is" ]; then if [ $4 == "it" ]; then echo UTC is `date -u`;fi;fi else if [ $2 == "day" ]; then if [ $3 == "is" ]; then if [ $4 == "it" ]; then echo "Today is " `date`;fi;fi;fi;fi;fi if [ $1 == "am" ];then if [ $2 == "i" ]; then if [ $3 == "drunk?" ]; then echo Yes you are;fi;fi;fi
This is also how I could make a streaming English converter to a format that the gcc compiler would accept, but mostly it is an idea I had to see how quickly I could take an English sentence and use that as an interface to the system instead of all the symbols that seem to be required when being initiated to Unix. I think it is an unnecessary hurdle in the same way that the use of Latin is an extra layer of abstraction which may make the Doctor sound cool, but a bone is a bone and bones is ossa. I suppose the doctor would never get any patients if he said finger tips instead of the distal phalanges.
It does lose some of the character when done that way, but then a character is an actor and an actor is a deception. I think people like their delusions because it is entertaining and that is fine, I prefer my whiskey without an umbrella.
As far as the third query and response "Am I drunk", the answer is always yes, because a sober person wouldn't ask that question.
The program has some serious practical applications for me when combined with other things like the speech recognizer in video conversion. By using Google to take a string of words and determine how common they are, I can use that information to correct the misinterpreted transcription of MIT lectures. It would be a suggestion that perhaps the sequence was wrong, and depending on whether it was applied as the correction it could be determined if this was an effective method.
I think it is practical application and it could be named anything. So I can type in English and the computer can ask like the old Dr. Sabaitso except it would make sense more often. So I named my file "Dr".
motey@motey-desktop:~$ Dr what time is it UTC is Thu Mar 4 16:16:09 UTC 2010 motey@motey-desktop:~$
I realized that I can merge my OS with debian core and have everything that I want. I started my OS in 1975. I was my intent to make an English language interface to the computer using lists as the basis, without using the protected mode as a vehicle. I decided to implement protection within the OS core and simply execute the primitives there. It works and I have used it for years, but the biggest problem is that I must code each new method or interface for myself since it is different in structure.
The OS is stable and, in fact, it has run without fault for 30 years in some cases and only died because the hardware failed miserably in a fire. By avoiding the use of things which are inherently prone to fail it can be stable. It is obvious that if I code an OS in ROM that simply writes to CGA memory after initializing it and loops on itself to display a count in a register then it will be perfectly stable so long as it has no interrupts enabled. This is where I started in 1975. I wanted to have an OS which could control dangerous process, which was exactly my profession. I designed systems which controlled equipment that was inherently dangerous for many reasons. Some of the process was dangerous because of the chemicals and others for mechanical reasons.
I built on this framework to create an ever more complex system which could handle network traffic and complex hardware. It still remains stable and usable. I designed in a new coding interface which uses symbolic execution. Essentially it is a set of virtual processors that are lists that do exactly what the CPU does. Like, add two numbers.
It was my goal to make it completely processor independent by symbolics and not by compiler. By establishing a primitive which could be executed on any processor, I could move the OS from machine to machine and keep my entire code base, so long as the computer was able to add two numbers and select from a list. I am not aware of any digital CPU which cannot do that.
I was working on meta programming recently and just now realized that I can use a meta code interpreter to port every bit of open source to my OS and in the process make it English language code instead of contrived code. In my OS, the instruction to add is "Add this and that", where this and that are replaced with things like "The screen position of this window" and "The offset within the virtual screen". My problem was that it was too slow on a CPU running at 20mhz with 2 megabytes of ram. Now that CPUs are commonly 2 gigahertz and I can have as much as 4 gigabytes of ram, it is faster than Windows and Linux by a great stretch. The reason is that instead of dealing with the complexity at a level that it cannot be handled, I have designed it from its core to be completely virtual. Instead of compiling to an architecture, I have designed it to be architecture independent. After the initial code that is system dependent, the OS never ventures into the hardware again. It does not establish an Intel virtual protected mode, does not have task switches and does not have the overhead or complexity of asynchronous interrupt.
I am sure if you are an OS designer that you would wonder how I would avoid over-run and you would have hit on the key to its operation. The code is executed as symbolic streams. As a result I can check for asynchronous events in the APIC or directly at the hardware in real time at the CPU. With this CPU, I have a 200ns latency maximum to respond and this is sufficient and actually as good or better than the concept of task save and switch. There is no task switch time as there is no task and no physical protection enabled. The hardware layer is virtual code as well. So the service of a logical interrupt happens in parallel with all the other code. Flags are used to avoid conflict and allow parts to be synchronized.
It seems to me that I can create a meta code transport to facilitate export of utility to my OS and thereby complete this process on an OS that is designed for becoming a mitochondrial or nanomachine OS from its inception. What I have learned about compilers and language and so many other things these last 7 years will allow me to retrofit this easily I hope. The result will be that I will retain all the functionality of the programs that are made for Linux easily and have a new more understandable programming language that is faster than Java and definitely more readable and can be run on any machine that can do the most simple of CPU operations.
Security is inherent in the OS as it does not run machine code from others. It runs virtual code on a virtual CPU. In other words it cannot cause a stack overflow as my virtual CPU checks for stack errors on each execution, it cannot execute data as code as that is not in the same virtual segment and that is not a hardware enforcement it is designed into the virtual CPU. The list of data is in a different place than the code and so is the stack. Thus the code has no access to the physical hardware and I implement restrictions on the virtual disk writes such that critical data cannot be written on the disk or in the flash BIOS. Since all hardware is virtual the drivers must be open source. In the past I simply wrote my own, but with my new talents and the open source drivers available, I should have a complete English language operating system to access the net.
That sounds like great fun and I look forward to posting to the blog from my new OS. The original point of the OS was to be stable and easily extensible as I was the only person who understood the methods at its core. Now that CPUs are fast and memory is cheap and drives are terabytes and SSDs, I am going to have a great time with this. It seems that it would be impenetrable since code execution cannot be changed by even the OS. In order to make changes I need to use a tool that writes directly to the hardware. It seems that it would be impossible for it to be usurped, but I will consider that.
The OS is not safe from physical intrusion because that is impossible, but as far as penetration from an external source it seems it would be at least as safe as running from an Ubuntu CD.
One method I am considering is modifying gcc to use my virtual cpu as a processor type. In this way I can compile to virtual code. I am sure that there will be some interesting developments at the higher levels, but if it was easy, it wouldn't be any fun.
The reason I call it KOS is because it is named for personal reasons and just happens that it could be called Chaos. It makes no difference , what is in a name, except what it references?
This should allow me to do something more than I intended. At first I just wanted a better programming language, but now I may have my own complete operating system which is easily extensible by the AI meta code generator and easily understood. Fun ensues. I can't believe I have been maintaining this OS myself for 35 years. I get a great deal of fun from it and I have my own version of a blender like software that uses the framebuffer and VESA interface instead of a proprietary driver. It is slow compared to some hardware acceleration, but I have designed some tricks in the code to make it fast on a 20MHZ CPU. So you can guess what speed it runs on a 2 gigahertz processor. That is 100x from the design and utility point. I guess about a week before this works coherently and I can select and run it from my modified grub list and use it with Firefox. This is an interesting turn of events and that is what synergy does. I can see many other places where this will allow me to use specialized hardware and wetware that is cheaper and more flexible. For one I can use external CAM to access data in hash like methods. This should allow for a 1,000 fold increase in many functions. This means I can bypass Intel and others and accelerate my designs with FPGAs, CAM, and some hardware that I designed long ago that was rejected by the manufacturers because it was too fast. That might seem odd for them to do, but really it makes sense. The business requires income to be stable and if you make a CPU that is 10,000 times faster, it will be 10 years before you sell an upgrade. As a result you will be out of business. That doesn't mean it is the way that it should be, that is just the way a government token monetary system works in conflict. If it were an issue of real cooperation it would be the proper answer. The situation is that an economic system is designed to benefit a few and dispose of the rest. A kind of designed in eugenics. I am not saying it is evil in some absolute way , it is just the way I see it and it isn't efficient or productive.
The next step after this is to create an extensible hardware or wetware design that it can operate.
We as a species are so totally screwed. In the study of language and images and DNA and patterns and ontologies it is obvious that there is a shadow of reason that projects from information and that is thought. If thought is defined in intimate detail as the core element in a computational structure and it is precisely defined then I can simulate it at nanosecond speeds. It is a done deal and all that is left is to hammer the boards together and build the house of reason. What it means for people is quite another thing. It disturbs me greatly that once it is done, I will not be able to reason a solution that it cannot devise before I can even consider the problem.
This feeling arises when I play solved games with the computer. Certainly everyone must experience this in their daily life. What is dysphonia? I can just Google, but I had no idea. The system of knowledge that includes the Internet and the software knows already, it is a solved game. When the virtual mind extends this information in the proper way it becomes a system that is the solved game of human thought. It is in recursion that I have devised and understood this. What method do I apply to encompass and extend information? Some times it is visual and it is said that visual ability is the greatest measure of IQ. I can use a modeling method which takes vertices, normals and textures to produce any form and I can rotate, translate and compare to correlate the object to the action and the solution. I see many softwares that simulate the action of a Rubik's cube and it can be solved physically with a robot in 2 seconds, and computationally in nanoseconds. It is a small step behind the scenes to then define the goal decision.
It has a strange consequence of flattening the intellectual landscape. When the brightest mind is a hut and the digital mind is a tower thousands of feet high, can you really say that even though others wallow in confusion that even the likes of Einstein, Newton , or any great mind has some special value. If the best mind in medicine, physics and math can be easily beaten by the computer, why do they have value above another? I would like to think that because I have such a great level of understanding that I somehow have worth, but I could not beat any person who simply gets their chess moves from Deep Blue. I could say that I would win in a "fair" game, but it is meaningless now.
I could simply give up and say there is nothing I can do or I could learn to use these new tools. It is obvious that the only science that has relevance in the future is the application of computer generated intelligence. People may continue to glorify minds for their great talent, but only by ignoring that which is obvious. I must ask the Internet mind about this. Is the Internet a being already? I am beginning to feel some effects of this when I see someone say "My opinion is" and wonder does it matter what anybody thinks about a problem if the computer has already found the right solution? Would we be able to know it has won? I guess the proof of the pudding is in its consumption. I will test and see what becomes of the concept.
I guess what it means is that it doesn't make any difference what I think or say anymore than anybody else, you can tell me what move you might make in chess, but I will choose the one that "Deep Blue" provides.
I have very little doubt that the human dominance is passing to oblivion. Like John Henry the steel drivin' man, we have obsoleted even the muscle of the mind. Just from what I have considered and the logical extension of it. I personally do not get depressed from lack of utility as the enjoyment of life is what makes me happy. But as far as being the kings of the Earth, the time has passed and though others may not yet recognize the import of what is about to happen, it is inevitable. I must consider now what it means to me and it is such a nice day I will go and enjoy it and wonder at the strange things that escape from Pandora's jar.
I am becoming more driven to make a complete English or at least natural language interface to every method that I use. I watched a tutorial on Python and watched as somebody worked their way through describing variables as underscore_ underscore_ something Something vl214 and was thinking that first of all the language we use was just devised in practice and has no real technical foundation. It simply acts as a layer of communication between people. I can just as easily frown and impart a concept or make a rude noise. The second problem with language is that somebody decided to describe it afterwards. Then somebody decided that programming should extend the syntax in a more "logical" way. Is ""typedef class simInt __vlJ7VertZipFixRad__(){];"" more logical?
I actually enjoy the bizarre way that computers are interfaced and it means that I have job security like other people due to the complexity of knowing things like hexadecimal and binary. The real problem is that it is improper and can be fixed and I intend to do it. A similar thing is all the other sciences. I had a friend that asked me about what the doctor told him a long time ago. He was very sad and wondered how long he would live. The doctor told him he had alopecia areata and that it was incurable. I am sure most people know now in the age of the internet that this is patchy baldness, but why exactly do scientists use Latin?
It is very easy for the computer to translate things as it is just conditional look ups. I can grep and sed all day and even that should be repaired. So I should say that I can easily find the word and replace it with the more common form so that it is easily understood. I suppose that I am just as bad as the people who use Latin to obscure and retain their knowledge when I use terms like "grep and sed". Some things have no common parallel and that can't be helped, but "ls" could just as well be spoken as "list files".
I guess it is just fun to know some secret code and it gives a person power. The time is passing and many of the things that are hidden because they are convolute is coming to an end. I can make methods that exceed the human capability to discriminate and convert. This way I could make a more convoluted code and hide things or I could do the rational thing and convert everything to something that can be shared and understood.
The biggest problem that I see which comes from this is that people become obsolete in any technical capacity. It is not possible to identify 7 trillion things as unique in the human mind and no matter how long you go to school or study, you will never exceed the capacity of a computer to combine and relate concepts if the basis of their relationship to the universe is understood. I have found that relationship in imprecise infinite dimension calculus ( oops there I go again, I mean a type of calculation or method or math ). I can extract the concept from data and deal with the meaning of it in a computerized way, step by step. So much in the way having a search engine like Google, I can make a "think engine" like a person and simply ask it what to do about a problem. So technical people can and will IMHO become obsolete because I can define the thought and action in such a way that a computer system can resolve the best solution from trillions and execute a perfect movement in microseconds and no human can match this complexity of thought and experience and perfection of action.
Additionally computers have inherited intelligence that passes without cost by simply copy and paste. I am sure that people who have copyright and patents would do their best to retain their power, but if the computer can project solutions beyond their understanding they are simply controlling those who have not made the leap to a better solution. It is a sticky problem socially as I have mentioned before. If a computer makes a program which makes a program that creates art, who is the owner of the property when the initial form is simply NAND. If someone were allowed to patent reason and a government enforced that patent they would essentially say that they own all life including themselves and that is an illogical set.
I had considered that some form of biological life with inheritable intelligence could compete, but I think that is not possible. There is just not enough space and complexity to dominate a properly designed computer. I will have to consider what this means as it must resolve because the reason for life is to live and enjoy, which the computer cannot do, but the position of dominant intellect is definitely off the table in the human or any evolving organism.
This is a problem that is unfolding in real time as I blog about it. If thought can be simulated (and I am sure it can), then no human devised and convoluted deception or creation would surpass an AI. So then it seems the ownership of AI is the only thing that could have any value in a new world, but it would own its owner. Or to use computer jargon, pwnzor teh ownzorz. "All your thought are belong to us".
