Scholar

If we truly understand how selection for function and randomness relates to each other, our technological abilities will go beyond anything you can currently imagine. We could literally pull out of infinity any object we want. The beautiful thing is, all you need to have is the function. You won't even know what the object will be that will fit that function. you will not know or be able to predict how it will look, and most likely you will not even be able to understand how it works once it is manifested. But it will be there, because it is contained in infinity. It will self emerge if you are intelligent enough to create the conditions in which that object is selected for. We will have access to Creativity itself, to the process of Creation. We currently already do have that access, our minds exploit the same dynamics, but that will be a completely different level of Creativity. There will be scientists calculating how long it will take to manifest certain objects into existence given their complexity. Some objects will probably take decades, hundreds of years to manifest. There will be a rat race of who can first manifest these objects.

It's not an endpoint, it is a function. And you are missing the point. It's not that how we get there is random, it's that randomness/freedom is how everything with complexity in this universe is manifested from infinity into particularity. Or in otherwords, randomness/unbiasdness/freedom is the way physical reality interfaces with infinity and pulls out of infinite nothingness the objects that then will fit any given function. You can realize this is true, and that this is so obvious, it is almost laughable how you could have been so blind to this before the moment of realization. The human body in all it's complexity was literally pulled out of infinity through a dynamic of freedom and selection. This is how imagination works, this is how creation works, this is what Creativity is. The universe itself, like your brain, is connected to infinity through metaphysical freedom, which is what randomness is.

We are just talking about different types of randomness here. I hope you read my last few posts because they should make this clear, and I wonder if you disagree with that. What needs to be understood is that, given enough freedom, it will take infinite amount of time to let a certain structure emerge if the process remains completely free and unbiased. This is why selection by function is a thing, because this way it does not take infinite time, which in a physical universe is of course the only way complex life structures could emerge. Within infinity, which you interface through randomness/unbiasedness/freedom (we really need a better word for this), exist all possible objects, all possible biological creatures and so forth. At least when we talk about the infinity of this particular kind of physicality (spacetime with these particular laws of nature etc). If you were to pick atoms at random, so that you would randomly simply manifest them into space, given infinite amount of time, you could manifest ALL possible physical manifestations simply through complete random manifestation of atoms. Now, obviously this would take infinite time, so to your mind it seems useless. But you are missing the metaphysical point here. You can manifest literally all possible objects that could exist within this physical reality simply by randomly picking atoms. What this means is that, through randomness, through unbiasedness and freedom, you have access to infinity and all that exists within it. Now, you require time to pull out of infinity any given object, depending on it's complexity, but you can actually manifest it. Now, to reduce the time it takes to manifest any given object, we have to actually start becoming biased. The more we select for function, the more constrained the possibilities we pull from become, and the less time it takes to manifest objects. But, if we become too biased, certain complexities become impossible, because the selection process becomes too "close minded". This is actually what it means to be close minded, and it also applies to evolution and machine learning. This is the nature of creativity. So, the way the physical universe is constructed is such that there is a balance between selection and freedom. This balance is such that it takes billions of years for sapience to emerge from nothingness, to be pulled out of infinity through the evolutionary selection process. What you are talking about is simply structures that have emerged through that freedom. You have to make a difference here between the metaphysical nature of evolution and the biological nature of evolution. Certain biological dynamics that restrict randomness evolved because of the overarching metaphysical function that is being pursued. The biologists are completely clueless about any of this, until maybe some mathematician will come around and create the proof for what I am describing.

All randomness is, is complete lack of bias. And lack of bias is simply infinity. So, randomness, in evolution and machine learning, is just a lack of bias and therefore access to infinity, which will contain any structure imaginable. (imaginable simply means it exist within infinite nothingness) Now, we have to be careful because we can talk about certain types of unbiasedness. In terms of the physical universe, we would be talking about an unbiasdness related to motion in 3D space. For example, if you can randomply pick a number from 1-100, and you then create a system around this random picking that will preserve a certain function, you could, given enough time, pull out of this infinity (the infinite possibilities of relationships between 1-100) any of those possibilities or complex relationships that would serve the function you have determined. It will literally manifest out of nothing, meaning, out of infinity, through complete lack of bias, complete freedom, completey randomness. Really, evolution simply is this process. It is literally the coming into existence of infinite shapes through the design of the universe, which will biased towards a specific function which is God-Realization. But even if the whole system is biased, there is total unbiasedness within it. What machine learning creators are doing, which they are not yet realizing, is manifesting complex structures fitting a certain function from literally infinity using randomness/freedom. They pull these relationships, these complex structures, out of infinity. That's what is happening.

This is how evolution works: You have a system which will inevitably favour certain functions due to it's metaphysical limitation. Within that system, you have metaphysical holes that lead into true infinite, complete randomness and freedom. Through these holes in the system (which are not necessarily physical, though they could be), you then get complex structures emerging due to access to infinite possibilities and a bias towards certian functions. Over time, you will get infinite complex structures serving a certain function. So, the function comes first, and then using freedom/randomness/openness to infinity you will have the self-emergence of physical objects that fit that function. Because you are accessing infinity, you will have access to any object that could possibly exist, as infinity will contain that object. So, you basically pull out of infinity the specific structure that will serve the specific function which the system is biased towards. And you can only do this if there is actual randomness, actual freedom. The more free it is, the more infinite it is, the more access you to infinite forms, complexity and relationships. This is why ego makes you less creative, because it limits access to infinity in this sense, and it also limits the functions that will be allowed to self-emerge. This is what the brain does when it is being creative. This is what evolution does when it is being creative. This is what machine learning does to construct the incomprehensibly complex and interconnected structures that will be able to carry out any given function as if it was magic. I am almost certain you could create a mathematical proof for all of this. Because that's how genius the creator was. It is all so interconnect that you can understand and actually come into contact with it's undeniable reality through even something like math.

The point of randomness, or freedom, is that, given a certain system, you feed randomness into it so that ALL possibilities are explored. Because, that's what randomness does, eventually it will explore all possible pathways, because it is so free. Now, the metaphysical structure is upheld in such a way that it will naturally give rise and move towards self-realization, but in the context of free will, which is what randomness is. It's the openness to infinite possibilities. When you are open to infinite possibilities, and the structure will reward itself whenever a certain possibility is explored, you will see that, from this openness to infinity, you will actually self-construct the object from nothingness. All possible objects, self-constructed from nothingness based on a "goal". This is what machine learning exploits, on a metaphysical level, and it is the same tihng evolution exploits. You can find ALL possible solution if you are open to infinity, which is what randomness is. Randomness is complete unbiasedness. This is why life can construct itself into any function imaginable just by being open to infinite, to randomness. Through randomness, or freedom, or openness to infinity, you can manifest any object given a desired function without even knowing about any of the objects prior to it's manifestation. That is the genius of this system, and this is what actual creativity is. And I am not exaggerating that someone will get a nobel prize and be considered the equivalent of Darwin's theory of evolution by formalizing in a scientific way what I described above, this will be the most significant scientific discovery, possibly ever.

Leo is too close minded to recognize that randomness is actually part of the freedom of existence. Nothing about existence is random, but randomness wasn't randomly implemented. That's kind of what he is confusing in my view, because of his dualistic way of looking at all of this. The whole beauty of the system is that the metaphysical structures as laid out in such away that evolution will lead to self-realization while being steered by true randomness, true freedom. This leads to all the variety in life you can see, and an inevitable self-exploration of all possibilities. That's the function of true freedom, or true randomness, intentionless, unguided, causeless.

It is innate. True randomness is true and complete freedom. It is not merely our inability to predict it, prediction would mean restriction, and restriction would mean lack of freedom. But it could also just be similar to computer generated noise, which is not truly free in that sense. I predict with computer generated noise you would still have the self-emergence of these types of complex life-structures, and I think this will be proven sooner or later. The only problem with computation is that it is more restricted, it is a simulated physicality that is not exposed to the same metaphysical dynamics as direct physical reality is. While some metaphysical mathematical principles are preserved throughout, some of the relationships will be different in computer simulations than in physical reality. It's hard to predict what exactly will be possible with machine learning.

I never said the entire system is random, but the evolutionary mechanisms that lead to the evolutionary results use randomized noise. And of course humans have to tinker around with it all the time because they lack the intelligence to construct a system which will, simply through random noise, lead to the self-construction of infinitely complex life from inanimate matter. The entire system is obviously not random, or free. There are elements that are free, which given the mathematical structures lead to self-emergent evolutionary processes. The same is true in natural evolution. Obviously physical laws have constants and mathematics as a whole is abstract, therefore completely stable. No you are missing the point. Leo doesn't believe natural mutations are random. I am saying they actually can be random and evolution would still occur. I predict the universe is so intelligently designed, that it does not require constant intelligent intervention to lead to evolution. Leo believes mutation is steered by consciousness in the sense that it is not random noise, rather it is steered by some sort of divine will with a goal in mind. I believe it is steered by actual random noise that has no restricted will. These are two fundamentally different positions. In other words, Leo would say something like, the randomness is actually not arbitrary and random, and it is appearing in such a way that life occurs. The intelligence therefore is a fluid thing grounded in the "randomness". I say the randomness is arbitrary and actually random, and the intelligence is not fluid and grounded in the abstract nature of mathematical principles. Obviously this is simplified, but that's how you could view the difference between our positions.

The randomness is random, or in other words totally free. The intelligence is found in the structure the noise is fed into, and that will boil down to mathematical relationships. Intelligences isn't steering it in the way you would assume it does. You could take dumb, computer simulated randomness and you would still get the results, as the intelligence is preserved in the very nature of mathematical relationships themselves. I predict you will see this in machine learning, although machine learning is limited due to the physical nature of the substrate it exists on.

No u

It's not, because Leo would reject random mutation in evolution leading to all this. I believe it is likely that it does. He had made a point about this in the past talking about his views of evolution in this regard. In general though I disagree that it would be insane to assume that random mutation does lead to this. In my view that just stems from a lack of imagination in regards to how deeply embedded divine intelligence is within the very metaphysical and physical structure of this universe.

So turns out, this might have been caused by B12 injections. It seems like they cause delayed migraines in me, 1-2 days after injection. I am not entirely sure this is the case yet, but I will be able to confirm on my next injection. The funny thing is, I took the first injection 2 days before my trip, and on the day of my trip I felt slightly sickly, and during the trip/after I was plagued by a migraine as well. I was attributing this to the trip, and days after I took the next injection, and 2 days after had the ocular migraine described here, I also attributed this to the LSD because of how similar it felt. This goes to show how tricky it is sometimes to figure these things out, and how easy it is to come to false conclusions.

Contemplate the negatives of being in that situation.

You really need to learn to properly read what other people write. My whole point is that he is grounded, reasonable and practical, because he grew up in the stone age. He has that groundedness because he developed through stage blue, orange and so forth in a healthy manner. We don't have this type of development any longer, at least in a large percentage of the population. There is a stage you are skipping, but sure. We know however that healthy evolution can only occur by proper development through each stage and an integration of those stages. This is why this old guy seems far more reasonable and grounded, because he went through each of the developmental stages.

The guy is from the stone age, such people will go extinct sooner or later. The difference is, the church is dying, while this is an indication of the future.

In a moral sense, the responsibility falls on the man, and of course he has to live with the consequences. Predators however are exceptionally rare. Most of these incidents happen because of simple immaturity. Even Russel Brand probably didn't think of himself as a rapist or predator, he probably did little of what he did consciously. He just had terrible impulse control, and his interaction with women just lead to an objectification of women. None of that should spare him from the legal and social consequences that will ensue, but we have to make this clear to understand how to solve the problem. This is similar to how, most children who are molested by adults are not molested by pedophiles. It's counterintuitive, but true, and yet we focus on moralizing the issue around pedophelia rather than the major cause of child molestation. In most instances where sexual assaults occur, it is not a man physically forcing themselves onto a woman. That is exceptionally rare. In most cases, the man is pushing the woman until she relents into sex, and the woman is often too uncomfortable to make a clear signal that she is not consenting. Other situations involved drugs like alcohol and so forth. Part of the problem is that in our culture, women play the role of sexual defense and males play the role of sexual aggression. It is expected that the woman will not be open to sex instantly, even if she is interested. She needs to be basically manipulated by the man into sex. This is basically how casual sex culture functions for the most part, it's a type of game. And this type of game, of course will lead to it's own dynamics that then lead to people getting hurt even though there is no actual malice involved. We have to understand that sexual interactions make people irrational. Sexual drives are strong and inhibit rational thinking, and especially in sex addiction this can completely undermine a persons executive control. So, with high status men, who get to have sex with an insane amount of women, naturally what will happen to their chimp minds, in todays sexual culture, is that they wills start objectifying women. In other words, women become primarily a means to an end, and it is forgotted to take into account the woman as an end in and of itself. Men then start manipulating women into sex solely to get the sex, as that is the goal of casual sex culture, pure hedonism. This is just going to happen in a population of immature minds, which is what our population is. The problem is that you assume, naively, that we will just have this casual sex culture where everyone treats one another respectfully, has some sexual activity and moves on no strings attached. This requires actually high maturity to do in a healthy manner. Many women who go for these interactions actually want a relationship with the high status male, while the male is just interested in sex. And to continue their casual sex-capades, they will of course start shutting down their empathy for the women they have sex with, it will be simply overridden by their sexual obsession. The more power you have in that regard, the more risk there is for depravity. You have to look at the human mind like the mind of a chimp, and put aside the moralization for a minute. In this scenario, given human nature, you are just creating these types of minds and therefore these types of situations, as a natural consequence of the system.

I am not insulting you, I have abnormal cognition myself. I am telling you all this because I made such mistakes myself. You probably have it worse than I had it because you are a programmer and that will just give you coderitis, but none of this means you have to be stuck in that mindset and cognitive mode forever. You just have a bias towards it, for whatever reasons. Your problem is that you are thinking too logically, too much, and in inappropriate situations. You are probably not very familiar with other modes of cognition because you reside in this type of cognition most of your waking time. One of the issues is that you are too attached to your intelligence and intellectual abilities, because you probably get most of your self-worth from your intelligence. So, anything undermining your intelligence will be taken as an attack on your identity. Thinking has become a way of life to you, when it was always supposed to be just a tool.

I think the cause of much of this simply is hedonistic casual dating culture. People get exploited by sociopaths or functional equivalents usually because they are naive and immature. So, in a system in which you increase casual intimate interactions between people, such incidents will just increase. So, of course women will prefer to go for high status men, and if you listen to the types of situations that led up to many of the cases we are talking about here, it is almost mindblowingly immature and naive how the women have acted. Which makes sense, because these women were young, naive and inexperienced. They just wanted some Russell Brand for themselves, and they were too hedonistic and unwise to predict the type of behaviour such a man could be biased towards. There was nobody to truly protect them from this, and nobody really taught them to be in control of their own hedonistic desires. In fact, they might not even be aware of such hedonistic desires. Men are not much different, they will be completely blinded by attractive women, if they are immature. But of course, men inherently don't take the same risks during such interactions, so men don't really care that much. This is why we don't care as much when male students have sex with their teachers vs vice versa. Like men have an irrational drive towards attractive women, women have an irrational drive towards high status men. And like men get into all sorts of trouble because of their irrational drive towards attractive women, so do women get into trouble because of their irrational drive towards high status men. Now, you can moralize around this as much as you want, but we are talking about the nature of human beings here. It will be difficult to culturally move away from dynamics like the objectification of women by high status men if casual dating culture persists and these chimps keep having sex with tons of women without consequences. You can correct some of this through education of men, but really, what this requires is more maturity in the population in general. There will always be sociopaths around, and power always will corrupt, no matter how much you educate people. So, the solution has to be on both sides, women need to act less recklessly, meaning they need to be more mature about how they interact in casual dating culture, and men also need to be more mature in controlling their hedonistic desires. Really, both sides are immature with their hedonistic, chimp like desires, and that's the root of the issue. This is the core reason why religions controlled sexual interactions so much, and why they moralized them. Because people act like chimps, and the sex drive is one of the most powerful irrational drive in the human organism.

This is a type of problem that might not be able to be solved through the justice system, and it might be unlikely that it will be solved through social media witch hunts. One of the major problems is that in casual dating culture, females are inherently disadvantaged as the powerdynamic, especially when it comes to actual physical interactions, is biased towards men. So, every casual dating interaction is inherently risky for the woman. Women in general are also disadvanted on a psychological level because they are less assertive and aggressive. In practice, such a dynamic, combined with an inherent immaturity within the population, will constantly lead to such situations. Women are drawn to high status men, high status men are able to abuse their power due to being high status. So, in casual sex culture, high status men will have endless opportunities of sexual interactions with women, which over time leads to these types of depravities in some individuals, whether due to sex addiction or other types of dynamics. The whole situation is driven by a sort of immature hedonism, and because sexual interactions actually are a serious thing for most people, these types of situations will continue to occur. You have to also keep in mind that casual sex for high status men tends to lead to an objectification of women, and an objectification of women will lead to an insensitivity to their needs and desires. Another aspect of this is a falling away of safety mechanisms. In the past, your parents would have to evaluate a potential partner before you had the chance to really get into risky situations. Of course in practice this was not always the case and there were other drawbacks to that system, but there was some sense of protecting young individuals from their own naivity and inexperience. Today, dating is much more private, and especially young, naive inexperienced women can be easily exposed to risky situations that they do not quite understand are risky, both to their mental and physical well-being.

Well he said a breakthrough so deep there is no returning to your previous mind structure.

Never is just a temporary arrangement.

As you should be.

This translates to: Being stuck in L-Mode causes me suffering.