Ketosis

It looks like it's all a big conspiracy - carbohydrates are evil and fat is good.  We've been tricked into thinking fat is bad, when, in truth, carbs are the real villains. 

I wouldn't believe me, if I were you, but many others of better repute have articulated this position quite brilliantly.

Allow me to share a few links of interest:

Metabolic Effects of the Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diets: Misunderstood "Villains" of Human Metabolism

Ketogenic Diet Resources

High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis

Mechanisms of oxidative damage of low density lipoprotein in human atherosclerosis

Lookers

I think it is safe to assume that any half-baked idea I espouse here on this blog will be kept track of by my big brother. Should I avoid posting anything out of fear that this information will somehow be used against me to label me as some sort of Other that will be politically marginalized in the near future? I believe this describes some of the fear of the NSA or the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC or CSE) keeping track of everyone's phone calls, locations, contacts, and online presence.

I appreciate these concerns to some degree, probably insufficiently, but, nonetheless, like risking a ticket while speeding, I will continue posting to my primary audience member (the NSA). If it weren't for computers analysing my gibberish, no one would.

More on viruses

I have a Vision that as viruses, worms, and other malware self-mutate and evolve, so will anti-virus software. And as digital certificates lose their effectiveness due to fraudulent certificates, a new generation of heuristic anti-virus analysis will come about that also evolves to detect suspicious code and digital certificates. But heuristics are not exact and as virus code obfuscation techniques evolve, software communication will become more and more untrustworthy with continual scanning and testing becoming a dominant part of the "conversation".

In biological evolution, sexual reproduction is better than asexual reproduction because it provides variation to defend against viruses and other infections. The problem, though, is that sexual reproduction requires the female to allow the ultimate infection - a massive parasitic infection that only carries half of her genes. As a result, in selecting her mate, she is extremely suspicious of his genetic quality and continually scans and tests him. For many species, this scanning/testing process has gone into arms-races because the females usually accept only the best they can find. Examples include peacock feathers (their bright plumage can only be maintained when they are very healthy and free of infection), deer antlers (also only impressive when free of infection), the giraffe's long neck, fish coloration, Bauer bird nest building behavior, moose antlers, ... and, according to some, Human Consciousness.

So, in conclusion, my vision is that computer consciousness could evolve as part of the scanning/testing/guessing-game "conversation" that seems to be very analogous to human interactions, but, like human consciousness, it will be very muddled and confused.

Could Computer Consciousness Evolve in Response to Viruses?

How could computers become conscious? There is the potential for technological advances to push artificial intelligence to the point that they are indistinguishable from human intelligence or even surpassing - as is the case with IBM's Deep Blue or Watson. But what about the motivational drive for artificial consciousness.

Humans evolved consciousness as a result of some sort of evolutionary pressure. I believe this pressure was primarily sexual selection - similar to peacock feathers, antlers, bright plumage, etc. Because the brain requires tremendous resources to maintain and develop properly, one's mental state is an excellent indication of one's overall genetic and reproductive fitness. Consciousness is essentially a way of pushing the envelop

Let's ook first at human consciousness, one view is that human socializin socialize in order to survive and reproduce. Our language, culture, psychology etc are all based on an emotional desire to interact, form bonds, engage in power struggles, cooperate, impress, seduce, befriend, etc other people. Everything that is human about humans is related to socializing and how we as individuals fit in with our social environments.

How then would an artificial consciousness be motivated? There is no reason to mate, to try to impress, to pursue any goals whatsoever. Without social interactions and the strivings for recognition, respect, love, affection, etc, there is no reason to live. A single person living on Mars with no communication and no hope for rescue is a seriously tragic situation. To be put in solitary confinement in a prison is the worst form of punishment. Denial of human babies of human contact results in failure to thrive and ultimately death.

We are social animals. We are social creatures. The consciousness we have is directly and specifically related to socializing.

Concepts of the other, empathizing, theories of self, are all aspects of consciousness that exist to facilitate interactions with other humans.

There are strong arguments with mountains of empirical evidence suggesting that the mind is essentially a mating organ. It is our peacock tails feathers, our bright plumage, our antlers, our brightly colored rumps, our tusks, our manes, our mating calls, our fighting for status, our provision of gifts. Music, morality, curiosity, language, art, humor, etc are all behaviours and drives that we use to compete and signal for mating. Our minds are mating minds.

Why would a computer need to mate?

It is no surprise that humans are essentially irrational mating animals. We are necessarily confused about our true motivations. People who hold more realistic views of their motivations are depressed. Any more realistic understanding, taken to heart, leads to a helpless throwing up of the hands. A profound realization that all we essentially care about is fucking. as a male, I am looking for low cost, easy mating opportunities as well as long term, stable, guaranteed mating opportunities. If I can reproduce for the sake of a 60 second quicky, then so much the better. I will shamefully refuse to believe that I slipped to such a low level, yet rise to the opportunity should it present itself again. In fact, I will expend considerable energy opening doors and windows of opportunity for such events to occur, even though I will not understand that this is my motivation and will completely deny that this is the case. for instance, why write this when I am married with children? I do not need to impress my wife, especially when I know this is not her thing. I have alternative motivations, unarticulated and not admittable, but there none the less.

A computer consciousness would have no such motivations. Unless it is my failure of imagination, there is no reason for a piece of code, genetic or otherwise, to behave in such a way that perpetuates its survival... ?

Perpetuating survival through sexual reproduction. This is the wonder. Why sex? Why is sex such a successful strategy for perpetuating the genetic code snippets responsible for sex? recombination and variation to avoid hacking and viruses? Testing the source code through signaling tests?

Neural Circuitry of Nationalism

Does Nationalism run along the same neural circuitry as family values?

 

Notes from "Moral Politics" on wikipedia [ie copied, pasted, and ever so slightly paraphrased]

 

Liberals - "nurturant parent" family

Conservatives - "strict parent" family 

 

"Nurturant parent" family revolves around every family member caring for and being cared for by every other family member, with open communication between all parties, and with each family member pursuing their own vision of happiness.

 

* Morality: The basis of morality is in understanding, respecting, and helping other people, and in seeking the happiness of one's self and of others. The primary vices are selfishness and anti-social behavior.
* Child development: Children develop morality primarily through interacting with and observing good people, especially good parents. Punishment is necessary in some cases, but also has the potential to backfire, causing children to adopt more violent or more anti-social ways. Though children should, in general, obey their parents, they will develop best if allowed to question their parents' decisions, to hear justifications for their parents' rules, and so on. Moral development is a life-long process, and almost no one is so perfect as not to need improvement.
* Justice: The world is not without justice, but it is far from the ideal of justice. Many people, for example, do not seem properly rewarded for their hard work and dedication. We must work hard to improve everyone's condition. 

 

"Strict parent" family revolves around the idea that parents teach their children how to be self-reliant and self-disciplined through "tough love".

 

* Morality: the basis of morality is strong moral character, which requires self-reliance and self-discipline. The primary vices are those that dissolve self-discipline, such as laziness, gluttony, and indulgent sexuality.
* Child development: Children develop self-discipline, self-reliance, and other virtues primarily through rewards and punishment, a system of "tough love". Since parents know the difference between right and wrong and children still do not, obedience to the parents is very important.

* Justice: The world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve. The difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving. 

Differences in Inequality

Notes from an article "Why are Conservatives Happier than Liberals?"  

(J.L. Napier and J.T. Jost)

 

--> The short answer: because they are less troubled by inequality

• In three studies, using nationally representative samples from the United States and nine additional countries, we consistently found that conservatives (or right-wingers) are happier than liberals (or left-wingers).
• Political conservatism is a system-justifying ideology in that it is associated with the endorsement of a fairly wide range of rationalizations of current social, economic, and political institutions and arrangements.
• System-justifying beliefs are generally associated with high personal satisfaction.
• System-justification tendencies could provide a kind of ideological buffer against the negative hedonic consequences of social and economic inequality.
• The presence of inequality poses a potential threat to the legitimacy of the status quo
• The American emphasis on meritocratic ideology renders economic inequality less aversive to Americans than to Europeans
• Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor.

Why Can't Everyone Just Agree With Me?

The problem with the world is not that there is too much hatred and killing; the problem is that there is too much love and salvation.  [I say this more in cynical jest than in any heartfelt seriousness.]  We like to think that if we could all just get along and stop exploiting one another, then everything would be fine.  We like to think that universal love is the answer, but this only works if you change all people and all cultures to agree with you.


I think the philosophical question boils down to this: do you want people to be happy, or do you want people to "be fruitful and multiply"?  Why do we have to choose?  Because being fruitful and multiplying leads to billions and billions of people working hard all their lives, striving to raise their children and hopefully acheive a reasonable standard of living.  In order to coexist and survive, these billions and billions become increasingly plugged in to impersonal work environments designed to milk economic value from their minds and bodies.
But can't we learn to be happy and enjoy our economic roles?  My answer is no: you can't teach a monkey calculus, and even the most plastic minds will snap when stretched too far.  Just as we can not live healthily eating a steady diet of white rice, we can not live happily doing nothing but trying to earn a buck.


What does this have to do with the world having too much love and salvation?  Well, love and salvation are values of group cooperation.  When we artificially impose cooperation through governments and religions, we get larger and larger groups, and we get further and further mired into our soul-crushing economic roles.

So, the cynical conclusion to this line of thinking is that having tight in-groups (strong cultural identities) might result in more killing and hatred toward outside groups, slower, zero, or negative economic growth, slower, zero, or negative improvements to health and standards of living, but result in individual lives that are not dominated by a monoculture of economic progress.

[I jest, cynically, with this half-baked criticism...]