Last blog post in a while.

So I was working on this elaborate post, but I'm spending too much time in front of the computer and getting carpal tunnel. I need to get away from it, do some yoga and get out of the house. So before I do that, I want to throw out all the points that was going into my elaborate post in a really ugly and strait forward way, so I have access to them later.

I was writing about the awareness of the philosopher, the guy who has the outside view of society because he is something of an outsider, and how the cost of that outside view is his ability to function in society, he is something of a weirdo. I gave a metaphor about a man who wishes to seduce women, and analyzes female psychology to the point where he sees them as machines to be manipulated, but the cost of this awareness is having that same awareness of himself... and being forced to see his relationships as machine interactions, passionless and void of the what he sought when he learned to seduce women in the first place. This is like the scientist, the philosopher. In gaining understanding of the thing desirable, the value of thing desired is thus diminished.

But really, its all part of a much large thing, a theme I have touched on again and again: The limitations of the mind. The philosopher must sacrifice his rich experiences of daily life for his vast overview of the world, he cannot have his cake and analyze it too. He is no better, no greater a man that a simpleton who eats cookies and lives for them: Its merely that the philosopher has reduced cookies down in his mind to very little, while the simpleton's experience of them is vast, he explores new worlds in every taste.

Now all this ties in to something I have heard a lot of lately: people talking about other's voting their interests. The last time was in the context of a progressive website, a guy wondering aloud why so many poor people vote for things which benefit the rich, seemingly against their own interests. Others wonder why the rich vote against global warming control when GW will damage their profits, and right wing sites wonder why people vote against their interests by seeking government which is large and detrimental to the economy that employs them. What's apparent is that "what's in my best interest" as a voter is not well defined... In fact the striking thing is not that this is true: the world is a complex place, its hard to figure out long term outcomes. The striking thing is that I am not aware of any mechanism AT ALL by which myself, or any other "average Joe" voter figures out what is in their own best interests. We simply assume it based on an gut feeling model, which is not held up to any scrutiny. Its amazing how its like this for almost EVERYBODY. Now some corporations crunch numbers regarding policies, and get lobbyists to push for this or that based on projected short term outcomes so they have something, a stats model very limited in scope, but its more than the vast majority of people have.

Now again, I am not putting much time into this so I have I don't have time to explain the following:

An evolutionary game will go through numerous zero-sum iterations until it stabilizes into a non-zero sum game. Evolutionary games are far more ubiquitous than just lifeforms, the include ideas and economies.

Now, thought experiment: What if some mathematically sound "best interest determiner" could be constructed? The machine would take inputs about its users, and determine, collectively the best outcome for all. We thus assume a priori that its basically an oracle. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good, and know just how good it is.

Now, one of two things must be true about the machine. Either it decides that the best interest of the world isn't for everybody to know about it, and it just interacts with a small group of people to do things, (maybe orchestrating a conspiracy, zero sum game style) or things have reached a state of equilibrium, its grown out of zero sum game mode and decides that the best interest of everyone is for everyone to be able to talk with it, to figure out their own best interest. Its the latter I'm interested in this thought experiment, when it gets to that state, what does it say?

Openness, Glasnost, has been the driving new political force in the last few decades, and has manifested through society in tandem with the advent of the Internet, open source movement, and more things. In its simplest form, it advocates openness and transparency in government: It says the people should be able to know what's going on, and seeks to make information available, as it posits that accurate information will let people make the most informed decisions of self interest. Looking at all the people around us seemingly acting against their own self interest, an experience we all have, this seems like a noble goal... And surely its true, less MIS information would help everybody. But what's unclear about our oracle machine is if it would see things the same way. I have known many mentally disabled people, and have cared for some of them. One truth I have observed is that telling them the truth is often not in their best interest, but rather a simplification, even a deception that causes them to make the right choices is often better off for them. Its a painful truth to say, because I resonate massively with the Glasnost ideas.

Its been haunting me for a long time. I wrote about in this post here. In the Matrix The ORacle lies to Neo in order to invoke a change within him, symbolized by the movement of letters in his name from NEO to ONE. Was it a splendide mendax (I heard this term on CNN, apparently mendax was Julian Assange's hacker name) A lie told because it allowed the listener to approach a truth he could not comprehend without it, that only by not believing he was the One would he become the One.

This takes us back to the philosophers quest: To know truth, to seek truth, to speak truth. He does it not because he wants to, but because he has to. Its what he is. Why? Because Truth is good, truth is light. And what when he sees the limitations of his own mental vessel prevent him from knowing it, and the best he can hope for is an optimal approximation? Well, that's Mitchell Heisman's story.

So what of those left behind? What is there to do? Manifest an aspect of truth. Not the totality, but just an aspect. Maybe that's what we've all been doing all along.

Bye blog, I'm off to do yoga.