Friday, 19 January 2018

North and South Korea in 10 years' time?

This article first appeared on the Otoom Facebook and LinkedIn  page on 11 January 2018. It’s real home is here.

North and South Korea are holding talks (yet again, but still). May I suggest a possible situation in, say, 10 years' time.

The two Koreas are united, the (previous) North benefiting from the economic strength of the (previous) South, the South benefiting from the nuclear capability of the North. China benefits from a border nation that does not invite ongoing opprobrium from the rest of the world which so often disturbs its own plans. An ever more dissolute US will be largely on the side lines as far as Asia, represented by its major economic and political powers, is concerned. The EU, stronger than ever, is in a position to take advantage of the increasing might of Asia, no longer having to deal with a relatively distant Britain since that nation has now left the Union and has reverted to its traditional alignment with the US.

An educated guess perhaps, but educated nevertheless. Consider the dynamics as they exist.

The Korean War has never been resolved, and through all this time the North saw itself on the defensive but proved to itself the capacity to overcome so many difficulties even if that meant resorting to circumvention tactics. Those difficulties it can do without. The South opened itself to the world and competed successfully, partly supported by the US but essentially because they could. Despite all that, North and South are one people hampered by existing treaties and pacts. Yet blood is thicker than ink; in Asia that matters. China is forging ahead with its One Road policy, and unfettered economies can only be an advantage. All the while the US has demonstrated its lack of understanding during its participation in so many conflicts (it failed in Vietnam, it made matters arguably worse in the Middle East, and for 70 years its role in the Koreas didn't bring that conflict to a solution either). Britain's secession from the EU diminishes its own status, but enhances that of the EU due to the relocation of so many economic entities to the continent. And in any case, Britain was never really on the same page as continental Europe, while its alignment with the US entails for it the consequences of anything the US invites for itself.

All this can be identified. The only question is, do Asian leaders draw such conclusions and if so, what exactly is happening behind the scenes already?

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Want to discuss anything about the mind?

This topic is for anyone who wants to have a discussion with me or others about the Otoom mind model, about artificial minds in general, or anything related to the subject of mind, humans, society.

For some it may be more convenient than using the contact page or LinkedIn or Facebook.

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Have anything to say about SS Mayaroma?

A number of people have asked how they could leave a comment on my forum regarding Mayaroma and all that. It is closed because I don't have the time to check for any spam and keep up with the latest means of protection.

Well, this post exists for just that purpose.

So, have your say!

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Can there ever be a deed as dark as this?

Back in the school days we played a what-if game: what if a Caesar or an Alexander the Great had tanks, or jet fighters? And so we imagined all kinds of situations the Germanic tribes or the Egyptians would have had to deal with.

Of course, it was silly. If metallurgy, or aerodynamics had evolved sufficiently, the other side would have had something similar and so the advantage would not have been of the kind we boys indulged in.

Today we invent a new material almost every month. We know more and more about galaxies far away. We experiment with the atom. Our literature, our art, our very way of thinking expands into areas that were hidden even from our phantasises not so long ago.

All this is possible because of minds who over the generations have processed and manipulated information discovered by those before them. The more there is known the greater the opportunity to explore further still.

For Europe it began in the 17th century when individuals here and there dared to step beyond the confines their church had manufactured. Like an animal reared in captivity which can't believe the space outside its cage is real, most huddled fearfully within the prison that was built around them. Yet Descartes, Spinoza, Newton, and later Maxwell, Euler, Bohr and all the others made use of the freedom which at first seemed so alien.

At first retribution had been swift, for a Galileo as well as for a Giordano Bruno. Galileo, the rational scientist, relented and hid his notes for later while suffering house arrest. Bruno, the fiery monk, did not and was tortured by the Inquisition for eight years before finally burned at the stake.

For a thousand years the darkness was thrown over the European mind, and for a thousand years a curios intelligence was treated to cruelty only those inspired by a god can invent.

Now consider: if four hundred years of science have resulted in our current state of knowledge, where would we be today if the entire process had started around 500CE? If particle colliders had been around in 900CE? If Otto the Great would have been on Facebook? If the plagues had been treated with modern medicine?

Furthermore, if the intelligent minds then had been allowed to continue from the discoveries of ancient Greece and Rome?

Conjecture is fraught with danger if it is done on a small scale. But just as all the variance contained within the space of two thousand years is so abundant, so is the potential of its posited version. Hence this kind of musing is justified.

And so I ask: what abhorrence is it that engulfs an entire continent in such darkness for a thousand years?

Tuesday, 16 July 2013

The strange things white people do

In this 21st century there are a number of things - mannerism, customs, call them what you will - that white people have adopted which must seem quite strange to the rest of the world.

They developed gradually; they didn't drop from the sky. Yet they are firmly established though by no means shared by every citizen. Here they are, in no particular order:

An obsession with finding faults in one's own culture. At the same time similar problems, many of them far worse, are blithely ignored in others, or at the very least couched in strenuous euphemisms to avoid even the slightest hint of sounding critical.

An intense, almost adulatory focus on mediocrity while being fearful of acknowledging intelligence and hard work and the role they play in achieving success. The former is turned into a virtual badge of honour, the latter treated as something almost shameful. While rising above adversity should be valued, the current package, broadcast ad nauseam, has turned dysfunction into a prerequisite for social status.

A genuflecting, adoring attitude towards indigenous people, the only remnant of humanity that did not even reach the pastoral stage. On the other hand there is virtually no entity - whether corporation, university, government - which does not emphasise the need to innovate, to stay a-breast, to remain competitive. Sometimes even a month's worth of disengagement is seen as a disadvantage and here there are people who haven't changed for tens of thousands of years. What irony: the more competitive and hence successful one is the higher the taxes and therefore the more money these individuals pay towards the million-dollar packages shunted towards the few percentage points representing an indigenous population.

The embrace of the ideological side of feminism. Is there any Western TV commercial in which the male is not the idiot while the female is the all-wise, all-knowing one? The adulation of the Child has created youngsters, and by now already adults, who are self-obsessed, pampered, and indulge in habits which have led to epidemics even. For the first time in recorded history the next generation is feared to have a lesser life expectancy than their parents through their self-imposed habits. Teachers are being assaulted in classrooms by their pupils. Responsibility has given way to Rights.

The fear of sex. Drawn from the historical background of Middle Eastern myths spreading into Europe at the time one would have thought the phantasies have been more or less dealt with. Combine this with the feminists' vision of the Child and the celebration of victimhood and touching one piece of skin is fine but move along a few centimetres and the result is supposed to be a life-long trauma, obsessively protected and eagerly paraded in public awaiting the payouts. Hysteria and its protagonists enjoy celebrity status but the voices of calm and reason are howled down in the melee.

As said before, it wasn't always so. Presently however there is no Western government that does not have a problem with its budget because of piled-on demands by special interest groups, and the shift in power and influence from Western demographics towards others, more viable ones, is on the way. The disrespect can manifest through military attacks, the organisational framework surrounding refugees of any kind, the laying-down of rules deciding cross-border initiatives, the violence perpetrated by outsiders within their host nation.

All of the above are factors that influence the very foundation on which a society rests. It is sad to observe such degeneracy when its causes are so, well, downright stupid.

Friday, 21 June 2013

Creativity - and its dark side II

The functional details described in the previous blog, Creativity - and its dark side I, can also be found on the larger scale. As we move from the individual to groups, to demographics, to society and beyond, affinity relationships between clusters and their latent and manifested versions can be identified too.

The larger scale does change the dynamics somewhat, if not in functional terms then certainly as far as their content is concerned. Instead of neurons we have people, the domains become demographics (ie, like-minded individuals), and the affinity relationships concern the ideas and concepts shared by their members. Communication does not occur via synapses but across the channels a society's infrastructure makes possible and which are used by the groups. Therefore what gets transmitted and how becomes once again a matter of affinities since such relationships in effect rely on the inherent nature of the former; that is to say, their functionalities.

How these interactions go through their paces is outlined below.

On the larger scale of wider society the variety of its members and the level at which the particular functionalities manifest become significant. The conscious is now the space of openly communicated ideas and concepts, the subconscious is found in the realm of the unstated, the hidden.

Just as in the single mind, the hidden is outside the direct control of regulatory processes but it still exists, takes part in information processing, and every now and then steps into the open. To what extent it is allowed to spread and so participate further in the explicit, depends on its neighbours and how their affinity potential is capable of interacting with a similar potential on the explicit's side.

The probabilities here follow similar comparative ranges to those on the small scale, and here they are influenced by the size of the population, the quality of infrastructure, and the quality and quantity of information as such.

The regulatory processes in the single mind, consisting of the conscious thought structures (TSs) with their affinities and relationships and honed through many years of exposure to society's mores and fashions, have their equivalent in the open. Here they are derived from our laws, regulations, and what is loosely called the zeitgeist. While they determine what is openly said and done, underneath their watch large-scale cognitive dynamics take place nevertheless. How well they are kept invisible is a matter of, once again, affinity relationships.

In this case however it is not the existent affinities which in the main define their visibility or otherwise, but the non-existent, latent ones. That is to say, the greater the number of such contact points between the visible and invisible clusters, the more hints can be expected for an observer to become aware of something more behind the immediate. Of course, like in any interaction between functional entities in a dynamic system, the outcome depends on their mutual relationship: the observer is as much part of the scenario as is the observed.

Descriptions, arguments, battles even, regarding the visible manifestations of the large-scale cognitive dynamics are conducted with the actor usually oblivious to the much larger realm of the unstated, and if someone should refer to them they leave themselves open to criticism - the aspect of intrusion being more decisive than any truth value.

Similarly, the dynamics resident in the single mind are also active. They inform the individual's response to any event, and in their aggregate form influence the ambience of wider society, or at the very least some part of it.

The overall ambience colours the wider space, which in turn evokes the affinities down to the small scale, which then become the source of further input to the wider space; the circle has closed.

The feedback loop creates the cultural continuum, and the smaller detail provides the elements for change. The lesser the potential for affinity relationships with the hidden, the fewer such agents of change there are. In terms of effect, censorship and/or lower intelligence (ie, more compact cognitive dynamics) lead to stagnation, to rigidity. Given the relationship between input and the creation of clusters, censorship, in other words paucity of information, makes for compact dynamics.

Conversely, their opposites create the framework for adaptability, progress, and so evolution. Both can be readily observed in the real. 

The two images represent a metaphor to the above. On the left is the original photo showing much detail (the ABC building during its construction at Southbank, Brisbane, Australia). On the right is the pixelated version. The mind is able to create a much more comprehensive 'story' from the first image, much less so from the second. As a consequence, the chance of anything else being related to the detailed content is considerably greater, giving rise to further TSs. Coarse TSs are far less fertile.

An example of the interplay between the conscious and the subconscious would be the concept of the 'demon lover', a conceptualisation of the hidden Eros seeking expression and so eloquently described in "Mad, Bad & Dangerous: The Demon Lover".

Where would Art be without our dark side?

Thursday, 13 June 2013

Creativity - and its dark side I

The concept of creativity has always been surrounded by mystique. A thought that appears seemingly out of nowhere in often unrelated situations, and yet so welcome. Many people even ascribed its source to a god.

Still, under the perspective of cognitive dynamics it can be explained. And so, like much else in science, the previous mystery gets replaced by the awe before the sheer versatile complexity of nature.

To aid the understanding what follows, it may help the reader to go through the FAQs page  on the Otoom website for a primer, particularly on functionalities, abstractions, affinities and latency; they appear in that order. Not the full story by far, but it's a start.

State Law building, 50 Ann St, Brisbane, Australia. Its nickname is "Gotham City tower". Is that rendition a creative interpretation?

If there are thought structures (TSs) which define the content of a representative complex within the neurons (which is the result of some input), then, given the existence of ongoing dynamics, the non-existence of a cluster of TSs that could have been evoked is due to other TSs having been more influential.

The first question is, could the same input have been responsible for both - the existent TSs as well as the absent ones?

Since the emergence of a cluster is a function not only of input but also of the affinity relationships active within the functional scope of that neighbourhood, a certain input could indeed eventually create a cluster in one area but not in another.

The entire system is composed of neurons that are highly interconnected. It follows that outside the existent cluster there had been an insufficient effect from the input - in other words, there is latency but no instantiation of a re-representation. While the latency (ie, the non-instantiation) ensures non-representative clusters along the current timeline, it equally ensures the potential for a cumulative effect of affinities which at any given time lead to the formation of some other TS complex.

TSs of course not only occur in the grey matter of our brains but also in its white counterpart. Or, to put this another way, they are not only part of our conscious thought processes but they are also part of our subconscious.

Which leads to the next question: is it possible for latent structures to be a source of conscious thought?

For affinities to come into being they need an abundance of functional elements (the neurons in the wetware, the nodes in the computer program); they need connectivity; and they need the 'right' input, meaning input that represents a pattern, ie is not random. White matter fulfils the first condition (there are more neurons than in the grey matter) and it also possesses a high degree of connectivity. Which leaves us with the input.

The functional space of conscious TSs does not lend itself to random input, or any random data stream for that matter. There is also the distinct probability of potentially affinitive clusters. After all, the information content there has been derived from our subconscious via affinities in the first place.

The answer rests on the degree of variance within the conscious TSs such that an affinity event lies within the probability envelope of the subconscious TSs. Conscious TSs are more configured (since they rely on instantiated representative content) and hence possess less latency. Subconscious TSs on the other hand reside within a larger volume, have more latency, and in their ongoing dynamics are not restricted to preconfigured clusters.

If we take the affinities to be members of a set, and the conscious and subconscious clusters to be two particular sets, with the latter (B) being considerably larger than the former (A), we can express the issue as follows: what is more likely, one or more members of A occurring in B, or one or more members of B occurring in A?

In terms of probabilities the first scenario is more likely, provided we assume a finite and set pool from which all members of both sets are drawn. Although that assumption may seem rather inappropriate based on our analogy, it becomes less so once we consider that (a), the system is a dynamic one in which all information is a candidate for dispersal throughout the system on a continuing basis, and (b), the affinities (latent or otherwise) constitute the re-representative, ie processed, content of such input, that is to say, they have evolved under the same overall conditions and are subject to the same rules of complex, dynamic systems. In other words, we do have that pool from our analogy, except in our case the pool holds functionalities.

While realisations from latent affinities are not a certainty (after all, we are dealing with probabilities all the way through the process), these probabilities do not, cannot, have a zero value due to their very nature. Make the timeline long enough and some affinity relationship between a latent subconscious cluster and its conscious equivalent can develop. On the higher level of mental perception (ie, our human interpretation) there would be a train of thought suddenly being 'interrupted' by a seemingly new idea - except that the label 'new' only comes from our perception.

The latter excludes the subconscious by definition. So the idea is not 'new' at all; rather, it has been waiting in the wings all along, as it were. Hence creativity, the name given to that seemingly mysterious appearance of a novel idea, takes it mystery from the limited scope of our conscious thoughts, keeping all the other cognitive processes hidden from view. Yet they do exist, and under the right circumstances they pop into our awareness.

And the dark side? Because thoughts so suddenly appearing in our consciousness start their formation in the subconscious where our will to invite or suppress does not apply, we have no control over their presence. Our social constraints hold no sway, and still they are the children of nature; our nature.

To paraphrase Angela Carter, unbidden they come.

Creativity - and its dark side II