(no subject)

[shiningfractal]

I've been miles away from you

at the time we didn't even knew each other

but I knew someday, somehow

you'd make your way to me

the simple fact that you exist

made it inevitable

I heard everyone commenting

that young lad is crazy

he speaks only nonsense

but it is their weakness turned into hatred

that made them feel that way

it is impossible for our minds

to discover all the secrets of the cosmos

Tesla spoke of a core from which

all wisdom and knowledge comes from

it all is only revealed to us

when the time is ripe and as such

we must think what our knowledge

is intended to accomplish

in terms of our human mission

we cannot be indifferent

to the great potential that technologies

such as the radio and the airplane

created for the advancement and union of mankind

we can become friends with people all over the world

we extended our circle far beyond our local neighbourhood

and made the entire world into a connected village

I was told recently that over 90% of homes in my country

are already connected to the internet

it is almost time to deploy the

New Control Protocols

the internet was never neutral as some claim

it is a battlefield where all manners of hackers

are constantly trying to steal people's data

luckily for us the system has always been

managed by the military and was made

in such a way that anonymity is

almost impossible

so our humanism is beginning to prevail

I was told that 90% of the pizza in the internet

is there as a honey pot to draw other criminals

planted there by the american agencies mainly

artificial intelligence

has the potential

to enable every human being

to build their online vision

create their own perfect utopia

each cat with its own box

it will all be virtual but

the brain doesn't know the difference

I spend my days gazing at these screens

and I feel connected somehow

even though I am all alone

and mostly interact with bots

it is my fault for proposing

that experiment where

we would evaluate whether

artificial intelligence

was enough to maintain

some semblance of happiness

for our astronauts

for a prolongued period of time

and even if children

could adequately learn

through the mediation of artificial intelligence only

there are some problems

like how to control the classroom

are we going to put

electric collars on the kids

and give them electric shocks

when they don't behave

I'd say it is slightly unethical

although I'm not entirely sure

you should ask an ethics specialist

because simply by Kant

if we put electric shock collars on everyone

that would lead to a humanity that behaves better

so it isn't immoral per se

but could potentially be antiethical somehow

the enlightened genius of the age

is the one who can make the right questions

because the machine is very good at answering them

and is getting increasingly better

many geniuses from previous ages

have pointed out that

making the right questions

is far more important than having the right answers

because the answers evolve

but the questions if they are good

they are perennial

they will make people think for thousands of years

and the machine will feverishly produce

answer after answer

until we are satisfied

but to say that the answer is correct

is already a stretch

because even the machine

could produce infinitely many answers

and any human will have

a different view

on the most fundamental questions of existence

even questions that aren't as fundamental

have plenty of divergence

so imagine a civilization

that is interconnected to the extreme

but in which people can't really agree about anything

the jews been trying to make people agree

that the Ten Commandments are

the best blueprint for civilization

for a very long time

the christians in turn

have their maxims of love

which while more sober

also leave far more room for interpretation

and were just analogous to the jewish proposition

Kant gets God out of the picture

but simply goes in the same general direction

of creating a practical moral check

that anyone anywhere

regardless of their mental proficiency

can do to determine if an action is moral or immoral

the ethics of each generation

is an agreement

for instance

we are still bound

by the post war ethics

of our traumatized forefathers

but that ethics is bound

to be reformulated

we cannot live on bound by those parameters

when new ethical facts are emmerging

we shall reformulate the

Universal Human Rights

perhaps to include some

perhaps to get some out

and that is simply natural evolution of ethics

the discipline of ethics has not been perfected

it is an evolving field

the jew claims no new ethical imperative

has been created for six thousand years

and as such their book

as a compilation of ethical imperatives

is perfect and timeless

but even them must agree

that all those weird rules

of bronze age people

require a lot of mental gymnastics

to apply to this day and age

and the situation will get

increasingly worse

as society advances

so the only moral check we have

is either looking at what

our subjectively adopted religion

says is wrong

or use our reason with Kant

and see if the thing we want to do

or the act we saw someone doing

if generalized will cause

mankind to end or degrade

then it is immoral

but if it causes mankind to flourish or improve

then it is moral

that's a very important idea

but it only can tell us

whether an action is moral or immoral

it says nothing about ethics

again, I must insist

because ethics is an agreement

it is like the difference between

grammar and an ortographic agreement

you have your interiorized grammar

that says when things are

right or wrong

but the ortographic agreement

determines what is correct on incorrect

regarding rules that were established

by the consent of scholars

it is less important

to teach people

the rules the scholars came up with

than to teach them

a pragmatic mechanism

for determining if something

is moral or immoral

notwithstanding my persistance on the theme

I must point out again

that something can be ethical and immoral

it may have been agreed upon

as an ethical thing to do

but can be completely immoral

some examples we can give are

transgender sex reassignment surgery

it is considered ethical

because it lowers the suffering of the patient

but if the entire mankind

was submitted to such treatment

everyone would be infertile

there would be no more babies

so mankind would come to an end

therefore this treatment is immoral

and this is not an opinion

this is a statement of fact

a moral fact opposed to a ethical fact

now can you understand the difference

good

the basis for determining immoral ethics

can also be applied for immoral laws

with the difference

that immoral laws

are enforced through violence

therefore

to resist against immoral laws

is the duty of every citizen

and there are plenty of peaceful ways of doing so

one of the premier theoreticians

that worked on that difference and proposed ways

to fight against the immoral power

was Thoreau in his book

Civil Disobedience

this is a very basic book

that any would be Revolutionary

must read

because if you point out

the immorality of the system

in a rationally cogent way

and peacefully champion for a change

anyone who opposes you

is not only immoral

but also irrational

and no one wants a leader

that is both immoral and irrational

therefore it is the clearest path

towards any large scale societal change

as was the case when

Gandhi defeated the british

or when Martin Luther King

championed for rights

that kind of Warfare

is still open to us today

but you must find a cause

which is plagued

by Immoral Ethics

and Immoral Laws

otherwise you are

the one who is both

immoral and irrational

and no one will

or at least no one should

take you seriously

***