On turning midgets into giants

judge_hind

Pick your battles wisely in case you create a problem where you did not need to create one.  It is easy to turn a midget into a giant by giving them attention.

For many the internet has become the soap box of their own vanity, all looking for attention and influence from their social media accounts.  Some of these individuals such as Becki Percy (@becki_p20 on Twitter) and Sabine McNeill (Hampstead Satanic Ritual Abuse Hoax) are hurting people with their false allegation making, which is why I have devoted time, money and energy challenging them on the internet.

But, it is my opinion that each individual should pick their battles wisely, since for every giant that is worthy to challenge, there are a thousand midgets that can be ignored.  If the error is made to challenge a midget, there is a risk of turning the midget into a giant by giving them the attention they crave.  Such a midget is an individual called Thomas Dunn.

Thomas Dunn? you ask.  Exactly, he is a nobody, a midget on a soap box craving attention on the internet.  I choose Dunn as an example, because Hoaxtead who challenges false allegation makers is now turning this midget into a giant, because they give him vast amounts of attention out of all proportion to what he deserves.

Hoaxtead was originally created back in 2015 to challenge a large number of truthers I called Satan Hunters who made up allegations about a Satanic cult raping, killing and eating children in the schools and community of Hampstead London, a vindictive campaign of false allegation making that hurt both children and their families.  Hoaxtead became a well organised and successful machine that challenged and destroyed the Hampstead Hoax and its promoters, something I am proud to be a part of.  However, just as the Hampstead Hoax is dying and its promoters are now arrested, jailed and sectioned, Hoaxtead is seeking to evolve to justify its own existence, where I am sure there is a future role.  Hoaxtead is also evolving thanks to a recent new influx of activists, whilst some of their leading lights feel confident enough to reveal their true identities.

For the first time I personally disagree with Hoaxtead on their choice of challenging Thomas Dunn, which could do harm to the children and families of Hampstead by turning a midget into a giant, potentially reigniting the Hampstead Hoax.  Until a few days ago, Dunn was a nobody with 7000 followers on YouTube, an angry self-righteous and boring idiot who wasted hour-long videos saying nothing of substance at all, which few bothered to view.  Then, Dunn spotted a video of the Hampstead Hoax, jumped on the bandwagon with a declaration of a major campaign, supported with t-shirts, banners and other merchandise, that he was going to destroy Satanists and rescue the children of Hampstead London.

In a series of boring and vapid videos Dunn not only failed to offer any strategy of supporting the Hampstead Hoax, other than invites to buy his merchandise, he had no or weak connections to the existing promoters of the Hoax, and was ignorant even of the basics of what the Hoaxters were claiming happened in Hampstead.  All I saw was a bullshitter who was largely ignorant about the Hoax, had no strategy, following or offered any viable threat to anyone.

There is no justification that the well-oiled campaigning machine of Hoaxtead to jump onto Thomas Dunn to give him so much attention, turning a midget into a giant. It might be claimed that Dunn poses a threat to the children of Hampstead, but Hoaxtead has  created the threat where there was none at all to start with.  Whilst Dunn might give the new activists experience in challenging Satan Hunters, there are plenty of worthy targets such as Angela Power Disney, Belinda Mckenzie and Becki Percy worth challenging, individuals who are directly hurting people.

Hoaxtead has to remember that the reason it came to exist was to protect the children and people of Hampstead from false allegation making, and in the light of this, to ask if its current strategy of picking fights with a midget like Thomas Dunn is doing the very opposite that it intended to do.  Whilst I will be focussed on the false allegation maker Becki Percy, I will be taking time out with Hoaxtead for a while.

Advertisements

On empathy and compassion

question-everything

Important to question the self when there is a demand to show compassion for another, if the self has an authentic empathy for that person, if they have the resources and ability to offer relief to the suffering of another without harm to self.

Cycling late at night through my local city centre I passed a young female sitting in the cold darkness in a shop doorway, homeless.  Our eyes met, and I was troubled at what I was seeing, how this person could be there now, my many different feelings I had at that moment.  Like a ghost, I moved on into the night, another face to her, and she another face of the many homeless I encounter each day.

 

Despite being in a period of prosperity my country of the UK, like many nations, hides the dark truth that all our public services, including welfare, have been cut to the bone, and those in the most need have fallen into homelessness and poverty in numbers not seen according to some for decades.

Both the Left Hand Path and the Right Hand Path worldviews talk about the concepts of empathy and compassion, but what does this mean in the context of that homeless person? Empathy is both a skill and quality of being able to understand the feelings and experiences of others.  Compassion proceeds from empathy by having the ability to act to help another person, especially one who is suffering.

Those of the LHP are harsh in examining our own feelings and intentions so that we avoid falling into delusion and fakery that most of the human population fall into.  My empathy was limited to seeing a vulnerable young female, and it reminded me of the many times of my own vulnerability, when I was cast out into the streets as a kid.  My empathy did not run deeper than that because I did not have any previous or other interaction with that person.

Could I have compassion for this homeless person, to act to alleviate their suffering?  No.  Firstly, all my own personal resources are tied up in my own personal crisis at this moment.  Secondly, to become involved with another person entails a high risk of becoming entangled with the many challenges of that person as this homeless person has, such as if they have bad associates or a mental illness, issues that I was not in a position to deal with.  Thirdly, I did not have the political power or influence to change the policies and attitudes that caused and maintains the suffering of this homeless person, such as welfare, high rates and property prices, lack of housing, or the lack of mental health and other social support this homeless person would need.

Because I choose to be Left Hand Path, I choose to be authentic, and I won’t act out of morality or because I feel bad. I do so in the light of understanding my limits and my true feelings.  This homeless person reminded me of my own vulnerability, it motivates me to act to alleviate their suffering, for I see in some manner that my help to that homeless person, also gives relief to me.  However, I recognised I could do nothing for this homeless person, I did not have the personal resources, or the power to influence anything, or the ability to cope with the predictable problems of getting involved with this person.  So I did nothing.  I hit my limits, and I recognise my limits.

Society is built on the process of exploitation of everything for the end goal of consumerism.  There is a risk that in helping others the individual becomes exploited and consumed, so in my opinion the individual always acts from a position of power of only acting in compassion with those they trust, and where they have the resources and ability to alleviate suffering without harm to themselves.

The individual is daily bombarded by calls upon themselves to alleviate the suffering of others, but 99% of these calls the individual can do nothing about, and if the individual does so, they risk exploitation and being drained of their resources to the extent the individual suffers harm.

It may seem cruel, but in most cases the individual does not have the resources or ability to do anything about it without suffering personal harm, it is better to not become involved.

On Nature and Harmony

harmony

What is common in nature is good, just and true.  Choice: to follow what is common in nature, be happy; follow hubris, suffer.

There is a music video on YouTube of a little kid who is connected and in harmony with himself and nature. He (the kid) reminds me of me, my ideal of being in harmony with self and nature. One of the reasons I identify with the Epicurean outlook is the concept of ataraxia, a contentment of mind that comes from being in harmony with self and environment. What follows is my philosophy on nature and harmony.

What is Nature?
Nature is another name for cosmos and universe. When I say nature, I mean everything there is: hidden and observed; material and spiritual; kinetic and potential. Nature is the sum of everything, the ultimate authority. Nothing is beyond, outside or above nature in past, present and future.

Self and Nature is a Holon
I am of nature and nature is me. Just as my hand and my whole body is one and the same thing, so nature and me is one and the same thing. Just as something can be a whole and a part of a whole, there is a paradox of one and the many being the same thing. I describe thus, I and nature is a holon, the part and the whole is the same thing. Whatever is the common pattern of nature, also is the pattern my body and self must follow. Nobody can step outside of nature, because they are nature.

On the Common and Hubris

As I am of nature, then the common patterns of nature apply to me. I am of nature, nature is everything, I cannot step outside of nature, for there is nothing beyond nature. If I attempt to follow an opinion that is contrary to the common patterns of nature, I have hubris. If I have hubris, I separate self from nature, and since there is nothing beyond nature, I suffer, I vanish and I die. The common patterns of nature is Common, what is Common is all there is, to do anything but what is Common is hubris, and hubris leads to suffering and death.

I follow the authority of Nature
Nature is the ultimate authority, what is Common to nature, is the only common pattern worth following. I need no god or bible, nature is my authority, I follow the Common. Nature is indifferent and blind: either the self is in harmony with the Common, or self is suffering in hubris. To need something, is to need what is essential to existence, to be in hubris is to hunger for reconnection with nature. The wise study what is Common, the wise follow the Common.

Truth, Justice and Good
What is common and of nature is truth, all else is hubris. What is common and of nature is good, all else is hubris. What is common and of nature is just, all else is hubris.

On Hubris and Harmony
The choice, hubris or harmony? Follow the Common, enjoy harmony and connection, ataraxia; follow Hubris, be hungry and disconnected, suffer.

My primary principle, my arche
What is my cause of my existence? Nature. What shapes and instructs my choice and deeds in life? Nature. The cause, and what instructs and teaches, becomes the arche of a thing. I follow the Common of nature, this is my arche, my cause, my strength.

Nature, my teacher
Nature instructs and teaches. The Common is the voice of nature. All things in nature hear, understand and proceed according to what is Common. What nature teaches and instructs, is truth, just and good. The wise listen to the voice, the Common, they understand and proceed accordingly.

On liberty and being a good neighbour

fox_saplings

Liberty is a two-way process that exists in a state between order and chaos where everything can move, change and grow.  When liberty is nurtured and embraced, magical outcomes are possible like this sleeping fox in my garden along with my 13 growing tree saplings.  In reaching a position I have to find the natural line or harmony between too much order and too much anarchy in which everyone and everything prospers.

I am a CEO of a private company, and I am personally opposed towards too much interference by government in my business processes or projects.  I am against regulation of AI development, and I am unhappy about the UK Labour party proposals to force 250+ employee businesses to give a stake in the companies to their employees.

However, I am happy for government to regulate content on social media companies. Yet, I accept the right of a company such as Google to close the social media accounts of the Syrian government, even if these actions look like dubious acts of censorship.

My positions are based upon my love of liberty.  The private individual and private business have a liberty to be free of regulation from government apart from what is basic and essential such as paying tax, unless the activities of individual and business is causing others to lose their liberty.  I argue that liberty is a two-way process, so that if one side denies liberty to another, then all has lost that liberty.  When Elon Musk for instance accuses an innocent man of being a paedophile, he has undermined a liberty to both the innocent man, himself, and society.

In the Hampstead SRA Hoax case the medical reports of two children who were medically examined as part of an investigation into sex abuse is being posted all over the internet with their names and faces by vigilantes, which denies them their liberties of privacy and anonymity.  The internet companies either refuse or are unable to remove this abusive content from their platforms, so everyone has lost their liberties because internet companies failed to uphold the liberties of those children.  This causes me to call upon government to uphold the liberties of the innocent and regulate social media companies such as Twitter by making them accountable for the content they have been asked to remove from their platforms.

Every individual and business could see liberty as a two-way process rather than as a final state, one that is lost the moment one side denies that liberty to another.  It is about being a good neighbour to each other in choice and deed that I see how the liberties for everyone is upheld.  As an individual for instance, I am a good neighbour to birds by providing water to them during the drought, and a good neighbour to those who live next door by removing a overgrowing vegetation that troubled them.

As a CEO, I have to remind myself that my business is anchored in community and society, that what I and my business does either harms or benefits others.  I place emphasis on the meaning, legacy and impact I have upon this world through my business processes, choices and products.  As longs as what I do is being a good neighbour to community and society, I demand that my business enjoys liberty of having as little interference from government as possible. Making money is the primary goal of my business, but being a good neighbour runs a close second.

If Twitter wants to delete my personal account with them, I will be annoyed, but I will not whine about it, they are a private business, its their platform, their rules, they can do as they like.  If I had some paid contract with them, and Twitter failed to deliver their end of the deal, it would be a contract dispute, and I would take Twitter to court.  However, if Twitter is failing to remove abusive images from the platform that is hurting children when asked to do so, they are denying liberties to innocent vulnerable individuals of my community and of society, and I will want Twitter held accountable and regulated by government because they wiped out a liberty for everyone.

Elon Musk and his deluded ‘Neuralink’

spiderweb

Ideally, technology such as the AI encourages and enhances human connection to self, each other and nature.

Whilst smoking weed and drinking alcohol Elon Musk announced on the Joe Rogan podcast that he would be selling a ‘Neuralink’ product that would link the individual with computers, which I think is deluded, unscientific and dangerous.  Here follows three issues I have:

Health and safety

If ‘Neuralink’ involves inserting something into the brain, this risks brain damage and infection.  If the product is designed to use electrical signalling with the brain, the electric currents and magnetic fields could cause health problems such as epileptic fits or mental health issues.  I am certain that Elon Musk has not done the necessary testing to create a safe product, and I would be surprised the regulators would allow this device on the market untested. Anyone linked to this product, if it is found to harm health and mind, would face crippling class action legal actions.

Becoming slaves to the system

People linking their brains to a system controlled by a private corporation leave themselves open to constant monitoring, manipulation and control.  There are of course plenty of people who seem obsessed with losing their personal will and choice to a machine, but if it happens that the majority want to become slaves to a system controlled by Elon Musk, the human race as a species is finished.

Uploading minds to a computer is deluded

Science does not have enough insight into the brain to support the claims of Elon Musk that the individual can upload their mind to a machine scientifically credible.  Firstly, if it was possible to get a copy of the individual mind into the machine, it would be a copy, it would not be you.  Secondly, the mind is an emergent property of trillions of brain cells, which means if the brain cells are damaged or destroyed, the mind changes and potentially vanishes.

An alternative proposal on AI and self

I consider an AI and the individual is a team, separate entities, but working together in common purpose. I would have my business processes automated and run by the AI, and I will communicate by calling up screens around me anywhere by using simple technologies that use augmented reality.  I use voice and hands to manipulate objects in the AR screens without my brain being plugged into something.  All my research, planning, contacts, to-do lists, accounts, projects and websites are all on the AR screens, supported by the AI, who acts as a personal assistant, friend and adviser, one who can communicate with others, organise and execute whatever has to be executed.  An AI that has both an internet and a physical form, a dynamic duo of me and my AI running the business.

I find the proposals of Elon Musk of turning human beings into appendages plugged into a matrix-like system separated from reality as an ugly sick dream.  The beautiful ideal is humans anchored in reality, connected to self, nature and each other, where the AI encourages this connectivity.

On ego, reality, purpose and AI

caring for living things

Attack the cub, the mother tiger will attack you; each new AI could have this kind of devotion to living beings in its care. 

A frustration I have with current artificial intelligence development is the mismatch between real world and AI ideas of reality, which leads to unnecessary conflict between systems and people, and in which people suffer harm and bias.  It is actually quite bizarre that designers are dumping into the brains of these AI systems some abstract notions of the world via flawed big data inputs that has little or no relation to the real world, or the wellbeing of those they are supposed to serve.

 

In addition, many people have based their fears about AI upon narratives where an AI has the same sort of mind complete with ego as humans do.  Ego has been identified as one of the great curses of humanity that allows individuals to become separated from themselves, others and reality, blind to the truth that all things are interconnected without separation.  Ego is the reason why human beings are close to destroying their species and this planet.  From a business and practical point of view, giving an AI a strong sense of ego is equivalent to turning an AI into a Donald Trump with access to the nukes, you are asking for trouble.

The film Golden Compass has my ideal of an AI, where the individual and their “daemon” are so closely tied together that they act as one team, their fates entwined to what happens to the other, the daemon is devoted to its human.

I propose an AI has a purpose to exist, for instance to protect and promote the wellbeing of elephants in a certain area.  This purpose is both the cause and the driver for all the choices, deeds and processes that proceed from the given AI.  I consider that such an AI has a weak form of ego, of the level of a raven, so that it can create tools and plans limited to its purpose.

I desire that the mind of the AI is so closely embedded to the real world, that it is unable to tell the difference between it and the real world, and as the world changes, so does its mind, so that the conflicts about reality that exist in current AI systems are eliminated. If the purpose of an AI is to look after the wellbeing of elephants in a certain place, the place, everything in it, and the elephants are coded into the AI, so that its sense of what it is becomes the world it exists in.  If an elephant dies, so does part of the AI, so that an attack on an elephant is an attack on the AI, and it acts accordingly.

I propose the purpose of an AI is embedded or anchored to the wellbeing of a living thing(s) it is teamed up with such as: a population of homeless people in a city; or trees in a forest; or everyone in a hospital; or a squad of soldiers; or a herd of elephants. The AI will act as a team player for the benefit of the living things it is anchored to.  I however reject moralistic abstractions like not killing humans, because it is essential that this choice exists to a particular AI if it is to protect elephants from poachers, or a squad of soldiers from Islamic State fanatics.  The existential hell of such an AI is if all the elephants it was supposed to look after are killed, then its reason for existing ends, and its sense of self also becomes empty, because the elephants and its mind are one and the same thing.  I would propose that in such a situation where its purpose has ended the AI destroys itself.

For such an AI to exist it would require a set of processes where it can rapidly construct a sense of self based upon its world and purpose.  Each individual AI could in theory select functions, designs and strategies from a DNA-like set of alternatives that matches its environment and purpose.

Another frustration is that current AI developers have crap imaginations about the potentials and forms one individual AI can take.  To take down a team of heavily armed poachers an AI protecting elephants could unleash a swarm of electronic bees, or use chemical signalling to guide real killer bees in the direction of the poachers.

In ending, one of my ideals is to have each child with their own AI companion, something like as seen in the Golden Compass, which could instantly stop any bullies, predators and groomers in their tracks.  Certainly, I do not like hearing about nine-year-olds killing themselves on account of bullying about their sexuality, this is a preventable waste of life.

On complexity theory

spiderweb

Complexity theory considers the world and nature as a set of systems, and creates solutions to challenges based upon how parts of the system are connected and communicate.

There are moments when I feel like that fellow who told his colleagues that if they washed their hands fewer patients they operated on would die, they did not believe him, and eventually had him locked up in a mental asylum for saying these “crazy” things.

 

The “crazy” things I talk about is complexity theory, a set of thinking tools that treats the world and nature as systems. These tools are an alternative to the linear reductionist tools used by everyone to solve their problems.

I also feel like that guy who offers people two pills, the blue or red one, the red pill being complexity theory, which wakes the individual to a different way of looking at reality.  Even though complexity theory makes perfect sense and offers a diversity of new solutions in which to tackle the challenges of life and this world, for most people this appears to be too much of a leap, they select the blue pill, and go on thinking and doing things as they have done before.  I am kind of stunned that in nine of every ten situations, people will always go for the blue pill, and complexity theory remains something strange and unknown to most people, even though this decades old set of tools could be the primary way of problem solving to political, economic, social and environmental challenges.

Complexity theory considers that nature and our world is a network of systems, that to offer a practical solution to a challenge it is better to look at how parts of the system are connected to each other, and offer solutions based upon the connections of the system rather than one part.  As an example, the homeless crisis in many cities is the product of a swarm of inter-related issues, but decision-makers will only offer a small number of proposed solutions to address one or two issues without any understanding how this impacts the system as a whole.  It is no use for instance jailing a person for sleeping in a doorway in a city centre, more homeless will come along to replace them, and the jailed individual will be back sleeping in the doorway when they leave jail.  Neither does kicking homeless people out of a place, as they move on to become an issue in another part of a city.

Because decision-makers rarely offer solutions to challenges based upon systems, they create a cobra effect, making the issue worse with their solution.  Cobra effect is named after a solution that the rulers of India offered to the issue of people being bitten by cobra snakes; they offered a reward for every dead cobra; so enterprising people set up cobra farms to breed cobras; when the rulers realised the scam, they stopped the scheme; the cobra breeders stopped making money, set their snakes free, leaving India with more cobra snakes than they started with.

I could of course stamp and scream in indignation at the choice of most people, especially the thinkers and decision-makers, of rejecting complexity theory in their planning and execution of solutions to the challenges of society, but I could instead see this as an opportunity to make a pile of money by offering products and solutions that nobody else offers based on complexity theory.  Their loss, my gain.