So, the goal is to combine and unify all the mater of the universe, and make it a consistent simulator, then live inside of it, and try not to forget the next time, that its a simulator only (wells, only get locked inside, when it already ads plus material for more ram, i dont want to have a complicated algorithm, which would change the timestep, its easier coded parellel.

So here is an important step from the first steps to make: Make human society generally better, so no war, and people should be more keen on doing science, and optimisation. For this, a different child rising method have to be implemented, so as to see how much talents are inborn. (i have found many grammar mistakes in the text, maybe no more present)


disclaimer (i look up references later, not many read them anyway).
aims in short:

-make better people/better society modell
-minimise competition against eachother
-minimise fear conditioning
-maximimse cretive/learning will
-maximise objectiveness


-why not competition against eachother: since it creates not just will to overcome, but will to destroy or slow others (which apparently doesnt make us faster).

-why minimise fear conditioning? since fear itself creates a will for fast response and less analysis, potentially leading to problems (and also contradictions, which can be observed frequently; or hypocrisy). Also, if many things and behaviour is fear conditioned, then the overall time of kids (for example) spent in a mindset responding to stimulus connected with fearconditioned behaviour, will make them do less analysis, or synthesis, so overall, a worse quality of "thinking" can be expected.

-maximise creative/learning will: thats easy, everyone want to strive for it at times (except when they respond to fearconditioned behaviour). So that would be the major point, since it can achieve better performance then outside world, there is more chance to convince outsiders (yes, we are running out of time here, since artificial intelligance algorithms are progressing quite neatly).

-maximise objectiveness: that just follows from having less fearconditioning (since more analisys more objectivness can occur). Some might think: well, what if its objectively better for all to have some person destroyed. No it is not, because that would leave chance for fear conditioning again.



This is an experiment: A couple of uncertain things which it will answer
-is there realy an innate predisposition towards violence? (some babies might display such behaviour besides not having shown to them, but having their needs satisfied regurarly)
-how much role in babies has inoperation of brain areas responsible for simbolic operations and conductive thinking, in determinging later capabilities in creativity, ability to improve stuff, solve problems or do research. (An experiment showing reduction in gray matter in the neocortex on the occipital lobe when eyes were covered for longer periods, suggests that one can expect less using of other neocortical areas would lead to less "intelligance" or creativity, since much of neocortex is similar in neural composition (some lacks a layer, maybe the third i dont remember).
-what is the role of language structure in abstract thinking or otherwise? (the babies would have one mother tongue, a language being designed, aiming for some cognitive optimisation as well as unambiguity).
-what if persons have their needs satisfied during development, and no fear occures? Maybe those areas responsible for the fear response, might be less developed, since less activation.
-is there a fear in them innately? (like not shown fearfull stuff to them but they might dream about fearfull situations)
-is there realy (and every time) a "golden cut" or something like that, meaing predisposition towards liking people/animals with certain looks?


Implementation:

Basics:
since we use non altered humans, have to base everyhing on human basics. So, these are the well known physiologycal needs (eat,drink,excrete,breath,temperature regulation, higiene(learned),physical activity), then the need for touch (non touched babies had problems in incubators) and need for optimal brain activation. Some needs of Maslow are based on brain activation need, usually the higher needs. The brain activation need is called this way, because its not necessary for the individual to satisfy it only with very new things. So many individuals actually satisfy it with sports or games which might not offer much fundamental difference in each play, but still satisfies the person brain activation needs [demanding some processing of info from brain, so more areas are activated] (so the person wont look for things to learn, or create, but will satisfy it with some complex enough but not in a sense repetitive activty). But usually it is in some way Diversity which satisfies the need. For the above mentioned goal, its obvious that even small children should satisfy their brain activation needs with either creative activities or learning. So this also have to be achieved as non violonetly as possible. There are so called social needs, but i think these might be emmergent needs, not basic ones. I think, that social needs build possibly on need for touch and sexual needs, as well as on the cognitive ability to connect somehow some situations with the possibility/feeling of meeting those sexual and touch needs (like "if im around people i will get touched, so i should want to be around people"). Also, social needs can be weakly connected to brain activation needs too. I might think, that maybe even needs for touch is an emmergent need - based on movements felt while the mother was walking about and these satisfied brain acitavtion need (in the womb). But i dont think we have to check it in this experiment, since its possible that some coordination skills or otherwise would be less precise as less activation of touch receptors would cause less use of sensing of touch, IF this diversity is withdrawn from the in utero invironment [only realy possible with artificial wombs anyway] -> this would be potentially harmfull, so no need to check if touch is an emmergent need or not.


So no competition, more cooperation:

competition goes mainly for satisfing needs (or the thought, that "im more safely satisfied if im winner in competition"). So all the needs are satisfied for the kids without conditions. Physical are obvoious, touch is satisfied partly by teachers, and more with eachother between small groups of kids. Kids (doesnt matter if relatives or not) would be together, and many kind of "teachers/nurses" would care for them; from their perspectives, they see more kind of "teachers" then kids at first, later it changes. This way chances increase that interactions would be more frequent with those who are more knowledged (previous generation/teachers).. It's possible, that if too many kids are together [at first], they might go about satisfing their brain activation needs by simply altering the person (another kid) whith which they interact, so that way it would be more likely that they interact more with kids (undeveloped uninformed persons) rather then teachers. If that has some strong effect on motivations, then it should be avoided. For this inital period small number of infants/babies would live in a living compartnement (maybe with a few rooms, but at least two). im not quite sure about it, im guessing 5-8 kids should be together, but it could be corrected based on observations of behaviour of children in childcare centers or kindergarten). This is a somewhat long but temporary period (not sure at all but its temporary).

Minimise fear conditioning:

that is by trying to shape their motives with limiting their environment and stimulus they receive, instead of playing out an authority figure who bans interest(s) of wrong kind. Everything which they might want to reach in their environment (at infancy) should be within close enough reach, so that their slow movement doesnt cause too much stress; So check babies reactions, as to what objects they aim to reach within what distance. The limitation can be achieved by closed environement at the first period (windows on the roof), and using artifical simulated environments (where they can explore and stuff).

Maximise creative interests:

Toys should be minimal, all wich satisfactorily helps in sensory motoric development. Also, toys should be present which facilitaty development of observation, and "problem" solving (compared to the fact that most toys today are based on figures and roleplay). Maybe virtual "toys" could offer a wider variety of stimulus (controllers should be simbolic but based on movements, virtual googles would be best, projectors cheapest as an output source, at least buying them operation projectors would probably be less cheap).

The above also described the first developmental period too.


Next developmental period:
As they can speak, and walk comfortably, and seems they have interests towards learning new things or creating things (that can be expected somewhat early) then they can be moved to join the other kids who are already past the previous developmental stage (however the whole group should only move together into the larger community at this early stage). Here in the new environment their education accelerates more. So at this point, they will start to have solid beliefs of the world surrounding them, so this is here where its optimal to show them how much their senses are limited (their believes are incorrect), so that they will know about some more
"places" where they can look for new stuff (for satisfiing brain activation needs) - this probably happens early in development too. Obvious, here can be used some inventions like microscope or other stuff able to sense things different from what humans can sense but similar, so it can be understood by them. For example, one could show them objects, which they could touch and based on touch they would have to guess patterns which might be visible on it (is it more bumpy or less), then show them magnification of the image, and show that they could not tell all the real features of it just by looking at it or touching. More samples however should have correlation between some of their looks and other percepts (sound, touch or whatever connectable with other senses). First they should have connections of such, so they grow a habbit, that they might interlink sensual memories more, and they might subject differing kinds of percepts to analysis with one another, not just analise withing the percept category but in between categories as well. Only after that should be shown that however, its not always correct (in reality, there is correlation, however, its not always possible to tell by looking at it with naked eye [or listening, or whatever]). Actually, here if some of them can tell beforehand that they are unable to guess with complete certainty (the features), then they might be better at abstract thinking tasks, (since they were able to find out about the existance of properties and work/reason with them, reducing to a possiblity that things migh be even smaller beyond their perception. that is abstract thinking). Also, at this developmental stages (at any point in this stage) they might be thought to meditate/concentrate, or train their imagination (but maybe that would be more appropriate on later stages, when their abstract thinking and knowledge about themselves is higher, since at just that earlier stage they might be not interested about such things).

Then one more thing, at this time its possible to teach them physics, chemistry or biology but differnetly, only the qualitative part can be thought to them (since all of them can be explained through motions [of particles, or objects], whith they are already familiar with). Of course as above mentioned the language they learn is an artificial language only. They will learn later a few other languages, by inviting other kids (that is after puberty of the first generation, since only then it is obvious if social bahaviours would turn out as peacefull as expected). Its also possible to teach them programming (also qualitative, with simple quantitativeness). They later on learn the quantitative part based on the creation of specific things. So obviously there is a need for some material stuff on the experimental community. Most people are more interested or motivated if they can see what they can do with the knowledge (some have good imagination though).

In the previous stage and from that on, reducing competition is obvious, since the very first stage would show if innate violence or fear is present or not in many, so therefore just one principle have to be true: They dont get simbolically valued, they just get their needs met and as the first stage already managed to shape their way of satisfing brain actiavtion need with learning or exploration, their motivation should work on its own, if you simply present them with new information they might be ready to take it up, or learn about it.

Next developmental phase comes with emmergence of new needs (actually strengthening of sexual needs). How to aproach it is somewhat questionable to me. Anyway, normally, if no cultural behaviour is thought to them (only their motivations are shaped as described) its highly likely, that until and after they explore their bodies, they would explore other kids bodies as well. That comes even before puberty, only they probably care less about it until then as long as they can satisfy their brain activation needs and otherwise, having no fear about whatever in them (even small kids from time to time use sexual stimulation as a relief from anxiety (but not only as a relief from anxiety)). So because of that, i think they should get education about sex even before puberty (because they would explore eachother very early anyway). The other idea is just teach them higene and let them do what they want later on (only to caution them if it might be dangerous or unpleasent in some way). One other thing which would realy suggest having them thought about sexuality earlier then puberty, is if some of the kids become more "popular" because of some random thing, or the presence of some innate predisposition towards liking some specific shape in people more then others (or sound or whatever in behaviour). If there is such a thing, then after puberty there might still be some predisposition towards whom more persons will get attracted. That might be clearly visible earlier then puberty, so if thats the case, i think its wiser to educate the center of attention person differently, and teach them about sexuality earlier and human behaviour (AS SOON AS they acquired the personality that they want to understand stuff generally). Another option would be a slight "violence" that is separating the center of attention persons/kids to be around mainly such persons as themselves, BUT only if it showes up very early in development (when the smaller groups of kids are still separately rised); but this is unlikely, though possible. However, Since at that stage they cant speak much or understand much, and that separation might cause some distress in those remaining or the separated (but maybe just momentarily). So i think the former option is better then later. Overall, they either should have prepuberty sex ed,training or shape motives of popular persons differently.

There is one more thing which can arise, and it is innate violence. That means, that even though kids live in abundance, some would use violence to get something from the other (but that to be decided, have to watch very closely to see that there were no conflicts or some sort of disease). For those violent kids, separation have to occur, so they can only be with such persons, against whom they cant use violence, and eventually they will realise that they dont realy have to use violence. (of course they have to be examined by non invasive means available, because there might be just a diesease present if nothing related to born brain abnormalities is present).

Back to the last unfinished point: if there are more attractive persons, then somehow have to solve it so that everyones need gets met sufficiently and for that i think that earlier then puberty education might be better before needs are more urgent. However, because of the way their personality would be shaped, they might solve it by themselves (one can decide it whether have seen much helping movements towards others or not by kids/infants, more helping to others, more likely they solve such problems themselves). But anyway at some point when they are able to talk have to explain to them some basics of human psychology if they are open to it.

About agressive kids: when some of the non agressive kids are already turning towards interests in understanding behaviour of humans and animals, such kids are able to more safely be close to agressive ones (others who dont understand such behaviours or dont have motivation to understand human/animal behaviour would have just fear, and thats contrary to non-fear conditioning).

After quite some of the kids have some knowledge about development of humans, then maybe some new young kids (preferably newborns) can be brought/born into the community, so it can be checked, if the already developed kids can also bend the behaviour or developing kids satisfactorily/nonviolently. When/if that is so, outsider kids can be brought into the community. Of course the inborn kids should have remaining potential for their own development.

Before going into other details ( because its just one part, since it should be an experimental community, with more or less independence, there are quite some material parts which have to be considered in a little more detail, i detail them later), i summarise some conclusions and necessary actions based on the outcome of the experiment. Requirements for the community include detailsabout kind of other researches, and the fact that what kind of sciences would be presented more to the kids.

So There is a point, when the second generation have been rised in the manner as the first one, partially by the first one. Lets consider some outcomes at this point:
ifs:
-much higher creativity and objective problem solving ability is estabilished, then its a win situation, others should take note and see the results and ways it has been achieved or (because they are creative) they finish some university in outside world and split and create some more new communities.
-if no much high creatvity, althought the persons were predisposed towards wanting to learn more or create more, then its conclusive: genetics or womb environment had a strong impact on mental abilities, and the would be reduction of the neurons in less used brainparts would have less effect. In this case, cloning might be already available, so then clone those who were more able, if that is not available or not even in sight (which i doubt) then use some more thought out eugenics.
-many cases of innate agression have been detected: consider eugenics/cloning. also share result, since it might be the same on the general population (or very similar at least)
-almost no cases of innate agression: tell people that agression is not natural in humans, only in bad environments (it seems).
-innate attraction towards some kind of "forms" have been discovered: depending on how easy was it to solve/prevent conflicts it should be noted, or if hard, also cloning/eugenics
-no innate attraction realy: then "beauty" is much just cultural construction.
-if that was possible to reduce their fear towards (otherwise) apparently dangerous things in "adulthood" without using fearfull stuff as desensitisation. Then, fear controll areas is also likely subject to much rewiring (or the positive part at least).

Here should be some metodological details.. (quite some to come) [some details already worked out, while others would just be accumulating estabilished professional knowledge, dont have time to detail here now]



So give me your inputs on it.

This is why Lite Discussion shouldn't be a forum.

EDIT:
Please, please, please recheck all your writing. It's impossible for me to get through it to understand what you're trying to say.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 14 2012, 4:14 pm by BiOAtK.

i cant make the connection

It's tough to get through all of it when it seems like all the ideas are jumbled around. Not to mention I still have no idea what this is about. The whole thing seems like a giant inconsistent rant where you jump from idea to idea without really saying anything.

well, as long as you can understand sentences, you can find many sentences there describing, what needs to be done. So it sais something, you are just screwing around.

Okay, I'll put it this way. "what needs to be done" about what? You start by saying "the goal is to combine and unify all the mater of the universe" and go on about a simulator and somehow living inside of it (side note: inside of what, exactly?). Then you go into paragraphs about changing society and explaining social science, but really I still don't at all understand what the point of any of this is. What are you trying to do by rattling all this off to us? What is the discussion supposed to be about? To the rest of us, you're just another member of the site, not some accredited super genius.

I can sort of understand sentences, but you're not known for using particularly good spelling, grammar, and sentence structure, so unfortunately I find myself having to reread some multiple times and still come up with the same conclusion.

And please don't try to claim that I'm just screwing around when it seems like everyone else who has responded in this thread or about this thread in the Shoutbox is thinking the same thing.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 14 2012, 5:57 pm by DevliN.

They only mean to say that your writing is very disorganized. Your sentences also tend to have irregular phrasing: "How to aproach it is somewhat questionable to me." This makes it difficult to read and understand. And there are a few spelling mistakes (e.g., modell → model, aproach → approach). Most browsers carry a spell-checking tool, I would advocate using one.


By "combine and unify" what do you mean? Is this a metaphorical unity?

You then continue and say that you wish to make all matter (assuming literal) a simulator. This doesn't make any sense. Did you mean that we simulate the entire Universe inside of a simulation?

What do you mean by next time? Are we already in a simulation and have forgotten? I do not know what you're trying to say.

You do communicate that an automated process adds more RAM to the simulator. But what is this about a complicated algorithm? It seems out of place, but I'll accept that you do not want anything complicated.

The last two phrases confuse me entirely. What do you mean by timestep? It's not a word I'm familiar with. And what do you mean coded in parallel?

---

You seem like a very curious and intelligent person, but seem to struggle with communication. It's nothing to be ashamed of, there was a time when my writing resembled yours in content and structure; I understand it's just the way you think (which may be exasperated if English isn't your primary language). However, we don't know what you're thinking or even think in the same way, so it's pretty hard for us to try to figure out what you're trying to say.

I highly suggest you find someone who can help give you English and writing lessons.

So, basicly i mean, the main goal would be to assemble all material into a device capable of simulating other universe for us. This would increase our possibilities quite much, however, in this case the number of permutation this simulated world can get through, would be limited, unless, we put more memory to the simulation device, so we would have to make the simulation device create more matter for itself so that more memory would be added. Even if the current way the universe works is limited, this one would be less limited. This is a long term goal, also it assumes the universe might let us create new matter.

The main parot of this post would be the described rising method. I see that on higher level my description of it is disorganised. Maybe i werent communicating much with native english people, because years ago everyone could understand me just fine on starcraft forums. Well, if my english is realy bad i gona improve on it.

Anyway, by "next time" i was just joking that maybe we are already in such, but we have forgotten it..

By timestep, i mean, that is how much operations would the simulator do to simulate a step in time for those who "live inside", those outside if there would be any would be the gods (some should remain outside (be gods ower the inside) otherwise itts not ensured that we have all the universe used for this).

Next time comment on the children rising method described, because that would be the most important for me, or humans, if it would be utilised succesfully. The thing is, eventually we will have for quite some time, a decentralised system, and we have to avoid being destroyed by intergalactical accident (e.g. a supernova close to a Hot Jupiter could light up fusion on the side of the hot jupiter, leading to more directed reactions, like a shaped explosive-charge). So, we cant see it beforehand, since this ray travels at speed of light. We can only avoid, if spreading out intelligent life, we might have "free energy" close at hand, maybe closer then artificial intelligence, so we can send out starships right away for long travels, with humans living from free energy. However, this means, that multiple starships would be launched to different directions, so human motivation and behaviour should be consistend and cooperative, for this we migh be better off implementing a better way of rising humans for higher intellectual capabilities. I have seen a chance for this, so i described this child rising method. We would need people able to roganise (any small independent group) in a non violent fassion so if groups split (for quite some time) they would handle themselves, then later they would join, so they would not attack eachtoher. Se "we" have to rise children so that they are more motivated for intellectual work and unifiing people/searching for truth, and living peacefully.

EDIT: why sou think its unreasonable to create a simulation device?

Genius!

Why is it necessary to get all the matter we can? Why not just get the biggest computer we can?

We should "get" all the matter, (at least in check) so to avoid accidents happening to the computer.

EDIT: but this is possibly kinda far away from now in time. Focuse more on the closer aspects of the plan as well (as long as you care)

Does this remind anyone else of Brave New World?

I don't know how moral matefkr's social experiment is, but it is certainly interesting.

its not based on brave new world, although i have read it. but speaking of this, it might be good idea to (at least every second day or something) to have the kids brain waves analised, (with a hat) so as to identify when they are in rem sleep, so then play a sound maybe talking, or step by step proof of something, or some interesting info. It might be distractive if it would be done not only in rem phase, but still might not be usefull to do everydday only every second day and only during rem period.