Thursday, October 19, 2023

NiNOR Complexity

I'm not going to go into a lot of explanation about why the following is important because, well, it isn't really that important except that there are a lot of pedantic twits running around obstructing a major advance in the philosophy of science by, like Theodoric of York, saying "NAHHH..." to the Algorithmic Information Criterion for causal model selection as the most principled information criterion we have in the natural sciences.  Their "NAHHH..." takes the form of dismissing the Algorithmic Information Criterion on the grounds that its measure of information, Kolmogorov Complexity, depends on the choice of Turing Machine which, they claim, is "arbitrary".  This means they think they can choose the instruction set of their Turing Machine such that a single instruction outputs the entire set of observations under consideration.  Thus, their supposed reductio ad absurdum is to claim that the Kolmogorov Complexity of any given set of data may be measured as the bit length of a single instruction of their instruction set -- ideally one bit.

No, it isn't and no, they can't, and they know deep down that they're full of pedantic BS.  But, ok, I'll play their pedantic game with them, not that they'll listen since, of course Theodoric of York wants to get back to his blood letting cures of his dying patients and has no time for such nonsense as "the scientific method":

It is known that a finite, directed graph of N-input NOR (henceforth NiNOR) gates can perform any computation that a Turing Machine with finite memory can. So...

TLDR: Write a program, in a chosen instruction set, that simulates the directed graph of NiNOR gates that provides the chosen instruction set, including the memory that holds the program. Use that instruction set to write a program that, when executed by the instruction set simulation program, outputs the given dataset. The minimum sum of the length of these two programs is the NiNOR-Complexity.

Let me expand just a little bit for those left wondering what I'm talking about:

The choice of Turing machine is not arbitrary any more than is the choice of axiomatic basis for arithmetic arbitrary.  The natural sciences don't generally bother with "debunking" Ockham's Razor over debates regarding the choice of arithmetic's axioms.  But, *sigh*, OK.  If I need to spell this "philosophical nuisance" out in detail, let's descend a level of abstraction from computation to the more primitive concept of a NOR gate -- or more specifically at Directed Cyclic Graph of N-input NOR gates.  Few would regard this as "arbitrary" since the choice of NAND is a mere isomorphic rotation in logic and is similarly "universal" -- and _minimal_. 

It is known that a finite, directed graph of N-input NOR (henceforth NiNOR) gates can perform any computation that a Turing Machine with finite memory can. So...

Chose an emulation program, in a chosen instruction set, that simulates a chosen directed cyclic graph of NiNOR gates that provides the instruction set.  This emulation program will have a parameter that is the size of the memory (ie: number of times to replicate the memory cells) such that it can hold the emulator.  We'll permit it an integer that is not specified that is the amount of additional memory to contain the program to be executed by the emulator.  Use that instruction set to chose a executable archive program of a given set of observations encoded as bits. The choices that minimize the size of emulation program and executable archive program is the NiNOR-Complexity. Now we still have a free parameter but is it a choice of Turing machine?  No.  It's an integer, the size of which goes up only as the log2 of the amount of memory required to expand the executable archive.

We're still left with the "uncomputability" issue but that's just one more philosophical nuisance since what it really means is that we can't prove that a given bit string is the "NiNOR Complexity" of a given dataset.  Progress in the natural science is not held back by such concerns over proving that a given theory is the ultimate theory of nature either.

Saturday, October 01, 2022

Militia Money

Militia Money is Property Money defining its sovereigns -- "those who place their flesh, blood and bone between chaos and civilization" -- as those who are registered for the draft.

This definition overcomes a number of barriers to putting Property Money into practice:

  • It operationally defines who sovereigns are thereby reducing rhetorical attacks by reducing the "argument surface".
  • Draft registration is a legally recognized class distinction.
  • This class pertains specifically to "those who place their flesh, blood and bone between chaos and civilization" .
  • The mandatory nature of draft registration implies that society owes a debt to this class.

Moreover, because the draft is currently restricted to men, Militia Money ameliorates the catastrophe befalling the developed world whose economies outbid young men for the fertile years of economically valued women -- thereby depleting from the next generation of economically valuable characteristics.

As Militia Money is adopted, it is likely that the existing political entities will, using Israel as an exemplar, attempt to re-impose this catastrophe befalling civilization by expanding the draft to include young women.  This disingenuous tactic will backfire for 3 reasons:

  1. Israel's government did not make the mistake of subverting the evolutionary psychology of its young women by rendering, in their mind, its young men manifestly impotent to defend their territory against the mass immigration of military aged men who would be viewed as de facto conquerors by the primitive emotional brain centers of both men and women.
  2. Neocons and most members of American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) both played conspicuous roles in encouraging the West to make this mistake and both are Jewish-identified movements/organizations.
  3. Awareness of both of the above will expand along with Militia Money for the simple reason that the evolutionary psychology of territory will begin to re-emerge in the waking consciousness of young men, thereby remediating their self-esteem and freeing their minds from taboos of the post-WW II era.
The primary barrier to adoption of Property Money, hence Militia Money, will be the inability of property owners to recognize that property titles are founded on and granted by sovereign force.  In discussing Militia Money with property owners, the best way of helping them recognize this origin of entitlement is to ask them whether they would prefer that their tax revenue go to politicians or to young men who are registered for the draft.  Although it is true that most property owners -- particularly employers -- will have a low opinion of young men generally, forcing them to compare with politicians may help them.

Obviously, as can be seen in the very wealthy and among employers who contribute to the Republican establishment candidates that are soft on immigration, some of these property owners will not be swayed.  Moreover, they will likely recognize that Militia Money is a threat to them since they have sold out their people and their nation and will likely be seen as the traitors they are.  But at least you will have given them a chance to escape that fate.

Other property owners will recognize the business opportunities represented by the privatization of all functions of government.  These property owners will be among the new Founders.

Friday, October 29, 2021

Networking The American Pioneer

Below is something I wrote in 1982.  With that prediction proved correct, please consider supporting what I'm doing now to address the situation:

There is a tremendous danger that careless promotion of deregulation will be dogmatically (or purposefully) extended to the point that there may form an unregulated monopoly over the information replicated across the nation-wide videotex network, now underdevelopment. If this happens, the prophecies of a despotic, "cashless-society" are quite likely to become a reality. My opinion is that this nightmare will eventually be realized but not before the American pioneers have had a chance to reach each other and organize. I base this hope on the fact that the first people to participate in the videotex network will represent some of the most pioneering of Americans, since videotex is a new "territory".

Why Didn't the Internet Take Off In 1983?

Videotex Networking and the American Pioneer (Score:5, Informative)

by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Friday March 02, 2012 @02:24AM (#39217853) Homepage Journal

From the Way Back archives [].

I wrote the following article during my tenure as the chief architect for the mass-market videotex experiment conducted by AT&T and Knight-Ridder News called "Viewtron" -- a service of the joint-venture company, Viewdata Corporation of America.

As can be sensed in the article, I had encountered some fairly frustrating situations and was about to be told by the corporate authorities that my telecomputing architecture, which would have provided a dynamically downloaded Forth graphics protocol in 1983 evolving into a distributed Smalltalk-like environment beginning around 1985, would be abandoned due to a corporate commitment to stick with Tandem Computers as the mainframe vendor -- a choice which I had asserted would not be adequate for my architecture. (At least Postscript survived.) I was subsequently offered the head telecomputing software position at Prodigy by IBM and turned it down when they indicated they would not support my architecture either, due to a committment to limit merchant access to their network to only those who had a special status with the service provider (IBM/CBS/Sears). The distributed Smalltalk system was specifically designed to allow the sort of grassroots commerce now emerging in the world wide web -- particularly as people recognize JavaScript is similar to the Self programming language and the Common Lisp Object System. This wasn't in keeping with IBM's philosophy at that time since they had yet to be humbled by Bill Gates.

My independent attempt at developing this sort of service was squashed by the U.S. government when it provided UUCP/Usenet service to a competitor in San Diego and would not offer me the same subsidy via MILnet -- a network that was not for public access, by law, and which was exclusively for military use. My complaints to DoD investigators resulted in continual "We're looking into it." replies.

Videotex Networking and The American Pioneer

by Jim Bowery (circa 1982)

With the precipitous drop in the price of information technology, computer-based communication has come within the technical and economic reach of the mass-market. The term generally used for this mass-market is "videotex" because it reduces the cost of entry into the home by using the most ubiquitous video display device, the television screen, to deliver its service.

The central importance of this new market is that it brings the capital cost of establishing a publication with nation-wide distribution to within the reach of the mass-market as well. This means that anyone who is a "consumer" of information on this new technology can also be a "producer" of information. The distinction between editorial staff and readership need no longer be a function of who has how much money, but rather, who has the greatest consumer appeal. The last time an event of this magnitude took place was the invention of the offset printer which brought the cost of publication to within the reach of small businesses. That democratization of cultural evolution was protected in our constitution under freedom of the press. Freedom of speech was intended for the masses. In this new technology, the distinction between press and speech is beginning to blur. Some individuals and institutions see this as removing the new media from either of the constitutional protections rather than giving it both. They see a great danger in allowing the uncensored ideas of individuals to spread across the entire nation within seconds at a cost of only a few cents. A direct quote from a person with authority in the management of this new technology: "We view videotex as 'we the institutions' providing 'you the people' with information." I wonder what our founding fathers would have thought of a statement like that.

Mass-media influences cultural evolution in profound ways. Rather that assuming a paternalistic posture, we should be objective about these influences in making policy and technology decisions about the new media. It is important to try and preserve the positive aspects of extant media while eliminating its deficits. On the positive side, mass-media is very effective at eliminating "noise" or totally uninteresting information compared to, say, CB radio. This is accomplished via responsible editorial staffs and market forces. On the negative side, much "signal" or vital information is eliminated along with the noise. A good example of this is the way mass-media attends to relatively temporal things like territorial wars, nuclear arms, economic ills, social stratification ... etc. to the utter exclusion of attending to the underlying cause of these events: our limits to growth. The need for "news" is understandable, but how long should we talk about which shade of yellow Joe's eye is, how his wife and her lover feel about it and whether he will wear sun-glasses out of embarrassment before we start talking about a cure for jaundice?

Mass-media has failed to give appropriate coverage to the most significant and interesting issue facing us because of the close tie between institutional culture and editorial policy. Institutional evolution selects people-oriented people -- individuals with great personal force. These people are consumed with their social orientation to the point that they ignore or cannot understand information not relating in fairly direct ways to politics or the psychological aspects of economics. Since institutional evolution is reflected in who has authority over what, editorial authority eventually reflects the biases of this group. They cannot understand life, except as something that generates politics and "human interest" stories. They may even, at some level of awareness, work to maintain our limits to growth since it places their skills at a premium. In a people-saturated environment (one at its limits to growth) people-oriented people are winners.

Actually, this is an ancient problem that keeps rearing its ugly head in many places in many forms. In my industry its called the "Whiz Kids vs. MBAs" syndrome. Others have termed it "Western Cowboys vs. Eastern Bankers". The list is without end. I prefer to view it as a more stable historical pattern: "Pioneers vs. Feudalists".

Pioneers are skilled at manipulating unpeopled environments to suit their needs whereas feudalists are skilled at manipulating peopled environments to suit their needs. Although, these are not necessarily exclusive traits, people do seem to specialize toward one end or the other simply because both skills require tremendous discipline to master and people have limited time to invest in learning.

Pioneers want to be left alone to do their work and enjoy its fruits. Feudalists say "no man is an island" and feel the pioneer is a "hick" or worse, an escapist. Feudalists view themselves as lords and pioneers as serfs. Pioneers view feudalists as either irrelevant or as some sort of inevitable creeping crud devouring everything in its path. At their best, feudalists represent the stable balance and harmony exhibited by Eastern philosophy. At their worst, feudalists represent the tyrannical predation of pioneers unable to escape domination. At their best, pioneers represent the freedom, diversity and respect for the individual represented by Western philosophy. At their worst, pioneers represent the inefficient, destructive exploitation of virgin environs.

The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans selected pioneers for the New World. The Pioneer is in our cultural and our blood. But now that our frontier resources have vanished, the "creeping crud" of feudalism is catching up with us. This change in perspective is making itself felt in all aspects of our society: big corporations, big government and institutional mass-media. As the disease progresses, we find ourselves looking and behaving more and more like one big company town. Soviet Russia has already succumbed to this disease. The only weapon we have that is truly effective against it is our greatest strength: innovation.

I firmly believe that, except to the extent that they have been silenced by the media's endless barrage of feudalistic values, the American people are pioneers to their core. They are starved to share these values with each other but they cannot because there is no mode of communication that will support their values. Videotex may not be as efficient at replicating and distributing information as broadcast, but it does provide, for the first time in history, a means of removing the editorial monopoly from feudalists and allowing pioneers to share their own values. There will be a battle over this "privilege" (although one would think freedom of the press and speech should be rights). The outcome of this battle of editorial freedom vs. control in videotex may well determine whether or not civilization ends in a war over resources, continues with the American people spear-heading an explosion into the high frontier or, pipe-dream of pipe-dreams, slides into world-wide feudalism hoping to control nuclear arms and "equitably" distribute our dwindling terrestrial resources.

There is a tremendous danger that careless promotion of deregulation will be dogmatically (or purposefully) extended to the point that there may form an unregulated monopoly over the information replicated across the nation-wide videotex network, now underdevelopment. If this happens, the prophecies of a despotic, "cashless-society" are quite likely to become a reality. My opinion is that this nightmare will eventually be realized but not before the American pioneers have had a chance to reach each other and organize. I base this hope on the fact that the first people to participate in the videotex network will represent some of the most pioneering of Americans, since videotex is a new "territory".

The question at hand is this: How do we mold the early videotex environment so that noise is suppressed without limiting the free flow of information between customers?

The first obstacle is, of course, legal. As the knights of U.S. feudalism, corporate lawyers have a penchant for finding ways of stomping out innovation and diversity in any way possible. In the case of videotex, the attempt is to keep feudal control of information by making videotex system ownership imply liability for information transmitted over it. For example, if a libelous communication takes place, corporate lawyers for the plaintiff will bring suit against the carrier rather than the individual responsible for the communication. The rationalizations for this clearly unreasonable and contrived position are quite numerous. Without a common carrier status, the carrier will be treading on virgin ground legally and thus be unprotected by precedent. Indeed, the stakes are high enough that the competitor could easily afford to fabricate an event ideal for the purposes of such a suit. This means the first legal precedent could be in favor of holding the carrier responsible for the communications transmitted over its network, thus forcing (or giving an excuse for) the carrier to inspect, edit and censor all communications except, perhaps, simple person-to-person or "electronic mail". This, in turn, would put editorial control right back in the hands of the feudalists. Potential carriers' own lawyers are already hard at work worrying everyone about such a suit. They would like to win the battle against diversity before it begins. This is unlikely because videotex is still driven by technology and therefore by pioneers.

The question then becomes: How do we best protect against such "legal" tactics? The answer seems to be an early emphasis on secure identification of the source of communications so that there can be no question as to the individual responsible. This would preempt an attempt to hold the carrier liable. Anonymous communications, like Delphi conferencing, could even be supported as long as some individual would be willing to attach his/her name to the communication before distributing it. This would be similar, legally, to a "letters to the editor" column where a writer remains anonymous. Another measure could be to require that only individuals of legal age be allowed to author publishable communications. Yet another measure could be to require anyone who wishes to write and publish information on the network to put in writing, in an agreement separate from the standard customer agreement, that they are liable for any and all communications originating under their name on the network. This would preempt the "stolen password" excuse for holding the carrier liable.

Beyond the secure identification of communication sources, there is the necessity of editorial services. Not everyone is going to want to filter through everything published by everyone on the network. An infrastructure of editorial staffs is that filter. In exchange for their service the editorial staff gets to promote their view of the world and, if they are in enough demand, charge money for access to their list of approved articles. On a videotex network, there is little capital involved in establishing an editorial staff. All that is required is a terminal and a file on the network which may have an intrinsic cost as low as $5/month if it represents a publication with "only" around 100 articles. The rest is up to the customers. If they like a publication, they will read it. If they don't they won't. A customer could ask to see all articles approved by staffs A or B inclusive, or only those articles approved by both A and B, etc. This sort of customer selection could involve as many editorial staffs as desired in any logical combination. An editorial staff could review other editorial staffs as well as individual articles, forming hierarchies to handle the mass of articles that would be submitted every day. This sort of editorial mechanism would not only provide a very efficient way of filtering out poor and questionable communications without inhibiting diversity, it would add a layer of liability for publications that would further insulate carriers from liability and therefore from a monopoly over communications.

In general, anything that acts to filter out bad information and that is not under control of the carrier, acts to prevent the carrier from monopolizing the evolution of ideas on the network.

As a tool for coordinating organizations, a customer-driven videotex communications facility would be just as revolutionary in its impact. In particular, organizations with simple hierarchical structures could automate almost all of their accounting and coordination via a videotex network. In addition to the normal modes of organizational management, new modes will spring up that are impractical outside of an information utility. Perhaps the most important example involves the way individuals are given authority within organizations. Traditional organizations select authority via a top-down, authoritarian system or via a bottom-up democratic system. The authoritarian system is more efficient than the democratic system, but it is also more vulnerable to mistakes and corruption. The democratic system gets harder to maintain the larger it gets. People have a natural limit to the number of people they can effectively associate with. In large representative democracies, such as our government, a national union, etc. virtually no one voting for a candidate knows the candidate personally. This, combined with the event called "election" creates the "campaign" where the virtues of democracy are almost entirely subverted by its vices. A very simple system of selecting representation or proxy exists which eliminates "elections" and thus campaigns, excessive politics and corruption. It is called CAV: "continuous approval voting". It is too expensive to maintain manually, but with a videotex network, it becomes just as cheap as any other system (it may be less expensive).

In CAV, a group of people who associate with each other select a representative from among themselves. Each member has an "approval list" which only they can see and alter. On this list, they give the name of every individual they feel is competent to be their representative. The person whose name appears on the most approval lists is the representative. At any time, a member may change their approval list. That change could put another at the top of the approval heap and therefore force a recall of the previous representative. A hierarchy of such groups could grow to unlimited size, still with no campaigns and everyone evaluating only those who they are in a position to associate with. Of course, thresholds for recall, terms of office and other embellishments may be included to optimize the system for particular purposes. The point is that this represents just one of many new forms of democracy that could change the way privilege and accountability are allocated in our institutions.

The power of this sort of tool will be so profound that the first organizations to take advantage of it will represent an unprecedented political and economic force. As stated earlier, it appears the demography of early customers will favor organizations oriented toward pioneering values. If the development of technology for utilization of nonterrestrial resources continues, it is quite likely that an organization will form to exploit those resources, by-passing government, military and traditional corporate planning. Of course, these institutions won't like this, just as third-world governments tried to tie down nonterrestrial resources with the so-called "Moon Treaty". The ensuing political battle will probably come out in favor of allowing the organization to develop the resources in exchange for some form of taxation.

Professional societies will be able to carry on continuous year-round conferences. The time for feed-back determines the rate of advance in most advanced technologies. Videotex can reduce that feed-back time from months to minutes. Again, societies structured appropriately will be able to take maximum advantage of this sort of system. This means only new or flexible old societies will receive the full force of this technology's benefits. A society which places internal politics before its primary purpose will be by-passed. Once again, pioneer values will be promoted.

The conferencing system would probably be organized in a hierarchy of discussions. Everyone would see the top level discussion but only those at the top could contribute to it directly. At the bottom levels, individuals could comment and if received with enough credulity by higher level members, their comment could be raised to a higher level in the conference, thus reaching a number of people increasing geometrically with each level. The key to the success of such a hierarchical conference, as in any conference, is the way "speakers" are selected, or the credulity factor mentioned above. If this sort of conferencing system combines with the CAV system mentioned above, the resulting conferences will be even more interesting.

Currently, almost half a researcher's time is spent searching through hierarchies of reference indexes, or in duplicating efforts that could be avoided if they did such searches. If professional conferences and articles were submitted and published on a videotex network, this time would be reduced to insignificance. Furthermore, the interpersonal communications would allow a researcher to ask an author questions about his publication and get answers, potentially within seconds, without the inconvenience or imposition of a phone call.

(to be continued)

Re:Videotex Networking and the American Pioneer (Score:2)

by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Friday March 02, 2012 @05:16AM (#39218593) Homepage Journal

Some other aspects of my architecture:

The primary discipline stated in a memo to the technical staff: "The home terminal is to be viewed as the host system nearest the user."

64-bit object ID with the system ID counter bit-reversed from the high order bits. This division of the 64-bits was to be temporary, giving way to a distributed hash that would derive the destination system.

A distributed atomic action protocol based on David P. Reed's thesis that is now realized in the Croquet Project's "tea-time". A major difference being that the object's version ID was made fixed length by allocating a fixed interval of values for the loop counter for each call depth. Reed required a timeout for each of level and I just told him, "OK, if you can demand a timeout, I can demand a state count limit." Arvind and Gostelow's U-interpreter was a virtual dataflow machine with data tokens that were isomorphic to Reed's so I was trying to get them together to do a functional programming model of atomic actions, since they were just two floors from each other in MIT's LCS.

The Forth virtual machine, initially to be burned into the terminal's ROM, would be replaced by a Novix chip or similar derivative in the next generation. This would be the hardware that would interpret the Smalltalk. Moreover, machine-dependent Forth words would have multiple implementations that would be selected based on the type of terminal. My expectation was that the then-recently-discovered type inference and related JIT techniques (pioneered by HP's version of Basic back in the 70s) could make Smalltalk execution on a Novix style chip practical.

Re:Videotex Networking and the American Pioneer (Score:1)

by Hurga ( 265993 ) on Friday March 02, 2012 @11:53AM (#39220623)

You wrote that 30 years ago? That's an extremely visionary piece, I have to admit. And surprisingly current still, considering the fight between established media and social networks.

Monday, September 13, 2021

How I Predicted 9/11

Nearly 30 years ago (see "Race, Gender and the Frontier" for my 40,000ft view of human sociosexual evolution), I started predicting a split among Jews between serious Zionists and the diaspora Jewish traditions.  On that basis I predicted a false flag operation around the turn of the millennium -- what is now known as "9/11".  As part of that split, I foresaw a portion of Zionist Jews being forced into what they themselves would have regarded as "Naziism" of a sort, in what others later called a "clash of civilizations" involving something that might be called "PanWestern Fascism".  It was within this PanWestern Fascism that I foresaw a turn-of-the-millennium "Reichstag Fire" (false flag).  Indeed, the Neocon "Project for a New American Century" fit my prediction nearly perfectly, in its explicit desire for a "Pearl Harbor" event to catalyze the wars that I had already predicted in the public record.  

The following are excerpts from my posts in the Usenet archives:

Watch out for the REAL “Reichstag Fire” coming soon to a major media event near you. The OKC bombing may or may not have been an attempt at such a fraud, but it was a failure because it attempted to frame a shallower culture (militias/patriots) rather than deeper cultures (Arabs/Africans).... the conditional probability of the perpetrators of this particular “Reichstag Fire” being caught is MUCH higher than it was with the original version under the Nazis.

Oh, I know… you aren’t all that hopped up just yet, but just let a Reichstag incident get blared through your boob-tube enough and you’ll fall right in line…

WHEREAS the SS [Synagogue of Satan—JAB] has to put on a really big show for their Christian sheep in the West right around the year 2000 and,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a Greater Western Civilization shall be constituted by unifing Judaism, Chrisitanity and Indo-European identity via academic and theocratic sophistry and that said Greater Western Civilization shall declare itself superior to all other cultures extant and that any opposition to or competition with such sophistically justified superiority shall be grounds for any and all actions of fraud and/or violence because God Is On Our Side…

Thus sprach the Synagogue of Satan, on this day T minus a few years before the Greatest Story Ever Told by Hollywood or any other incarnation of the SS since the Diaspora.

Israel’s creation was important in the sense that it is time to mop-up JudeoChristianity—the millenium is a good time for that…

Check out the ethnicity of the folks at Clinton’s “town meeting” trying to trump up support for a war in the middle east on behalf of Israel—putting the US in a lonely international position and making people like you and I a target for terrorism or a Jewish-inspired Reichstag.

Wednesday, December 30, 2020

Why America Lost The Cold War With The Chinese Communists

The US is in the process of self-immolating.  It is easy to point fingers and there are plenty of culprits, but one thing stands out in all of this:

America's intelligence agencies failed to perform properly despite enormous resources and freedom of action.  When the question involves intelligence agencies, it is not unreasonable to theorize adversarial intelligence agencies may have played a role in one's own intelligence agencies.

Where do we even begin to analyze such failures?

I have a wild idea:  How about INTELLIGENCE?

Yes, I know... it's naughty to talk about things like Intelligence Quotient because, after all, everyone KNOWS that IQ merely measures the ability to take IQ tests, right?  

Well at least everyone who is anyone in AMERICA knows that!  By "everyone who is anyone" I mean, of course The People Who Matter -- The Great And The Good -- Our Beneficent Elite.

As for our adversaries, we must not be so certain that they share the piety of Our Beneficent Elite.

So I entertained a thought-crime:  What if America's self-immolation was an assisted suicide -- sort of like a Fentanyl OD?

Running a numeric IQ-based model* of the Chinese intelligence agency advantage over America's intelligence agency, it comes out easily over a factor of 10. (And that is despite assuming a smaller variance in Chinese IQ thereby reducing its "smart fraction".)

As Timothy Leary was fond of pointing out in his SMI²LE acronym, I² involves awareness by an Intelligence that applying its Intelligence to increase its Intelligence is highly advantageous and the higher the Intelligence the more likely it is to recognize this advantage.  

In war the flip-side of I² holds:

Keeping the Intelligence of the adversary from recognizing I²'s advantage, and even, if possible, having it _attack_ its own Intelligence is going to be an obvious course of action at a given level of one's own Intelligence.

The baseline advantage enjoyed by the Chinese intelligence agency makes it highly likely that the post-WW II self-immolation of the very concept of human "intelligence" in America involved Chinese intelligence agency.

* Below is the wxMaxima model calculating the "baseline" advantage the PRC's intelligence agency enjoyed over America's intelligence agency.

The bottom line is given by chinese_agency_advantage_over_america which comes out at around a factor of 20.

This arises from two main factors:

  1. China's supply of metaphorical "genius ore" is greater than is America's.
  2. CCP intelligence agency is more efficiently "mining" its "genius ore".

First let's talk about the "genius ore":

Intelligence agencies rely on the nation's supply of genius-level intelligence.  In the model below, this is referred to as "ore", such as "american_genius_ore", which is "mined" by the intelligence agencies.  Although a properly run country would renewably cultivate and harvest its supply of genius, it is obvious that by permitting the economy to outbid the family for the fertile years of young women, each generation is ruthlessly selecting from the next generation the qualities demanded by the economy in this generation.  Intelligence is increasingly among these qualities consumed by the economy, so "mining" is an apt metaphor.  For reasons described herein, there is good reason to believe the CCP is not being as stupid as America in this regard.

The reason the CCP has more genius to mine is due to:

  • Its greater population
  • Its higher average IQ (even including American Ashkenazi Jewish 115 IQ)
  • The exponential increase in advantage at the genius end of a bell curve of a higher average IQ.
  • The increasing value of increasing IQ beyond the genius threshold (140 IQ in the below model).

Now let's talk about "mining efficiency":

  • Admission to elite educational institutions in America has been trending away from measures of intelligence.
  • Admission to civil service jobs has been trending away from measures of intelligence.
  • The largest deposit of  of "american_genius_ore" is among white men.
  • Affirmative action has discriminated against white men -- men of European heritage -- for several decades.
  • Affirmative action has been enthusiastically taken up by Ivy League colleges -- the primary source of elite personnel for American intelligence agencies.
  • Affirmative action has been taken up enthusiastically by civil service employment -- subsuming American intelligence agencies.
  • China's long history of civil service examination is still honored by the CCP.
  • The CCP doesn't have the taboos against IQ testing suffered by America. 

(%i1) kill(all) ;


(%o0) done

(%o1) true

(%i2) gaussian:(exp(-((x-%mu)/(2*%sigma))))/(%sigma*sqrt(2*%pi));


(%o2) (0.3989422804014327*%e^(-(0.5*(x-%mu))/%sigma))/%sigma

(%i3) ashkenazi_IQ: 115; 

(%o3) 115

(%i4) european_IQ:100;

(%o4) 100

(%i5) chinese_IQ:106;

(%o5) 106

(%i6) %sigma_IQ:15;

(%o6) 15

(%i7) chinese_sigma_IQ:12;

(%o7) 12

(%i8) genius_continuous:integrate(x*population*gaussian, x, genius_IQ, inf); 

(%o8) -(0.3989422804014327*(-2*%sigma*%e^((0.5*%mu)/%sigma)*genius_IQ-4*%sigma^2*%e^((0.5*%mu)/%sigma))*%e^(-(0.5*genius_IQ)/%sigma)*population)/%sigma

(%i9) chinese_population:1.4e9;

(%o9) 1.4*10^9

(%i10) chinese_genius_ore:subst([%sigma=chinese_sigma_IQ,%mu=chinese_IQ,population=chinese_population,genius_IQ=140],genius_continuous);

(%o10) 4.442847732940534*10^10

(%i11) european_american_population:200e6;

(%o11) 2.0*10^8

(%i12) ashkenazi_american_population:6e6;

(%o12) 6000000.0

(%i13) european_american_genius:subst([%sigma=%sigma_IQ,%mu=european_IQ,population=european_american_population,genius_IQ=140],genius_continuous);


(%o13) 7.150882950328202*10^9

(%i14) ashkenazi_american_genius:subst([%sigma=%sigma_IQ,%mu=ashkenazi_IQ,population=ashkenazi_american_population,genius_IQ=140],genius_continuous);

(%o14) 3.536943847347899*10^8

(%i15) american_genius_ore:european_american_genius+ashkenazi_american_genius;

(%o15) 7.504577335062992*10^9

(%i16) intelligence_agency_mining_efficiency:elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency*civil_service_mining_efficiency;

(%o16) civil_service_mining_efficiency*elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency

(%i17) intelligence_agency_genius:national_genius_ore*intelligence_agency_mining_efficiency;

(%o17) civil_service_mining_efficiency*elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency*national_genius_ore


(%o17) civil_service_mining_efficiency*elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency

(%i18) chinese_civil_service_mining_efficiency: 1/2;

(%o18) 0.5

(%i19) chinese_elite_institution_mining_efficiency:1/2;

(%o19) 0.5

(%i20) chinese_agency_mining_efficiency:subst([elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency=chinese_elite_institution_mining_efficiency,civil_service_mining_efficiency=chinese_civil_service_mining_efficiency],intelligence_agency_mining_efficiency);

(%o20) 0.25

(%i21) american_civil_service_mining_efficiency:1/4;

(%o21) 0.25

(%i22) american_elite_institution_mining_efficiency:1/4;

(%o22) 0.25

(%i23) american_agency_mining_efficiency:subst([elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency=american_elite_institution_mining_efficiency,civil_service_mining_efficiency=american_civil_service_mining_efficiency],intelligence_agency_mining_efficiency);

(%o23) 0.0625

(%i24) chinese_intelligence_agency_genius:subst([national_genius_ore=chinese_genius_ore,civil_service_mining_efficiency=chinese_civil_service_mining_efficiency,elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency=chinese_elite_institution_mining_efficiency],intelligence_agency_genius);

(%o24) 1.110711933235133*10^10

(%i25) american_intelligence_agency_genius:subst([national_genius_ore=american_genius_ore,civil_service_mining_efficiency=american_civil_service_mining_efficiency,elite_academic_institution_mining_efficiency=american_elite_institution_mining_efficiency],intelligence_agency_genius);

(%o25) 4.69036083441437*10^8

(%i26) chinese_agency_advantage_over_america: chinese_intelligence_agency_genius/american_intelligence_agency_genius;

(%o26) 23.68073528768954

(%i27) chinese_agency_advantage_over_america;

(%o27) 23.68073528768954

Friday, August 21, 2020

In 1998 the Overwhelming Public Opposition To H-1b Guest Worker Visa Expansion Was Overruled By the Supremacist Theocracy

If you are party to, or even just a beneficiary of the supremacist theocracy that did this to the US, understand that you did so over the objection 82% of We The People.  

There isn't even a word for this great a majority.  "Supermajority", at the top end, is only 75%.

Chris Currie
Phone: 202-785-0017, ext. 342

WASHINGTON, September 16, 1998 -- More than four out of five Americans oppose substantially increasing H-1B visa limits, according to a survey released today by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - USA (IEEE-USA) and conducted by Louis Harris & Associates Inc. The U.S. House of Representatives will vote tomorrow on H.R. 3736, a bill that would raise by 190,000 the number of temporary foreign high-tech guest-workers allowed into the United States over the next four years.

According to the IEEE-USA/Harris Poll, 82 percent of a national cross-section of 1,000 adults opposed Congress "allowing U.S. companies to sponsor 190,000 additional foreign technical workers, as temporary employees for up to six years." Only 16 percent were in favor, while 2 percent were unsure.

Respondents, asked their level of agreement with several assertions made by proponents and opponents of H-1B expansion, overwhelmingly agreed with concerns expressed by H.R. 3736 opponents -- including IEEE-USA -- about the effects of substantially increasing visa levels. The statement, "lower wages paid to temporary foreign workers harm U.S. professional wages," was strongly or mostly agreed to by 75 percent of those polled, while only 23 percent disagreed. In addition, 77 percent versus 22 percent agreed that "allowing companies to hire additional temporary foreign professionals reduces employment opportunities for U.S. technical workers." And a whopping 86 percent -- with just 13 percent in disagreement -- concurred that "U.S. companies should train U.S. workers to perform jobs in some technical fields, even if it is faster and less expensive to fill the jobs with the foreign professionals."

Respondents were not swayed by most of the proponents' assertions. A majority -- 66 percent versus 31 percent -- disagreed that "without adding additional temporary foreign workers the United States might be forced to transfer work overseas." Furthermore, 61 percent disagreed with the statement that "without adding additional temporary foreign workers U.S. companies might fall behind international competitors," while only 36 percent agreed. Only one argument -- that "there is a shortage of technical professionals in the United States" -- achieved a plurality of agreement, with 51 percent of respondents saying they "strongly agree" or "mostly agree" and 41 percent indicating they strongly or mostly disagree.

The poll also revealed a broad public lack of awareness of H-1B legislation. Only 14 percent were "very familiar" or "somewhat familiar" with the pending bill, while 86 percent were "not very familiar" or "not at all familiar."

According to IEEE-USA President John R. Reinert, "Special-interest groups have been trying to push this bill through using legions of lobbyists and big campaign contributions. But now it's clear that the American public is adamantly against a vast expansion of the high-tech guest-worker program. Members of Congress might want to keep this in mind as voters prepare to head to the polls in several short weeks."

IEEE-USA promotes the careers and public-policy interests of the 220,000 U.S. members of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., the world's largest technical professional society.

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS: For survey charts and raw data or for an interview with IEEE-USA President John R. Reinert or President-Elect Paul J. Kostek, please contact Chris Currie at 202-785-0017, ext. 342, 301-887-1901 (h), or

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.--United States of America
1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202
Washington, DC 20036-5104
Phone: 202-785-0017, Fax: 202-785-0835.

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Algorithmic Bias and Fake News

From James Bowery
Mon, May 4, 7:56 PM
To Antonio Badia

Professor Badia,

My motivation in 2005 for suggesting Wikipedia as the corpus for The Hutter Prize For Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge was to factor out bias in Wikipedia, and generate latent identities responsible for that bias.  Therefore the recent surge of interest in Algorithmic Bias has left me looking for those who approach the topic from an information theoretic perspective. 

That's how I found "The Information Manifold: Why Computers Can't Solve Algorithmic Bias and Fake News".

The importance of this topic is hard to exaggerate.  I was one of the earliest (1982) prognosticators of what has now emerged as "The Trump Phenomenon":

There is a tremendous danger that careless promotion of deregulation will be dogmatically (or purposefully) extended to the point that there may form an unregulated monopoly over the information replicated across the nation-wide videotex network, now underdevelopment. If this happens, the prophecies of a despotic, "cashless-society" are quite likely to become a reality. My opinion is that this nightmare will eventually be realized but not before the American pioneers have had a chance to reach each other and organize. I base this hope on the fact that the first people to participate in the videotex network will represent some of the most pioneering of Americans, since videotex is a new "territory".

I predicted, then, that the response could be a potentially disastrous imposition of monopolistic censorship.  That's why I approach the topic more seriously and with greater prescience than the vast majority of recognized experts in the field.  To wit, this censorship is now placing the West on the precipice of the modern equivalent of The Thirty Years War that killed upwards of 20% of the population, ending in The Peace of Westphalia.

It is with this grave perspective that I bring to your attention an omission in your otherwise admirable information theoretic ansatz.

Bias (and fakery) is generated by suboptimal models of the world. Our task, in service of truth, is to find the optimal model given the limited intelligence and data at our disposal.

What the late Ray Solomonoff proved was that if an algorithm generates the world we measure, the smallest program that outputs all of those measurements, provides optimal predictions about the world.  There are 3 critiques some may level at this approach to optimal model selection:

  1. It is not provable that the world is generated by an algorithm.
  2. Since a given program cannot be proven the smallest capable of outputting the measurements, it cannot be proven optimal.
  3. Since not all measurements are available in a single corpus, some selection process must take place and this selection may bias the data itself.

#1 is facile since all engineering (including social engineering entailed by dealing with bias and fake news) more or less formally calculates predicted outcomes.

#2 Although I can appeal to the long history of science that, for whatever reason, finds this heuristic convincing and although I can appeal to authorities you likely respect (Minsky and Chomsky who considers Minsky the authority in this regard) on this exact issue, as well as recent authoritative articles with increasing acceptance, I'll simply state that any program that outputs all prior measurements is under increasing constraints as its size decreases.  These constraints narrow down the range of universes in which its predictions may be true.  This is the essence of information in that information constrains possibilities.

#3 In addition to the search for unbiased truth ('is"), a plausible universal value we might agree on ("ought") is that avoiding a modern version of The Thirty Years War is highly desirable.  To the degree that various parties claim a given corpus is biased, they presumably have reasons that can be backed up by observations.  A simple example might be set of measurements showing that water freezes at 1C and boils at 101C.  Claims that these measurements are biased are based on data from other measurements, and not just of temperature, but of any of a variety of physical phenomena that provide an overcomplete basis set, triangulating on a model of the world that reifies a latent identity, the thermometer in question, and a correction which, when applied to its measurements, bring it into consilience.

Note that #3 accomplishes precisely what I wished to accomplish in suggesting not just Wikipedia, but its change log, as the corpus to Marcus Hutter.  I wanted to identify the culprits responsible for information sabotage.  However, since the change log was too large for impoverished but gifted programmers around the world to handle with the computers available at that time, I demurred, accepting that latent identities would have to emerge from the competition.

The Hutter Prize is a small, but essential, step toward an unbiased model of digital content.  The funding for the Hutter Prize should be orders of magnitude larger than it is not only because of the urgen need for such a model, and not only because the simple and rigorously justifiable model selection criterion of a single figure of merit, size, reduces the potential for motivated argumentation, but because no money is paid out without proportionate improvement in the resulting model.  This stands in contrast to the vast sums now being paid to deal with a lack of reliable information -- sums paid for techniques that frequently pour gasoline on the fire of bias.

-- Jim Bowery, Hutter Prize Judging Committee Member

PS:  I want to make clear that my motives are different from Marcus Hutter's motives.  In his recent expansion of the scope and size of the prize, he changed the rules to discourage manual model creation and encourage automatic model generation.  As senior scientist at DeepMind (and PhD advisor to its founders) this is, in effect, his job.  In the original rules I had strongly advocated that a prize entry need consist only of a compressed corpus so that human beliefs could make direct contributions in the form of large scale production systems whose rules could serve as search heuristics for optimal models.