My Interview with J. Sharp is now Available

http://www.mobilehealthtimes.com/artificial-intelligence-in-healthcare-and-philosophy-an-interview-with-nathan-coppedge/

All Tools Involve Trade-offs --- Exactly!

Recent post by R. Scott Bakker found at the excellent blog: http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2016/09/competitive-cognitive-artifacts-and.html

"What Plato could not foresee, of course, was the way writing would fundamentally transform human cognitive ecology. He was a relic of the preliterate age, just as Krakauer (like us) is a relic of the pre-AI age. The problem for Krakauer, then, is that the distinction between complementary and competitive cognitive artifacts—the difference between things like mnemonics and things like writing—possesses no reliable evaluative force. All tools involve trade-offs. Since Krakauer has no way of knowing how AI will transform our cognitive ecology he has no way of evaluating the kinds of trade-offs they will force upon us."

I think the answer is simply that A.I. knows how to enjoy itself or fails, much as humans become gods or fail. It's part of the entropic view of the universe, in which disposability arrives at the same time as optioning. (my comment is almost a direct quote from Baudrillard).

A.I. is actually a product of designer concepts, concepts of idealization built into computer circuit boards, television, and syntax. The concept of consumption and expansion, and infrastructure that underlies A.I. economics is actually a product of consuming aesthetics. Much as though Greek philosophers were consuming the unknown. Perhaps there have been few steps between those two ages---- just a consequentialism about art, and cancellation of some unknowns.

We now consume aesthetics rather than the unknown.

https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2012/11/brain-circuits-10.html

VOTE ON MY OZY GENIUS IDEA

Every Day Before April 18TH, 2015

HERE IS THE LINK TO MY VERY DESERVING PROJECT:

http://ozygeniusawards.hscampaigns.com/entry/192

New Page Summarizing Critical Sources of Dimensionism

This page accommodates quotes by intellectuals on the subject of dimensionism, a movement begun in Hungary around 1935, and which has received a number of recent encyclopedia volumes by myself. It may be seen as including subjects as vast and broad as the art of M.C. Escher, aspects of the work of Jean Baudrillard, Hyper-Cubist artwork, and Nathan Coppedge's writings about objective knowledge. Until recently, dimensionism has been fairly obscure. Even now, the majority of searches related to dimensionism appear to relate to theories of specific dimensions, such as the second dimension and third dimension. These 'movements' alienate the broad category of the central subject, risking that dimensional knowledge be overtaken by theories of deconstructive mathematics. Specialization has a good purpose in that it heightens awareness of the specific perspectives of each dimension, but has the shortcoming that it overclouds general theories, including coherent dimensions:

Here is the page I was referring to, including quotes about dimensionism:
http://www.impossiblemachine.com/dimensionism

New Paper on the Future of Government

free to view. Check back in a few minutes if it's still uploading.

https://www.academia.edu/8749372/The_Future_of_Government

Ideas on the Forefront of Reality

Some may be disappointed by a list which is potentially out-moded by more modern functions, or which seems too technically-burdened to make a difference for ordinary existence. However, I hold that the following items are not only not outmoded, but metaphorically interesting, and relevant to the future (although that future is assumed to be technological).I am expanding this list gradually to supplement one of my present or future book projects.

           Meta-Function: The ability to select better forms of any given thing, by any given standard.

           Auto-Function: The ability to get minimum holistic function with no more input than basic preferences. Culled from the best information.

           Inherent Realism: The ability to fulfill depth-of-function requests at will.

          Complex Colors / Complex Anything: Being able to know that standards can be applied (or are automatically applied) to make the fullest use of categorical variety.

Tractatus of Gamification

I found a video by gamifier Zichermann on Google+, which linked to the main gamification blog/website at http://www.gamification.co.

I felt inspired to share my ideas about gamification, in the form of a tractatus.

          1. The value of a game is its dynamic value. There is no game without dynamic value. If the end-user does not have a dynamic, the game must create a dynamic. If dynamics are artificial, the result is artificial value. But where the game actually has value, value can be created.

          2. To gamify, it is possible to add user-value. But this seems to incur a linear expense. How to add infinite value to a game without having an infinite game? It seems important to connect multiple games rather than leaving a dead end-product. The value of psychic games, the value of coherent games. The value of games with a functional concept, versus the commercial value of expendability. The need for phenomenological mapping. The value of creative games. Variablism: adding the exact factor that extends the value of the game, or the desire for relationships of products, sub-categories of functions, etc.

         3. The user should add value to the product.

         4. If the end-user /crowd-sourcee has no value, then where is the incentive to gamify? The need to add value to the consumer is also the opportunity to build the game into a more permanent context.

That's it for now, pretty brief, covers a lot of the source, solution, future, and problem.