4-dimensional Imagination

The mathematics for 4 dimensional geometry are very well understood, and modern computing power is more than sufficient to simulate the multitudes of operations one could perform on virtually any 4 dimensional configuration.
It's a given that machines currently don't posess what anyone would truly consider an 'imagination', but for argument sake let's consider one that does. Could such a machine simulate a 4 dimensional environment, or at least be presented with one (this environment could even be something as trivial as a singular structure), and truly be able to visualise it, just as you can imagine an apple in your mind right now? 
Using the apple as our prime example, could this machine effortlessly and intuitively rotate a 4 dimensional apple about in its 'mind' and understand its form as easily as you see the 3 dimensional apple? And here I don't mean a 3 dimensional projection of a 4 dimensional shape, I mean actually comprehend some 4th dimension. For example we can simulate 3 dimensional space easily enough and create an interface for people to perform 3d work on a computer (albeit the interface is n-1 dimensions, so we have a 2d screen, 2-ish-d visual system, etc), but if we needn't present the output spatial coordinates to a screen per se, what's to say a sufficiently intelligent and aware machine couldn't comprehend and intuit greater dimensions?
To my mind I don't know of any limitations on this as a possibility (I would love to know more, or otherwise!). The greatest stumbling blocks in this scenario may be understanding descriptions given by the machine and/or proving that whatever the machine is telling us is indeed qualitatively different than number crunching only (which many mathematicians and programs already do with ease, with the aside that mathematicians also gain an intuition of what they are doing, the closest I think the raw human mind can get to 4d vision). With that being said, taking a slightly different approach, what about creating a system that could be connected with a person's brain directly? For that period of connection would they then be able to see 4d space in their mind (this reminds me of an experiment where colour blind monkeys were given the ability to see colour)? And in either case is there some limit to the number of dimensions?
I know this is all questions and no answers, but I simply find the idea fascinating and wanted to lay out some of the pressing questions that had come to me. If anyone reads this constructive feedback of all sorts is appreciated! More thought experiments to follow!

Nose Speelunkers!

Just a quick spout off: Earl and Frank are just two working class dudes. Each day the walk through the desolate farm fields leading to the mine where they work. They labour day in, day out for gold. Nose gold. They may be just two normal guys but they live and work on, and in the face of a teenage boy! The farm fields outside the mine are actually the relatively hairless upper lip, where farmers struggle to make a living harvesting hair, and only dream of the bounty in the pits. Blaming runoff (snot) from the nose mine, this makes the trek to and from work for Earl and Frank less than pleasant, and once inside the mines, things get crazy. Earl and Frank, just trying to extract those sweet, precious green blobs, encounter all kinds of madness! From pirate ships infested with ghosts, to floods, alien beings, and princesses! God forbid they anger the terrifying dragon though (finger)! Swinging across sinuses and diving between nostrils, they're just trying to make a living! For stylistic purposes, I always thought it would be funny to have the boys face real, and just animate the characters onto him, using various close ups, etc...

Using Gravitational Waves as Navigational Tools

With the recent and exciting detection of gravitational waves it seems a whole new era of cosmological observation could be upon us. However, using some forward thinking, what other ways could gravitational waves, and technology based on them, be harnessed?
I had difficulty in finding links to this but I remember years ago reading about how Polynesian's could use differences in ocean waves to determine directions to land and navigate in the open ocean. Imagine then at some future point we could use gravitational wave detectors aboard spacecraft as something akin to a deep space gas (a deep space positioning system or dsps)? Using signals generated by large astronomical bodies one could use their relative strength and direction to determine where in space they were. Going one step further if predictive computer models are used to determine movements of these bodies and changes to them through time, one could also potentially not just pinpoint where in the universe they were, but when! As to practical applicability I can't comment as I don't know how small such devices could be made and still retain the necessary sensitivity. A fun thought experiment nonetheless though!

A Discussion on the Ethics of Experimenting on a Synthesised Human Intelligence

An article in Scientific American I read a few years back recently popped back into my head. I apologise as the full article is not available, but what is visible gives enough context for our purposes. The potential dilemma emerges when we imagine if it is ethically sound to experiment on a simulated human intelligence (SHI). It's been discussed that as these SHIs become a more accurate facsimile to the physical thing they will become excellent tools for modelling, and potentially curing many mental disorders and ailments. Is it ok to give this potentially conscious entity schizophrenia? Huntington's disease? There are two approached we can take. Utilitarian, or deontological. The utilitarian approach would be that the benefits gained from discoveries regarding brain function would outweigh the potential suffering the SHI may endure. The deontological stance would argue that it is always bad to actively cause suffering to another conscious being. Utilitarianisms offer is quite attractive, but I wonder if logically it's a slippery slope to arguing for experimentation on actual humans. The thought seems ridiculous but do we not devalue the ideas of sentience and sapience if we experiment on a potentially conscious being without it's consent or control? Why is alright to do so on an SHI and not a child? Or someone with a mental handicap? Indeed, the gut reaction is that the SHI is somehow less real than physical human, or lacks true consciousness so somehow it isn't the same. Unfortunately there are no grounds to support this. At it's very base even the utilitarian calculation would render unwieldy results. In one scenario, if the SHI must undergo multiple thousands of runs to obtain a proper data set, it's total suffering would weigh heavily against the benefits gained. Considering the above, the deontological route appears the most reasonable course of action. It is essentially already practiced as society generally recognises that unnecessary harm and distress, as well as unconsenting experimentation on any person is not acceptable, even with the potential of great advances by doing so. It would be prudent to hold the same true for an SHI. If the facsimile is true enough we must assume the SHI has the potential to be as conscious as you or me, and therefore, protected by human rights. In conclusion, an SHI should be treated as no different than a living breathing person. Safe under the same rights guaranteed to it's creators.

A Future Machine Since the Dawn of Time

   Imagine if you will, that some form of advanced civilisation is not only able to travel through time, but also build through the expanse of time as easily as we can now build through the volume of space. If the structure were simply an observer or device used for observation, it could view all events just as a satellite can view the Earth's surface. One of the things I find most fascinating about such a structure/machine is that it could be built at any point in time, and once constructed, could potentially instantaneously exist at all points in time!


   For example, say the discovery on how to make such a miraculous thing doesn't come into existence for another ten thousand years. For the sake of having some sort of a system/visualisation let's say that the device is grown like tendrils through what you could analogise as temporal space. Once it had grown across all of this temporal expanse, from any given point in time if you could see it, it would look like it had always existed, despite not actually being built and spread until a much later "relative point" in time (relative in the sense that from the devices perspective everything is atemporal, there is no past, present, or future. All of time is laid out like a map before it).


   Just a fascinating idea I wanted to share for today!

Living in a Post Automation World: A Nietzchean/Utilitarian Reanalysis

It's been a while since my last post! School became rather heavy and I needed to prioritise. I am back now and hopefully with a vengeance!

   As of late I've been listening to a very entertaining, engaging, and insightful philosophy podcast called The Partially Examined Life

   For anyone interested in philosophy of all sorts from any educational background I would highly recommend it.

   As someone myself with no formal philosophy background (simply interested in ideas and ponderings of all sorts) I would like to comment on one of my previous posts, namely as the title of this post suggests "Living in a Post Automation World". This is spurred by my listening to the brief analysis of Nietzche's works. I would like to stress that I am eager to hear any and all comments relating to this as I am certainly no expert, and I look forward to hearing what you may think.

   To briefly review, I asserted in the relevant post that automation is expanding rapidly in both scope and ubiquity. Although this increases overall productivity worldwide, it currently has a displacing effect on the human workforce by and large, which in the long run potentially undermines peoples capacity to purchase produced goods (if they are unable to find employment). My solution in a nutshell was to allow workers directly displaced by the purchase of a given machine to then be allowed to purchase a share of that machine's productivity, thereby allowing displaced workers to collect a portion of that machines financial productivity, while also contributing to the purchase and maintenance of that machine. In the long term this could lead to a society where most people would collect wages from machine productivity without ever having to actually work (Please read "Living in a Post Automation World" to get the full idea if you haven't already).

   I would now like to introduce some Nietzchean concepts to elucidate the benefits of my position, but in a materialistic, and perhaps counterintuitevly, a utilitarian position.

   Nietzche talks about the shift from a "Master Morality" to a "Slave Morality". Master morality is such that the powerful, strong, and noble exert their will on the weak ("slaves") to promote and realise their goals, and ultimately what is good for them (specifically the individual). The slave however, is a reactionary force. The slave is interested in creating a system opposed to the master's. One based more on communal equality, and sacrificing oneself to the benefit of their peers. As Nietzche alludes, the dynamic of the slave morality unchecked has the potential to stifle greatness. One's personal aspirations must be second to that of the whole.

   According to Nietzche, we currently live in a world dominated by the slave morality (Judeo-Christian moral system). I would have to say though that simply put it would be unacceptable to enter into a master system in the traditional sense nowadays as exploiting weaker people for one's personal self expression is beyond unethical. Where this plays into a world of pure automation though is that with machines performing labour on people's behalf, essentially fulfilling the "slave" portion of the equation, it would free up more time for the pursuits that people truly wish to develop. This would lead to more great achievements as people would now have the time to create works that were not permitted before due to the excessive time and energy drain of labourious tasks. Indeed, there may even be a large portion of the population that choses not to pursue any significant development. Those that are motivated to though would be unhindered to perform great feats, at the benefit of society as a whole, enriching humanity. Every person would be in a position to live the "master" life at his or her discretion, without the exploitation of other people. In this sense we can truly achieve a balance in the master-slave dynamic. Utility is maximised for all, along with freedom of self expression.

   Another important point I would like to briefly express is that Nietzche describes society as only as good as the amount of "parasites" it can accommodate. In an automated society, the amount of "parasites" that could be accommodated is only limited by the productivity of the machines, accessibility to said productivity, and resources. All three of which are completely under humanity's control. Machine productivity can be varied according to society's needs, accessibility would need to be publicly checked to ensure that all have their basic needs appropriately met, and resources are subject to human ingenuity in gaining them.

   In closing, there are points that Nietzche makes that I find distasteful (particularly his views on democracy), and this is simply my interpretation of a small set of Nietzche's philosophy as applied to my particular ideas. I do however think that we are in a position to realise a society in which people are free to achieve their goals and greatness, while still maintaining the good of the whole.

I encourage analysis of your own below! Thanks for reading!

Living in the Post Automation World

   With the rate of automation soaring, many jobs typically performed by humans are being rendered obsolete in favour of machines. With no sign of alleviating, although production is increasing dramatically, unemployment rates are steadily rising. This leads to a conundrum. Machine production is faster, more precise, and capable of great volume at little cost. By eliminating the need for human labour though we are cutting many people's abilities to actually consume certain goods, and on an emotional level, robbing people of their ability to pursue meaning and happiness in their lives through some form of financial stability, and performance of meaningful work.

   My proposed solution to this, would be to allow employees to invest in the automation of their work. For example, if Company A plans to replace five thousand workers with a series of ten machines, those who stand to lose their employment at Company A should have the opportunity to buy in to these machines. They could purchase a percentage of that machine's cost, and be entitled to a percentage of that machine's productivity based on how much they invested. Being an investor though they would also be responsible for maintenance costs based on their ownership percentage. Companies would most likely need to cap the sellable percentage of a machine so as not to sell off all of it's productivity, and also to accommodate the number of potential buyers (for example as above, if five thousand people stand to lose, and up to fifty percent of each of the ten machines can be purchased, it all needs to be broken up so that each person has an opportunity to buy in. If not all the possible "shares" are bought, then there could be a second round of buy in by those who choose to, or have the money to buy more).

   This not only helps the company by offsetting potential machine costs from purchasing to maintenance, but the employees who buy in would still receive a monthly cheque based on their buy in amount and the productivity of that given machine. On a more global level, humanity would literally be investing in the future. The raw cost of a new machine would be shared among employees and company, as well as the ability to enjoy the fruits of it's labour. With steady investment in the latest, best performing machines, I believe we would see a dramatic rise in both productivity and efficiency of these machines. In doing this, we leave the opportunity open for people to make an income, but not necessarily require constant employment. People could then develop their hobbies, live their lives, and yet still keep the consumer market running.

   To keep income flowing for a family indefinitely, perhaps the shares purchased could be passed from one generation to the next. Once automation has reached a sufficiently high level where finding employment at a basic level of any sort becomes exceedingly difficult, perhaps companies could still hold interview processes for potential human "employees". For example, say McDonalds replaced all it's service staff with machines. As a young person with no income, I could apply for a "job" with them. If I would be someone they would have hired when they still had positions for human service workers, I would then be given the opportunity to buy a very small parentage of productivity (akin to a minimum wage type scenario).

   Automation is the way of the future, there is no sign of it stopping. To continue to improve the standard of living and adapt to the changes we are creating, this seems a necessary step so that humanity can enjoy the best of both worlds. Automation without the inability of man to benefit from such.