The Post-Banana Era

What is the philosophical solution to global warming? What is the philosophical solution to global terrorism? How can the straight political axis be bent into a circle, paralleling the transformation of the flat Earth into a globe? And what is the philosophical solution to inequality? On the model of the philosopher-tycoon as a necessary parallel to the philosopher-king in the current era, and on tree search as a parallel to the peacock's tail. When the era of artificial intelligence brings with it artificial thought that will create a new discipline of artificial philosophy

The "vicious circle" fallacy: Beneath the peel - the banana reveals itself as a philosopher  (Source)

Terrorism is a creative failure. Radicalization is a problem of "more of the same". Young men are built to seek a creative outlet, under the memory of the alpha male, which is the government. They want to do something that hasn't been tried before, and the easiest and most simplistic way is to look for something that hasn't been tried because it's too extreme. The very confinement of thinking to axes creates radicalization, because the only place that allows differentiation is at the extremes. In contrast, a truly creative solution is to step out of the axis, and therefore creative thinking prevents radicalization, it seeks a direction perpendicular to the axis, that is, a new dimension, and a new axis. Therefore, if the political map were a network, and not right and left, but a multi-dimensional structure, the imagination of the masses would be different. For example, arranging it in a structure with a political axis, a religious axis, and an economic axis, then they would see the missing possibilities, and creative thinking would be generated. In other words, the abstraction of the image is dangerous, and it is precisely the center that does it. Younger people are more extreme than older people, because they are looking to get out of the axis. The elderly see themselves as the center and therefore it is easy for them to draw an axis with them at its center, and therefore they are correct. The political deadlock stems from the fact that one can only move on one axis. The image of right and left destroys the political system, and causes unnecessary convergence of many axes on one axis, due to some initial correlation, and structures political identity in a way that encourages stagnation. Because it is marked as a place on an axis, and as a tug-of-war competition, and therefore also encourages extremism, and despair from the system, and a feeling that there is nowhere to go, and that there is no creativity. A creative solution that will emerge is the technological solution that will be offered to political problems - the politics of technology. The more significant a factor technology becomes, the more it will become a political factor and not a neutral one, and different politicians will offer to solve problems through different technological applications, and democracy will choose the direction of technology implementation and ultimately the direction of its development, as there will be different ways to implement a society with artificial intelligence, and this will be the great political controversy of the future. It will split the world into different societies, like communism and capitalism. Chinese artificial intelligence will be different from American, and at the end of the competition, the superior societies will reach the finish line, having solved the problem of technological politics. In the first stage, this will be the problem of integrating human society with artificial intelligence. The problem will not be replacing humans with machines, but the form of integration, like the integration of man and horse, to achieve maximum success in their joint work. As in the agricultural revolution, where animals did not replace humans, but engaged in other tasks in the ecosystem. Finding the optimal division of labor and form of control between humans and computers will be the challenge, and woe to us if this is reduced to an axis with humans on one side and computers on the other, with the right supporting human control and the left supporting computer control, or vice versa. It must not be a power struggle between humans and computers because humans will lose. Just as the horse is stronger than humans. So is the thinking horse. And just as the cow is more efficient than humans in turning vegetation into meat, so will be the thinking cow. And so there will be different thinking animals that will be domesticated and trained. The artificial intelligence revolution will be more similar to the agricultural revolution than to the industrial, scientific or information revolution, as it will include dealing with new types of animals and domestication, and not with new types of machines and devices.



Leaders don't know how to work in chaos, but worse - the public is not willing to work in chaos, and therefore no progress is made in solving the problem of global warming. They expect there to be a plan for a solution, while the right thing is to announce that there is no plan, and invest resources in research, for a future solution that is not yet known, and every additional shekel invested in the current inefficient solutions is wasted, and would have been better spent on research instead of a direct and known solution. All the world's experts from various disciplines should have been concentrated in a think tank of humanity, to fund research and technological solutions, until there is an economically efficient solution, which could have taken decades of research, but would solve the problem. For research to be a political agenda requires the ability to live in chaos, because research is unpredictable, and therefore although research is the solution to many political problems, it is a solution that is not implemented. Because it is not a work plan, and not linear to investment, and not predictable, and therefore there are many imaginary problems that are eventually solved by technology and not by politics, but politicians treat research as a magic solution that might come and there is nothing to do about it, as chaos (and they don't know how to work in chaos). Therefore, there is an illusion that technological development is a random benefactor, because there is no focused monetary investment in problems, and not solutions. Because even when politics invests in research, it invests in programs, which is against the essence of research. And therefore sometimes causes more harm than good. When the right thing is to take the best minds, from different fields, put them together, and pour tons of money on them, and from the conflicts between them and the intellectual competition, something good will come out. Scientists are actually good at forming consensus no less than others about the right solution, once there is enough research and evidence. This is the correct method for political decision-making. Minds, research, and the formation of scientific consensus, even if there are always dissenters, there is also a mainstream. Not the philosopher king but the scientist king or more precisely the scientific community, whose characteristics need to be copied to the political community. It's no coincidence that there is politics in science, these are related phenomena and we have already learned how to do one of them well.



The mistake with tycoons is that society measures wealth by the amount of money you own, and then the existence of large and developed wealth structures, such as corporations, which are technically in the hands of a single person, creates the appearance of inequality. But the truth is that the tycoon can't really exploit his wealth, just as a king isn't really the owner of his kingdom, and can't sleep with all the women in the kingdom, he is very limited. Therefore, what matters is not how much money a person has, but how much they waste, that is, how much in the economy goes to unproductive corruption. And here ordinary people also waste, but even a tycoon will not be innocent if instead of investing the money in the economy he buys himself a gold toilet. Therefore, what matters is the economic ethos, not the consumer or wasteful one. And this ethos sanctifies efficiency, that is, the exponential growth in which all surplus is invested for the sake of progress and development, as opposed to hedonism or other inefficient allocations. Competition is also important only because it increases efficiency, not as a primary ideal. Because it pays for everyone to get ahead of their friend a little, even if the overall progress is not good, that is, because of game theory - progress is inevitable. The belief is not that progress is for the better, but that it is interesting. That is, it is the internal logic of history and we would all like to live in the future just as a child wants to know the end of the story, and a person acts to reach a result even if he loses and even if he gains, because that's how humans are built, as an information machine that performs learning. Like evolution itself, which doesn't necessarily progress for the better but will always progress. Development is the most basic law of the universe and created the stars and galaxies. It's something in the nature of time and the laws of physics that stem from what was a moment ago, that is, from the very fact that there are forces acting on elements, and therefore complexity will be created and grow in some of the initial conditions. The future will not finally be simple and solve things but only more and more complex. The rise of complexity is the law in complex systems, that is, systems that had a factor that created complexity in the first place. Only simple systems are stable. The problem in the Middle Ages is that complexity decreased in them following monotheism, that is, its own complexity became larger and larger in the development of the Talmud and scholasticism, but when abandoned it became an era of sterile complexity (and therefore not contributing enough to deep complexity, like a sterile branch in mathematics). Because sometimes the system develops complexity in the wrong direction, like in evolution, and only when moving to another direction do we understand that you did a depth-first search in the wrong branch of the tree, but this can only be known when you actually did and the search was sterile, because that's the nature of a search algorithm - that it's wrong. That it's almost always wrong. And so it is in our thinking and high culture. Almost always a mistake. By its very nature that it is a search algorithm (and not optimization, as in the low). Therefore, money in research will almost always be invested incorrectly, but there is no way to skip this. This is the positive waste, as opposed to the corrupt waste of conspicuous consumption, which the whole society suffers from no less than the tycoons, and even more in terms of percentages wasted from capital, and invests very little in research and experimental. Experimental thinking is almost a complete waste of time - and that's what shows its importance. Because if there is no higher efficiency than waste in a certain field - it means that there is a creative challenge here. Therefore, the ethos should be that conspicuous waste of a tycoon or bourgeois should be in the field of research.