Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Randall Lee Reetz
1,251 followers -
What matters is what matters, knowing what matters matters the most.
What matters is what matters, knowing what matters matters the most.

1,251 followers
About
Randall Lee Reetz's posts

Google very much needs to talk to the motives driving the research it chooses to fund. For instance, let's say that you were in the business of selling advertising. What you are really selling is the capacity to bend consumer purchacing behavior towards the products your clients pay you to help sell. The holy graile of consumer manipulation is known as "the last three feet" and describes the distance between a consumer and the cash register (real or virtual). In various sci-fi movies we've been introduced to public signage that responds to individual consumers as they face or approach nearby. The limitation of such systems are obvious. A much much much more manipulative approach is to place the signs directly into each consumer's eyes and ears and even noses. Such solutions require wearable systems. Systems that can constantly collect intimate behavioral nuances and send those upstream to machine learning processing farms that can then download individualized manipulation that can cause a person to make decisions that bennefit Google and it's paying corporate partners without the individual device wearer even being aware that they have made any discision at all. Such subcoulnscious manipulation is vastly empowered by personal wearable computing devices linked to centraized Google run data and processing resources. This all works because human behavior has evolved in an environment where the world around us can be trusted not to be scheming to manipulate our high level behavior. We've not evolved a protective responce to the nepharious agenda of our shelter, food, clothing, or the air we breath. Turns out that such manipulation of human behavior is simple to effect and can be innitiated and triggered through the most subtle of hints and nudges, triggers you will not even notice as they are released by your personal tech. What Google does not give a shit about is you. You are not Google's customer. Not even close. Google is not interested in offering you effective computational resources that increase your potential as an individual. Actualized people don't need to consume to boost their feeling of worth. Actualized empowered people feel worthy already, intrinsically. Powerful tools and empowering technology would cut deeply into google's revenue model.

Post has attachment
The last time the long jump world record was broken was in 1991. The current record is 29 feet, 4.25 inches. Will anyone ever jump 30 feet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_jump_world_record_progression

Post has attachment
I was thinking about the Lance Armstrong problem, and wondering if profound athletic achievement is posible or probable in the absence of a pathological level of competitive drive. Then I remembered Edwin Moses the high hurdler who won 122 top level international races in a row… and was (or seemed to be) a good generous healthy compassionate and humble guy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Moses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfMHTanrod8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a976uSf5hfc

Can gene drives be detected? Traced? Of course not. Not really. But the location of their first introduction might be roughly deduced.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_kahn_gene_editing_can_now_change_an_entire_species_forever

Post has attachment
Watching Froome, I keep thinking about Lance Armstrong and doping in pro cycling. So I sat down and watched three of the mini-documentaries about his lies and fraud and absurd arrogance and it made me think about the rich kid delusional asshole Tom Cruise played in the movie "Vanilla Sky"…

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259711/

I've spent my life trying to get to the most causal influencers, the hierarchy of cause in all systems. Turns out such a formalism is possible because just such a causal hierarchy exists. Also turns out we already have most of the math, most of the theory. The only unfortunate aspect of the existing formalisms, is that they were originally described within arbitrary and limited domains, and there has been a cautious resistance to generalize these formalisms beyond their original domains of description. This despite the fact that many of these formalisms have been independently described in the context of apparently disparate domains. For instance, and central to this problem, thermodynamics and information/communication theory were both formalized in very different domains by very different people living in different times, yet the math is essentially or at least functionally identical. The gist of both is that some measurable stuff isn't created but rearranged and that the resultant dynamics is always dissipative. Doesn't matter if that stuff is energy or information (structure), providing a formal equivilance between energy and information, between the cost of the directed movement of energy and the cost of the directed movement of information. This is a big deal. When Darwin described change in the biological domain, he was essentially and unknowingly describing the application of thermodynamics and information theory to the dynamics of this one domain we call "life". There have been numerous other "darwins", who have localized thermodynamics to other domains. That is essentially what all fields of science eventually accept, that their work has always been just a domains specific application of thermodynamics, describing an instance of thermodynamics as dictated by the particulars of that individual domain. I've here used the label "thermodynamics" where "information theory" could as accurately have been used. At any rate, there is but one formalism that is domain independent, that is as true in any one domain as it is in any other domain. That formalism is captured equivalently in both thermodynamics and information theory. It I my guess that it IS the grand unified theory and that the eventual forms bridge between relativistic spacetime and what we currently label quantum dynamics will be yet another otherwize unremarkable mapping of thermodynamics to another two apparently independent domains. These mappings, like all local mappings of thermodynamics to local domains, will illuminate the local means by which a system finds itself maximizing the rate of its own dissipation. All such processes are interactive nonlinear recursive affairs in which all existing structure is the novel starting point for the next causal computation of the dissipation fall line, which will result in a new and novel configuration for the next dissipation fall line "computation", etc. What Darin described in his neat little application of thermodynamics within biology is just the resultant "how", within this one domain, that has been determined by the iterative dissipation maximization computation that is always happening in all systems. Darwin described the periodic structures that have resulted in the domain of biology that are in every thermodynamic sense identical to the spiral structure that thermodynamics calculates in an atmospheric storm. Neither structures exist as any sort of pre-existing thing, neither the biological disruptive structure Darwin described nor the spiral that a storm exhibits is exclusive even within its parent domain, its just the dominant structure in a constantly recalculated energy dissipation maximization dictated universe. Both are domain dependent "hows". The "why" is the dissipation demanded and described as independent of domain particulars or situational instance. This is the context in which I use the word "why" and in doing so I show that biology is not in fact a special domain. No more special than any other domain. All domains just localize the dissipation maximization dictated by the second law. So, all domains are evolving. The differences between the methods or mechanics of the means by which that steepest fall line path is arrived at has nothing at all to do with the basic "why" that causes these apparent differences to accumulate. If you have trouble with the word "why" used in the sciences, welcome to the club. I've been extremely careful to reserve this word to use only where it's meaning is entirely independent of domain. And of course, it in no way suggests any form of prior knowledge or destiny or predetermination. Change in all systems is the result of the same universal and inescapable pressure to dissipate, and accumulated for the same causal itterative reasons into structures that represent the result of a shortest causal and continuous path towards the structural asymptotic that we call "heat death". This is the wide and deep scientific base from which I can make the bold and assertive statements I've made of the non-special status of biological computation and why I can so easily dismiss the self aggrandizing use of the term "consciousness" as exhibited in the weird and awkward corner of geek existential philosophy promoted by Penrose and his merry band of "humans-are-special" disciples. 

Post has attachment

Lets say you have set out to build a single statement that could best describe the whole of the universe such that that one statement could be used to make the most complete and accurate predictions of all posible futures within that universe… how would you go about building that statement? How would you go about determining what would be required of that statement? What criteria would you use to quickly filter through all of wrong candidates, the wrong concepts, the wrong families of potential solutions? Stepping way back, why would you choose to expend any of your energy on such a project? Why does it matter? Does solving a problem like this matter? How might one determine if such a project does or does not matter, does or does not contribute value?

Post has attachment


Anyone ever use these? Program these?

Post has attachment
Small portable electronic and digital sensors…

Anyone know of a source of shovel ready plug and play micro-sensors on a small board that speaks blue tooth and output's easy to parse signal channels for easy programatic discovery and control????
Wait while more posts are being loaded