Chance has it, I landed on that page, 184 to be exact, of John H. Holland's book of emergence, from chaos to order.

Morning, the mind afresh, chance (if not the right symbol, no matter the true(?) word would come forth) has it I landed on that page, 184 to be exact, of John H. Holland's book of emergence, from chaos to order.

I started by reading the paragraph with the heading, Computational Equivalence, and my thoughts were stirred ahoy.

"In one sense, a cgp-v can tell us no more about emergence than a cgp with fixed structure. After all, a cgp with fixed structure has the power of a general-purpose computer, so we can embed in it any kind of computation-based model. That is, the different versions are equivalent with respect to computational power."

Though, I started with this paragraph, now that I have finally written it, the deluge of thoughts which it has unleashed in my mind, just mere minutes ago, if not fizzled out, have been overtaken by other thoughts, in a sense I can not keep up with myself. So many concepts are dealt with, in this paragraph, which can not be taken all at the same time, either being fully comprehended or taken as fodder for further thoughts to develop.

The main distinction that struck me, is that either fixed or variable cgp's, the constrained generating procedures, have the same computational power. Fixed cgp's, which in my mind is taken as static of sorts, and the variable cgp's as dynamic. Though the distinction of static and dynamic taken as a matter of the time interval assumed. Within the limits of a given time interval fixed cgps, appear static. .....

"Formalists sometimes treat a search through equivalent structures as irrelevant, or at least as not part of the scientific process.
But scientists and mathematicians know the importance of an appropriate framework and diligently search for it-hence the familiar saying, "The problem is nine-tenths solved when the question is asked in that right way." In the present case, equivalence with respect to computational power does not mean equivalence with respect to insight. Insights differ even when confine ourselves to the familiar architecture of commercial computers and something as mundane as word processing. Different programs for word processing provide quite different flexibilities, even when the end product is the same. Such differences are multiplied many times over when we look to broader questions."

The distinction brought out by Holland, of computational power and insight, the difference between the fixed and variable cgps, at the heart of my stirred up thoughts. The constraints appearing as laws, norms, even habits, the parameters in any system that within their constraining fields apply the procedures to generate behaviours. Fixed cgps, equivalent to sticking to the letter of the law as opposed to variable cgps, the flexibilities it brings forth, expressing the notion of insight. Insight augmented beyond the confines of the human mind's ingenuity to the realm of any system, even to a society impregnated by insight.

"The trick is to choose structures that are well-tuned to the question(s) at hand. A study that is straightforward in an appropriate framework can become almost impossible in an inappropriate framework."

Almost impossible in an inappropriate framework, based on cgps that are fixed, constraints that are fixed, inflexible. Laws that do not offer leeways, do not act solely as guides but rigid directions for free agents to follow, providing inappropriate frameworks, the constraints imposed unbearable for the agents of a system. Appropriate frameworks, the structures made out of, well-tuned to the questions at hand, the problems faced by agents, the solutions sought after.


... the thoughts are unleashed -- , I can not catch up with them, which by saying so, it appears absurd and folly, talking about myself as being somebody out of myself. The interplay of my conscious and unconscious within me, what my unconscious can contemplate my conscious can not keep up with. The associations, (talking about the performance rate of associations and/or the quality of an association) my unconscious can perform, far exceed what my conscious can manage. What mechanisms are underlying either form of contemplation both distinct, with the conscious being so slow and the unconscious exceeds speeds, compared with the colloquially referred to as lightning bolt, what is taken as humanly impossible. Something I have contemplated upon in the past and made a post. Which apart from being posted, it has been lodged in my mind, and guides it.

Knowledge, arrived.‏

Knowledge is acquired in a similar manner as in the double-slit experiment, in the version where electrons or photons are fired one at time. Each electron/photon knows where to land, so when all have landed it produces the familiar interference pattern.

Thus knowledge is amassed.

Consciousness leaks into awareness. Causes what is called, knowledge.‏

Consciousness overwhelming, all-surpassing. Its limits never imagined before. In fact, its boundless nature mind-numbing, hurting the brain. It exposes the futility of the pursuits capitalist societies adhere to, renders meaningless the ideals of the very nature of the western civilization, out of which consciousness current notions were spawned out of.

Consciousness housed within the confines of the brain. The brain being built out of the specifications required to accommodate consciousness's enormous capacity. Renders the current notions of anthropic principle, dwarfs, barely touching base with the true extent consciousness is about.

Darwinism? Replacement rather than ruthless extinction. Capitalism? Co-operation rather than ruthless competition.

What are the implications of Darwin's theory in the making of societies worldwide? What has been hiding in the shadow of its clash with the creationist movement, obscuring the issues which have survived barely noticed and continue to plague human societies to nowadays.

Natural selection idea and quite a lot of its offshoots being heavily influenced by Darwin's social background that has going through unnoticed. I feel I have to go through the article of New Scientist, 31 January 2009, 'Evolution's final frontiers'

to trace the origins of the most sinister offshoots of Darwin's theory that has so devastatingly influenced the make-up of today's societies, which somehow have accumulated fallacies which have plagued human individuals thus far. My thesis is that this is not a result of mis-interpretations of Darwin's theories over the years by other theorists, but of Darwin himself. He is responsible for the parts of his theory that have had an adverse effect in the development of societies, he himself infused his personal touch in these parts of the theory that perpetrate illusions and distort and destroy values human individuals adhere to.

Why it has survived in our consciousness practices expressed in the saying(?)

"Ο θάνατος σου η ζωή μου"

which literally translates 'my survival goes through your extinction' and refers to single individuals or groups of individuals in unfolding their activities and acts, in almost all aspects of human activity and draws its (power?) from Darwin's theory. What is responsible for all acts of violence, wars included.

Instead of 'live and let live' which would come naturally if we accept instead that all activities of social groups goes through replacement rather than competition. Activities unfolding side-by-side instead of one-against-another that now pervades all aspects of human relationships.

I feel I have to go through the responses of all th individuals that have offered their contributions, looking them from the perspective I develop, namely fight for survival or co-operate and live-and-let-live stance.

Darwinism have been left to develop unscathed, not from the strictly scientific perspective, but its political implications as a result of its long-drawn battle with creationism. As, now it has emerged victorious, as I would say expected, it needs to be rectified to adapt with the aspirations human individuals adhere to, instead of distorting and warping the basic(?) elements responsible for the development of human relationships.

As I think, these mis-conceptions is a result that stem from Darwin, and especially a result of Darwin's era, which except from Darwin had others like Thomas Malthus, which was admired by Darwin and have been influenced by, and their theories have plagued humanity.

Therefore, I feel I should go through what has been said about Darwinism, by the people that have worked in deciphering his theory, rejecting blind adherence in what Darwin and Darwin's theory, as it has been developed by other individuals, is about.

To create superhuman intelligence; Human intelligence unfathomable, yet the fool amidst its stupidity aims to surpass self, to superstupid.

Designers are great hunter-gatherers of ideas and should be encouraged to develop that role further.

.. novel twist in the so-many-times-said notion of hunter-gatherers .. hunting-gathering ideas .. how dead-on-spot illustrates an aptitude of the human individual

"In particular, we should look to nature for inspiration – it has been innovating for three billion years."

.. nature, so mundane a notion for today's prevailing ideas, but so brought at home, becoming so familiar, the height the notion of innovation can reach, human individual in its efforts to innovate, sharing the same processes nature has being using for three billion years .. the human individual one with nature .. out of nature's guts ..

But what I read here ..

"In particular, the project explored how, over the next 50 years, we can apply science and technology to the design and implementation of intelligent infrastructure for robust, sustainable and safe transport, and its alternatives

The IFTF.. (Institute For The Future) .. to-do list goes on to state that objects will evolve fast, too: “Groups of smart objects will co-operate, often on an ad hoc basis, to augment human decision-making and, increasingly, to make decisions for us. Some believe that the next 50
years will witness the emergence of machines with supra-human intelligence.”
IFTF’s manifesto for the UK’s future scanners resembles Victor Vinge’s concept of ‘singularity’. In 1993, Vinge, a writer and mathematician, predicted that “within 30 years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly thereafter, the human era will be ended.”

to create superhuman intelligence .. as if there is a need to create superhuman intelligence .. the human intelligence itself unfathomable .. yet at its infancy .. but still arrogant to assume it has reached its potential .. the fool that dreams on .. amidst its stupidity .. aims to surpass self .. to supersede its very own state ..of stupidity .. by the creation of some superstupid intelligence ..

.. totally ensnared in the current environment of business .. where the role the human individual is assigned to .. is to create wealth .. the ultimate business decision making machine .. to catch the black swans to make innumerable profits ..

.. what a vile concoction of ideas .. to augment human decision-making .. overrun by ideas .. prevailing in the present era .. by merely extrapolating upon them .. from its present state .. where the human individual is heavily subjugated to the business scenarios ..

human individuals toiling in the business world .. stock-markets .. shares .. stocks .. debt ..

the individuals in the business .. the success prototype .. salaries, bonuses the money they make .. an overriding, reducing attribute .. well-publicised coveted the acumen of business-decision making overwhelming

disregard totally the essence of its very own evolution .. non-linear evolution .. the non-linear evolution of the society as such .. which in effect would present to its next step in the evolution ladder .. a new state of humanity .. with its very own variables and parameters .. distinct and different from what prevails in its current state .. a new set of parameters .. a new set of initial conditions ..

extrapolation .. merely linear .. not acknowledging the constant change .. systems states undergo .. which always require .. to use a new base .. a new set of initial conditions for the very same extrapolation function to act upon .. such a method reneges, refutes the very process .. the non-linear nature .. of world evolution.. trashes every effort .. to succumb it .. to inane practices and methods ..

Global communication. The full extent of society associated phenomena as yet unrealised. The recalcitrant few at bay.

Smith, R. D. (1998) 'Social Structures and Chaos Theory', chapter 5.1, Connectionism.

"Complexity theorists have realised that only when all the sandgrains can 'communicate globally' with one-another do the phenomena associated with sandpiles manifest themselves. Connectionism thus appears to be essential."

Notions of a whole and the parts the whole is made out of. Notions of a system and the subsystems the system is made out of. From the system mind and the ideas the mind is made out of. The system society and the individuals the society is made out of. The system humanity and the societies humanity is made out of.

Societies, the sandpiles, individuals the sandgrains. When all the individuals can 'communicate globally' with one-another then the phenomena associated with societies will manifest themselves. Individuals in societies the world over in endless communication, strive to achieve the 'global' level, taken as being within the bounds of each society as such. Forgetting for a moment that each of these societies is in turn a subsystem, a part of humanity, at the society level the one-another communication is constantly undergoing to reach society's global level, for each individual to communicate globally with one-another.

As by communication can not be taken as the mere exchange of information, but communication that enables the system to manifest the phenomena associated with societies, that lays down the attributes of the system. where each and every one within the society participates in their making.

From the societies of nowadays where the attributes abided by society, as they become evident in the laws, customs, norms, habits, are communicated by the few, only the few realise their apparent potential, and the many struggle hopelessly to accommodate themselves. The struggle they put, fire up the intrinsic mechanisms resident within the society, towards its consummation. The law laid out by sandpiles and sandgrains. A deterrent the recalcitrance of the few.

The full extent of the phenomena associated with societies, have not as yet been manifested. Individuals struggle to communicate at society's global scales still goes on.


Global communication. The full extent of society associated phenomena as yet unrealised. The recalcitrant few at bay.

Developing the concepts and presumed (assumed) perspectives of globally programmed future societies.

(by elaborating on the presumed)

Nowadays, instead of having less monetising, there is more and more as the time goes by. One thing for certain. In the growing drive for more profits, grasping any opportunity presented out of every minute and remote activity engaged by human individuals, a widespread mentality, a mode of thinking that governments foremost promote, in every sector run by states, it is not hard to think that governments envying the so-called presumed successes of the private sector, to enter itself into competition and assume structures no different from the profiteering corporations becoming USA or UK Government plc, with all its subsidiary organisations dragged along member states, councils, hospitals, educational establishments.

And how can it not be, as the same kind of individuals that run profiteering corporations are sought after to run government and state-owned institutions.The profiteering mentality is transferred as a whole in state institutions. And citizens become clients.

And as in corporations the big rewards go to the board members and the rest of the revenue generated (un-)equally allocated to the rest of USA, UK Gov plc shareholders. The public servants, senators, MPs, public employees, state-liaised contractors and on and on..

Well, it is allegedly supposed to be that all US, British or any other country's citizens, are the shareholders. Well no, they are no shareholders, they are the clients.

For individuality to thrive in its utmost expression, it requires to be totally free, especially from monetisation concerns.

Today every innovation, every individual creative process has to pass through a monetisation sieve. What filters out from this monetisation sieve is the singularity of profit. Financial gain. In its course every individual creative act is distorted, twisted, warped to fit through the monetisation sieve.

Seeking the unbiased approval of other individuals pure and unadulterated out of what each individual has to offer for the betterment of the life of other individuals is the only sufficient and necessary condition.