Philosophy : Extra Subjective Beliefs of Martin Vahi
Singleliners and Short Statements
- Moral value of a person is determined by their achievements and efforts. It's OK to achieve nothing, after all, exploration is mostly wondering in the wild, where there are no guarantees of success, but the non-parasitic efforts must be there to full extent.
- It is the responsibility of each person to break out of its common environment to reach richer grounds, more advanced intellectual environments, more advanced knowledge bases.
- If a younger generation is moderately better than their parents, then that's a stand-still, because the younger generation has the option to learn from the mistakes of their parents. To achieve _progress_, the younger generation must surpass their parents TO AN EXTREME EXTENT!!!
- The number of words a person can hear or speak or read per minute is limited. The number of bits that a person can output through various movements, including the movement of fingers near a keyboard, is limited. If there were no slackers on planet Earth, then the only way to increase the material and intellectual prosperity (books, movies, computer-games, music, etc.) of people on Earth without abusing populations outside of planet Earth would be to increase the efficiency of those limited output bits. The only way to increase the efficiency of the output bits is to advance and apply automation.
- Poverty can never be abolished, because slackers do not mind being poor. If financial resources are given to slackers, then they will waste it in stead of using it for increasing their inbound resource flows.
- All in all we are all hopelessly stupid and irrational, but it is important that everybody is stupid at the peak of their mental potential. A counterexample is the world, where the hopeless drunk bums are not able to read, write, solve simpler calculation tasks.
Another counterexample is the U.S.A., where the economic elite does not invest in to proper education of the economically worse off people, leading to a social environment, where the economic elite lives in a shiny castle or island of shiny castles that resides at the middle of a dump. The stupider the people are, the less they have to offer to others, leading to the economic situation, where prices for anything remotely decent are sky-high and even then the money tends to become somewhat useless, as has been shown by the example of the American medical system, where people are fed huge quantities of drugs and the side effects of those drugs become significant. The money of the 2016 American rich does not buy them even the level of medical care that middle income people in 2016 Europe have.
Some Beliefs Taken Over from Others
- Marko Vahi: "Lahingus kaotada pole häbi. Mitte midagi tehes kohe alla anda on häbi." (Translation: "It is not a shame to loose in a battle. It is a shame to surrender without attempting to do anything at all.")
- Walter Block: "The countermeasure to discrimination is competition." (An illustration is the segregation of blacks in the 20. century U.S.A. If the black community offered better services than the white community, so that whites wanted to use the services of the black community and the blacks discriminated the whites, then at some point the whites would start to think that may be they should not discriminate blacks and abolish segregation just to reach a deal with the blacks. Besides, everyone should be able to choose, whom they serve, whom they work for.)
Game Playing Style
It does not matter, what opponents think, because the information that the opponents have or what they pay attention to varies for various reasons and opponents can always be irrational (archival copy, File:1zN8g.zip) and even if the opponent were totally rational and had all the information avaliable to him/her/it, like it is with the chess board state, my understanding, belief, about the opponent's objective function can be mistaken. Rational opponents can change their mind by intentionally using random choices or by spending more computational power on some branch of the game tree. What matter's is the set of all options that the opponent has at its disposal without the opponent's thinking based restrictions.
Generally I play games "computer game sniper style", from long distance. If I do not have others to draw the attention of my opponents, then I fail to move into position to do my part. In computer games I always need a personal, close, body guard to protect me from the short-distance fighting scouts that specialize on taking out enemy snipers/artillery. My score is literally zero, if I only destroy as many enemies as there were team mates that were destroyed while they were helping me. Any less and I have a negative score. The calculation includes the team mates that were openly on the battle field, drawing the attention of my enemy away from me.
A small creature that could easily be eaten by a crocodile can kill all huge and strong crocodiles in the swamp by draining the swamp, so that the crocodiles die of hunger due to the inability to hunt. A small creature that could easily be eaten by a tiger can kill all huge and strong tigers in the desert by flooding the desert and starving all the tigers, who are not capable of hunting in the water. May be a few crocodiles in the flooded desert can even speed up the process. There is no need to fight enemies directly, huge and powerful enemies can be won by changing their environment so that the enemies are not able to survive. Technology development is changing the environment. If the swamp does not dry fast enough for the first generation of the small creatures to see all of the huge crocodiles die, then the small creatures should start the swamp draining activity anyway so that at least some later generation of the small creatures see all of the crocodiles die. That is to say, as long as the proper strategy gets executed, HOPE IS NOT NECESSARY and A GUARANTEED LOSS FOR PART OF THE TEAM OR EVEN A WHOLE GENERATION OF A TEAM IS ACCEPTABLE.
An illustration is the work of all inventors before the contemporary time: this wiki that depends on the availability of computers wouldn't exist, if electricity weren't "invented"/discovered. Yet the development of cheap-enough-fast-enough-reliable-enough CPUs and memories took so much time that given the state of medicine and how much the medical science depends on calculations/computers the "inventors"/discoverers of the electricity were practically guaranteed to die before the Internet and the World Wide Web becomes a reality.
In a multi-disciplinary team some team members are so stupid and hopeless (naive would be too well said) in some narrow context that one has to protect them in that narrow context like one protects small children from pedophiles. If the "small children" are disgusting small mutts that act destructively, then in stead of fighting them to death one enforces one's interests like a dictator, but with the aim to avoid harming the disgusting small mutts, a lot like destructive pets are stopped from doing harm without injuring the pets.
Thoughts About Having Children
Both, from thinking point of view and from the point of view of NOT NEEDING OTHERS TO THRIVE, the offspring MUST BE INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS THAT EVALUATE THEMSELVES AND MAKE THEIR CHOICES THEMSELVES. Autonomy assumes being well informed, not indoctrinated, but well_educated/well_aware_and_skillful. As the offspring consists of INDEPENDENTLY THINKING INDIVIDUALS, parents can not assign any kind of a purpose to the children, other than: "Do something and live at least a little while." If the children choose to help out their elderly parents, then it must be purely from love that the parents MUST EARN. Taking care of one's children, teaching them, helping them to get started in their life must be done PURELY FROM LOVE and PURE SELF INTEREST OF SEEING THAT INDEPENDENTLY THINKING OFFSPRING BECOMING A REALITY, a lot like raising a rose garden: sometimes one gets a hurting spike here and there, but all in all the roses do not have any obligation towards their gardener, yet the gardener still enjoys the roses and invests ones time into the rose garden.
If all of one's children die, may be due to some accident like the Holocaust or ship catastrophe, plane crash, car accident, etc. and one is already too old to have new children, then it's like a fire destroying the lovely, old, rose garden, with the only difference being that there's more sorrow and mourning. Losing all of one's children does not mean that one of ones life goals has switched from fulfilled to failure. Having children is a semi-random process that should be carefully planned to make sure that if one does have any children at all, the children will be of HIGH QUALITY from education and skills point of view. Quantity of humans on the planet Earth is not that important, because there's always more ants and other dumb creatures on Earth than there will ever be (live) humans, but the QUALITY OF HUMANS IS VERY IMPORTANT. Having children is just one personal environment conditioning task out of many. Children can be helpful in many ways, including the increasing of a probability that some new generation takes a look at the problems that one has worked on with a brand new, fresh, view and uses the results of one's own generation for something brand new and interesting. It's OK that children specialize in some field other than that of their parents field of expertise, but THEY MUST BE REALLY GOOD AT LEAST AT SOMETHING. If the children are or become mentally retarded or handicapped, then they are just lovely pets that must be treated well, but that's a compromise solution, not a goal, and even then the children must be developed to their full potential, how ever little that is.
Some biologists say that the goal of life is eating, reproducing and buzzing around, possibly fighting for or otherwise acquiring resources for the eating and reproducing activities. Some religious nuts say that the goal of life is to assure the continuation of one's culture and religion, usually the preservation of some regime like the "Nazi Reich" or the "Estonian Culture" or the "American Culture". May be for insects the goal of life, an objective function, is eating, reproducing and buzzing around, because that's all that they seem to be capable of doing. May be for the religious nuts the goal of life, their objective function, is the preservation of their culture. The objective function, goal of life, depends on the capabilities of the player. The goal of life, the objective function, of some future super-intelligent-being is very different from the goal of life of a year 2018 human. For a year 2018 human anarchist the goal of life is to be exceptionally good at one's field of expertise, even if that field is not an academically recognized field, advance that field as far as one is capable of advancing it and then hope that someone from future generations will pick it up and use it for something new or advance it even further, a lot like happened with the Alan Turing and the Leonardo Da Vinci].
Supposedly the Alan Turing and the Leonardo Da Vinci were both homosexual and did not have any children at all, but that did not stop them from changing the whole planet Earth and the capabilities of the whole humanity. Given that the Leonardo Da Vinci was physically extraordinarily fit, he certainly would classify as a sex icon of his own era and in 2018.
Family History Related Notes
My(Martin Vahi) grandmother, Silvi Astrid Esikop, who was a very kind person and worked as a teacher of natural sciences ("loodusteaduste õpetaja", biology, geography) all of her career, had an ideological children story about a nesting female bird, mother of small birds (in Estonian: "linnuema") and a small sibling of that mother-bird (in Estonian: "linnupoeg"). The small bird, the sibling, asked its mother, how can he repay for all that effort and care that the mother has given him and the mother-bird answers that the way the sibling can repay for her troubles is to take really good care of its own future children.
In my(Martin Vahi) 2018 opinion the Alan Turing and the Leonardo Da Vinci certainly paid their caring parents for all their parenting troubles really well by advancing the capabilities of the whole humanity, despite not even having any children of their own. The same can be said for school teachers and kindergarten teachers, who do not have any children of their own: they have already helped the humanity sufficiently well to repay for all the care that their parents gave them.
The Richness of the Gene Pool
It is true that no amount of chimpanzees can deliver what one Albert Einstein can deliver. Even high "IQ" alone is not enough, because in addition to high "IQ" the job profile and the person's psychological properties must match. For example, a very social person, no matter how high its "IQ" is, can not withstand working alone for long periods of time, but working on mathematical problems and reading/studying vast amounts of technical documentation are fundamentally activities that require individual work that does not involve much interaction with other people. (That probably explains, why the Afros can have really high "IQ", be excellent doctors, singers, be successful at many jobs that require high IQ, but in average FAIL to deliver in software development and other deep-technical fields that require a lot of NON-social work. An Afro mathematics scientists is obviously possible, but it tends to be a rare occurrence.) On the other hand, a person, who is unsocial enough to be really good at working alone long periods of time, is probably AWFUL at caring for children. Both types of people are needed: the unsocial ones are needed for tech development, so that the children and the social types would have any kind of chance of survival, and the social types are needed for caring for both, the children and for the unsocial ones, should the unsocial ones need to be cared for, may be in a hospital, may be at other situations. The mad paparazzi that race cars, fly various loops at aeronautical shows, make excellent rescue teams. Historically the paparazzi types have also been used as cannon fodder for slaughtering neighboring security teams, but hopefully robotic weaponry renders human cannon fodder militarily useless.
In technical fields every scientists stands on the shoulders of giants. As long as every generation documents its own development results really well and retains the documentation of previous generations, the future generations can alter their biological properties to whatever they want, including something with very high IQ. Therefore, as long as sufficiently many humans that have sufficiently high IQ reproduce, there is no worry that the humanity needs exactly my genes for reaching the stars. Nothing much is lost even if the whole solar system gets destroyed, without any humans ever reaching the stars, because there are plenty of solar systems that are similar to ours and they probably have their versions of humans evolutionally developed.