* beneroth
wrote a larger query last night. Has to extend it even much more today.
<Regenaxer>
Good morning beneroth! Good!
<beneroth>
Regenaxer, currently I have a pilog query consisting of multiple (db) predicates (to fetch values which are used for filtering) and one group of pilog rules. I plan to extend this to multiple pilog rules. I'm doing a export / report, and many different criteria judge if a record is valid for the output or not, and if it is, what kind of output
<beneroth>
so I guess I will end up with an (or) clause containing my multiple custom defined pilog rules (be ...)
<beneroth>
what I want now, is to set boolean values. I need an indicator which rule group (be ...) caused the record to be in the output.
<beneroth>
so: how to get a variable having always the value T when a certain rule group successes?
<beneroth>
I tried with equal and same and such but did not manage to achieve anything
<Regenaxer>
Do you need a variable? After all, Pilog rules are all about true and false?
<Regenaxer>
ie. do it dynamically
<Regenaxer>
?
<beneroth>
well I use (pilog '(query) (prin) (prin) ...)
<Regenaxer>
For debugging, there is a trace feature in Pilog. Does that help?
<beneroth>
no, my current version works fine, just without the additional stuff I require
<beneroth>
e.g.
<beneroth>
instead of doing several (select) queries, which each return results of the same type just having two (from about 10 or so) fields printed with different values
<beneroth>
I hoped I could merge everything into one big (pilog) execution
<Regenaxer>
yeah, best is always a single select, as it automatically optimizes the search
<Regenaxer>
Two selects do much more work
<beneroth>
problem is, the results do vary in a few criteria, I want all of them exported, but some must have other values then the others in 1-2 fields
<beneroth>
and that value is to be hardcoded, it is not stored anywhere in a property
<beneroth>
is it not possible to e.g. have a sym argument which is automatically turned to T or NIL with a rule?
<beneroth>
kinda variable assignment, though afaik that doesn't exist in that form in prolog
<Regenaxer>
yes
<beneroth>
not possible?
<Regenaxer>
you can do such side effects, eg with 'asserta', but it is not so usuaz
<Regenaxer>
usual
<Regenaxer>
more typical for Prolog is to have a rule for everything
<beneroth>
I don't think I'm need asserta. I need a pilog rule which always gives the same result
<beneroth>
so not an incrementing value, but a static value
<Regenaxer>
yes, sounds good
<beneroth>
well how to build such a fact?
<beneroth>
the asserta example looks interesting
<Regenaxer>
asserta is global, so I'm not sure if it is good here
<beneroth>
I just mean the example
<beneroth>
so I see
<Regenaxer>
Usually it can be done with normal unification
<beneroth>
(be a (2)) -> a is always 2, right?
* beneroth
's problem is probably the syntax, not mainly the logic
<Regenaxer>
yes
<Regenaxer>
(a @X)
<beneroth>
aaah
<Regenaxer>
unifies @X with 2
<beneroth>
(be b (T)) -> always results in the variable being T
<Regenaxer>
right
<Regenaxer>
then only (a) is fine
<Regenaxer>
(be a ())
<Regenaxer>
then 'a' is always true
<Regenaxer>
or just (be a)
<Regenaxer>
This is called a "fact"
<Regenaxer>
(as opposed to a "rule")
<beneroth>
oh
<Regenaxer>
So you *can* assert such facts
<beneroth>
yeah terminology is a problem for me
<Regenaxer>
for me too! :)
<Regenaxer>
Prolog is very different from anything else
<Regenaxer>
(be sister (Fanny Tom)) is also a fact
<beneroth>
so lets say I have my existing rule (be foo (@Contact) ...) .. so I could say (be indicator (T)).. (be foo (@Contact) (indicator @Indicator)) ?
<Regenaxer>
Facts are rules without variables
<beneroth>
also needs an negative..hummm
<Regenaxer>
negative is withe cut/fail
<Regenaxer>
T (fail)
<Regenaxer>
(be indicator (T)) is just (be indicator) I think
<Regenaxer>
no, sorry
<beneroth>
haven't grokked that yet, beside that it is intended to break/stop the search for solutions
<Regenaxer>
break/stop is done with "cut"
<Regenaxer>
prevent backtracking
<beneroth>
yeah, heard that, haven't understood yet when/how to apply
<Regenaxer>
This is an important feature
<beneroth>
sounds so
<Regenaxer>
necessary for flow control
<beneroth>
currently I only want to know how to transport the information that a specific rule applied or didn't up to the lisp level
<Regenaxer>
You should really read some Prolog intro
<beneroth>
T
* beneroth
needs that report asap
<Regenaxer>
As you need the power
<Regenaxer>
ok
<Regenaxer>
it is a 'dump'?
<beneroth>
no
<Regenaxer>
or report?
<Regenaxer>
ok
<beneroth>
CSV export
<beneroth>
so more like a report
<Regenaxer>
yes, exactly
<beneroth>
I have 19 records test data, and something around 10'000 records for real
<beneroth>
so I build it for that 19 records now, than want to run it with thousands
<beneroth>
must be done by tomorrow. better today. better yesterday.
<Regenaxer>
ok :)
<beneroth>
some circumstances outside of my control came together.
<Regenaxer>
Good thing, project is active! :)
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
problem is, the other one is not even finished.
<beneroth>
and other stuff is pending too.
<beneroth>
too much :)
<Regenaxer>
Stress ...
<beneroth>
yeah. and no way out except forward.
<beneroth>
so I need the power of picolisp and pilog and get me out of that hazzle :)
<Regenaxer>
yes, understand
<Regenaxer>
A report does not depend on Pilog as much as 'dump', so you can more mix Lisp and Pilog, or do all in Lisp. Depends
<Regenaxer>
If Lisp is easier atm
<beneroth>
T, but the nature of the report actually calls for pilog
<beneroth>
18 different sets of criterias to select records. 3 variants of output format depending how the record got selected.
<beneroth>
sounds like 18 pilog rules to me.
<Regenaxer>
uh
<beneroth>
client has another software/database which I am working on migrating to picolisp. not there yet. they found out they're unable to do their export in their old software, or only with like a month or more of manual work.
<beneroth>
naturally they found out long before the deadline *irony*
<Regenaxer>
yeah, that't typical
<beneroth>
rules (with that I mean the things which get created by (be something ...))... they can use/read "variables" (I don't know the correct term, symbols starting with @)
<beneroth>
which they didn't get as arguments, if they exist/are around before they get invoked
<beneroth>
but I guess to communicate such a value out of the rule, I need an argument for it?
<Regenaxer>
no, variable are unified only on the current level
<Regenaxer>
variables
<beneroth>
do you have a prolog dictionary for me?
<Regenaxer>
a dictionary?
<beneroth>
glossary
<Regenaxer>
Not that I know of, just some very old books
<Regenaxer>
and I didn't do real Prolog since a long time
<beneroth>
Regenaxer, well okay one idea would be to have the select, then get into lisp level, and in the lisp level issue another (prove) to see which rule applied
<beneroth>
from the first listing of points, I find all apply to picolisp too (that picolisp has them)
<Regenaxer>
Hi tankfeeder
<Regenaxer>
beneroth, right!
<beneroth>
only thing missing I see in the type auto-converting, so you can do (inc "12) in Tcl.. but I'd argue this is magic which can definitely bite you horrible (happens regularly in PHP), and you want to have it explicitly it easy to achieve
<beneroth>
the other nice string features described in the link are covered with the symbol/transient symbol mechanic
<beneroth>
does CL only have a weak symbol type? the symbol type in picolisp is pretty powerful...
<beneroth>
though afaik property lists fall in a similar category than FEXPRs, shunned at by most lisps..
<Regenaxer>
correct
<Regenaxer>
They are not good to compile (both FEXPRs and properties)
<Regenaxer>
both are dynamic
<Regenaxer>
So we are back at the old issue: Both CL and even more Scheme gave up a lot of the power of Lisp by stressing compilation
<beneroth>
kinda ironic
<Regenaxer>
putting fosus on compilation, I mean
<Regenaxer>
yeah
<beneroth>
in the past people built special hardware to get around the compilation issue.
<beneroth>
and now the performance is largely no problem
<Regenaxer>
T
<Regenaxer>
The bottlenecks are otherwhere
<beneroth>
IO. Development Time. Developer Mental Model capacity at limits because of too many layers, too much bloat and interferences, yet no good abstractions.
<Regenaxer>
yes
<Regenaxer>
Runtime-wise, it is I/O and memory bandwidth (caches)
<Regenaxer>
The purpose of compilation is runtime speed
alexshendi_ has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
<Regenaxer>
Somehow compiled systems tend to get so big that they actually get slower :)
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
they lose track of what everything they're doing, and so they end up doing needless things all the time.
<clacke[m]>
And I realize now that the non-Scheminess of Tcl that I mention in my blurb fits Pil too, just as you have already observed
<cess11>
beneroth: Prolog Programming in Depth by Covington et al is useful too, almost as good as The Art of but a little quicker and more applied. Still, the metalevel-page sums up how the thinking and coding is done real nicely so probably a better intro.
<mtsd>
Morning all, nice to see some Prolog talk
<mtsd>
Prolog was the first programming language I encountered. A long time ago now, though
<mtsd>
I'm afraid I have lost touch with it, largely.
<cess11>
"In today's world, to have strings as base type is usually more useful, because many thinks like HTML, XML, Networking Protocols, are about strings more than they are about lists."
<beneroth>
well..they're about lists of strings :P
<cess11>
What are strings if they aren't lists, arrays, streams or symbols?
<cess11>
beneroth: That too.
<cess11>
I agree that Tcl is good at what it does though, versatile and lightweight and portable and so on, but Lisps usually have formal robustness as well.
<aw->
oh nice discussion
<aw->
i used to write a lot of TCL back in the 90s
<aw->
mostly eggdrop scripts haha
<aw->
that's all.. can't add more to the discussion
<beneroth>
Hahaha.. and as Twitter bans RT News and Sputnik about that "advertising/meddling in US elections 2016", RT News shoots back by publishing Twitters limited offer pitch to them: https://www.rt.com/news/407919-twitter-multi-million-offer-rt/
<beneroth>
Regenaxer, any rule of thumb / guidelines when to put stuff directly into select/3 filters, and when to put it into rules instead and use this rules in filter clauses?
<beneroth>
just syntax sugar / readability, or are other criteria to be taken into consideration?
<beneroth>
makes it a difference for the pilog algorithm if all condition are select/3 filter clauses versus grouped in rules?
<cess11>
Local/global perhaps.
<beneroth>
you mean when they affect each other?
<Regenaxer>
I would say just a style/factorization issue
<beneroth>
ok
<beneroth>
another question: ordering or rules (as printed by (rules)) = order of checking?
<beneroth>
so make the most discriminating rule first?
<Regenaxer>
yes, the order is critical
<cess11>
Yeah.
<Regenaxer>
clauses are checked and backtracked in order
<cess11>
You want to catch X=0 and the like first, usually.
<Regenaxer>
T
<beneroth>
ok.. so the ordering is critical when clause uses values from other clauses, otherwise you want to the most discriminating first. T?
<beneroth>
catch X=0? this means... the fail?
<cess11>
You want a fact or rule for such cases on top, so it doesn't go into more demanding checks if unnecessary.
<cess11>
Say [] or X=0 or something.
* beneroth
doesn't unterstand the notation
<beneroth>
I guess it just means empty or zero?
<beneroth>
just asking for the syntax. the argument is clear, I think.
<Regenaxer>
it is like (de fact (N) (if (=0 N) 1 (fact (dec N]
<beneroth>
yeah, as in all checking, you want to stop quickly
<beneroth>
cess11, alright o/
<beneroth>
:)
<Regenaxer>
want, and even must stop
<tankfeeder>
creating new quiz, to find value returned from function
<tankfeeder>
stay tuned
<Regenaxer>
ok :)
<beneroth>
:D
<cess11>
beneroth: You'll find that most predicates in real prolog code start with such clauses, and that it is similar in principle to the picolisp OOP inheritance as well as the pilog thingiemabobs.
<cess11>
Also prolog lists work in a similar way with the [Head|Tail] mechanic, almost the same as picolisp lists in how
<cess11>
'car and 'cdr work.
<tankfeeder>
what returns this two calls
<tankfeeder>
without run
<beneroth>
cess11, thanks for explaining. I suspected so. so the backtrack algorithm is operating on a tree?
<beneroth>
cess11, thingiemabobs?
<beneroth>
^^
<cess11>
Yeah, it's basically tree structures and a greedy traversal in search of unification/truth, hence the use of ! to stop backtracking and termination of program routines.
aw- has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<beneroth>
good riddle tankfeeder
<cess11>
Thingiemabobs here would be 'programming language constructs', I think.
<beneroth>
so I understood it, haha :)
<Regenaxer>
tankfeeder: Prints 2 and 3?
<tankfeeder>
nope!!!!
<beneroth>
gives error?
<cess11>
I ran it so I know.
<tankfeeder>
cess11: cheater
<cess11>
Pasted all into the REPL, sloppy.
<cess11>
tankfeeder: Yeah.
<cess11>
Still, don
<cess11>
't get why it does what it does.
<beneroth>
cess11, so we can hack you be feed you some pil code? :P
<tankfeeder>
beneroth: try
<cess11>
It
<Regenaxer>
tedious to paste, as there is now "raw" link ;)
<cess11>
's as if the 'let context sticks around longer than I thought it would.
<beneroth>
haha, no
<cess11>
beneroth: Hack me be feed me some pil code? Sure!
<beneroth>
it is not the let
<beneroth>
haha, very nice riddle. I grok it now after running.
<Regenaxer>
haha
<Regenaxer>
Stupid me
<beneroth>
did you overlook the missing q?
<Regenaxer>
yes, always do (list 1 2)
<Regenaxer>
not the q
<beneroth>
haha
<beneroth>
hahahaha
<Regenaxer>
it is destructive
<beneroth>
right
<beneroth>
yeah
<cess11>
I see.
<Regenaxer>
I looked only at the first case
<beneroth>
it's not exactly changing the let. its changing the value of the mike function.
<cess11>
Yeah.
<cess11>
'pp shows what changes.
<beneroth>
(list) always produces a new list (new memory). but (1 0) is only producing a list once, during parsing.
<beneroth>
no, the result may only be selected if its date is within the last 6 years
<beneroth>
bbl
<cess11>
Aha.
mtsd has joined #picolisp
roundsf` has joined #picolisp
roundsf has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
mtsd has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mtsd has joined #picolisp
mtsd has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mtsd has joined #picolisp
libertas has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
<tankfeeder>
boring play
<tankfeeder>
? ((split adr) (split adr))
<tankfeeder>
-> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
<tankfeeder>
just for fun.
<Regenaxer>
:)
<beneroth>
sometimes, the VM just wants to jump into the lists :)
alexshendi has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
alexshendi has joined #picolisp
freeemint has joined #picolisp
<freeemint>
Hi
mtsd has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<beneroth>
hey freeemint
<beneroth>
long time not seen
<beneroth>
how are you?
<freeemint>
I am fine
<freeemint>
University is more busying than i hoped
<freeemint>
I am still lisping but my good idea points a quiet exhausted by the math home works
<freeemint>
I am currently looking in to my "lis without control structures"- project
<freeemint>
beneroth: How are you?
<beneroth>
currently: horrible stressed out, too much work
<beneroth>
in general: quite good, doing a lot lisp currently, even getting into pilog
<freeemint>
oh for what do you (mis)use pilog
<freeemint>
+ for?
<freeemint>
Do you have projects/insights to share?
<freeemint>
Oh since when we have an irclog?
<freeemint>
... wait that was a dumb question
<freeemint>
I am currently prepairing a turing complete self interpreting drwaing
<beneroth>
go into the log and see how far back you can go ;)
<beneroth>
using pilog to do a rather complex database query and export
<beneroth>
client project
<freeemint>
i did that
<beneroth>
clever
<freeemint>
ah atleast you can put tools to good use
<beneroth>
T
<freeemint>
Do you have the feeling that picolisp givas you an competitive edge?
<beneroth>
yeah, definitely
<freeemint>
Could you do the same project, say with java and sql?
<freeemint>
(in the same parameters)
<beneroth>
definitely not within the same time, no chance. and the thing with the querying right now.. would be horrible to do in SQL. would give very long and complicated JOINS.
<freeemint>
i see
<beneroth>
it is about 20 queries, each one with a set of 5+ criteria which are distributed over multiple entities.
<freeemint>
Example?
<beneroth>
currently I'm still developing and testing, but the final version should on about 21 thousands records
<beneroth>
its address data. people with properties which decide if they get a mailing or not.
<beneroth>
and what the content of the mailing is,
<freeemint>
do you also do the data input
<freeemint>
Ah i see
<beneroth>
data import from CSV files (tabs)
<beneroth>
including data formating, eg. ja/nein -> bool, and multiple different date time formats, etc
<freeemint>
Do you support stuff like A/B testing, statistic or data/trend analysis?
<freeemint>
German client?
<beneroth>
swiss
<beneroth>
but yeah, german speaking
<freeemint>
I just assumed
<beneroth>
A/B testing, trend analysis.. sure.. if they serve the purpose. was not involved with it yet nor haven't I deployed it myself
<freeemint>
Are they required features in your software or nice addons?
<beneroth>
A/B testing are a marketing / UX thing, no?
<freeemint>
They are
<freeemint>
but not only
<beneroth>
sure, not only. but mainly.
<freeemint>
How did you you convince your client that they will get an application in a hard to hire for programming language?
<beneroth>
unless you call every testing/benchmarking A/B testing, but that would be meaningful.
<freeemint>
*impossible to hire for
<beneroth>
their current application is proprietary, the programming that it allowed is a mess and the guy who did it is not available for them anymore
<beneroth>
they don't intend to program it themselves, so they don't need to have any concerns about hiring as long as my company or Regenaxers is around
<freeemint>
The bus factor is two?
<beneroth>
so their main criteria are how quickly I can deliver them a new application, and can it offer the same or better functionality than the old application
<beneroth>
we are already two within my company
<freeemint>
ah, a trade-off
<beneroth>
also, I'm not afraid of the fact that I can't write "looking for picolisp programmer" and find someone.
<beneroth>
which, additionally, is wrong. I just have to post it here and would probably find someone pretty quickly ;)
<freeemint>
Do you have a long term support job?
<beneroth>
what do you mean by that=
<freeemint>
i would not be ready for that
<freeemint>
Is that a long term thing you need to support and improve or a one time thing
<beneroth>
first, though the main work is now
<freeemint>
ah
<freeemint>
I fear that in the next 5 years i will get dumber in regard to Lisp
<beneroth>
btw, I actually have sold 5 picolisp applications so far. 2 are finished and running since 2015. 1 is shortly before ending of beta testing and golive. 2 more are in development.
<beneroth>
why do you fear that?
<freeemint>
university ... is killing ym time
<beneroth>
and why should you lose what you already gained? code is habit, true, but code is not the hard stuff. the hard stuff is understanding concepts.
<freeemint>
because i am not completly solid in the concepts
<beneroth>
and a programming language you didn't do for some years can easily be re-learned. I did it multiple times already.
<freeemint>
oh that makes my fear smaller
<beneroth>
well, whenever you have the option, you can always do a exercise with picolisp, when the language is not given
<freeemint>
but that is why i want to have a painting of the core of (pico)-lisp build from cyclic lists
<freeemint>
I do not study CS
<beneroth>
what do you study?
<freeemint>
Technical cybernetics and systems theory
<beneroth>
we have a few students here in the channel afaik, no one studies CS or IT
<beneroth>
ok, and what about that is not CS?
<freeemint>
Everything
<beneroth>
you need to explain. afaik cybernetics, "Kybernetik" is the older name for what is called today AI, and system theory surely fits CS, no?
<freeemint>
It is completly continous instead of discrete. You do analysis, optimzation, ... of differential equations tomodle real world behavior
<beneroth>
CS is a branch of math
<freeemint>
Nah, kybernetik and ai are two different things.
<beneroth>
I would not say so. maybe if you think of silicon valley use of the term AI, but that is not the only meaning.
<freeemint>
Cybernetics is not about inteligence but rather about the process underlying life and homeostasis
<beneroth>
is there really a difference?
<freeemint>
I hope so
<freeemint>
Otherwise AI will doom us.
<beneroth>
how so?
<freeemint>
Interested?
<beneroth>
yes. just no time, I should finish this stuff here. but...interested
<beneroth>
(the results also show stuff from Josch, ignore that guy, completely other field)
<freeemint>
Life is the process which uses underlying calculation to maintain order, adapt to environment and reproduce.
<beneroth>
he is an AI guy.. though on the general AI quest, so attempting to re-constructing brain and mind, not on the quest to build better tree lookup as Google
<beneroth>
yeah you would be interested in joscha's thinking. he goes into philosophy rather quickly
<beneroth>
bach.ai is his website
<beneroth>
he is german but working in USA
<freeemint>
AI is the field of solving problems utilizing the underlying of computers.
<beneroth>
his views are pretty niche afaik, but he makes some compelling arguments I find
<beneroth>
no
<beneroth>
that is Google AI
<beneroth>
AI is also trying to build brains/minds, in attempt to understand them, which is also the attempt to understand ourselves, etc
<beneroth>
some good stuff to understand/treat braindamaged people came already out of it
<freeemint>
nah i would call that comperative biology
<freeemint>
I am not afraid AI, but i am afraid of artificial life.
<beneroth>
define artificial life?
<freeemint>
the same shit we have on biological level using another source for computation
<beneroth>
ah
<beneroth>
I'm not afraid of that.
<freeemint>
ok.
<beneroth>
before that becomes a problem, we will enough other problems
<beneroth>
and the risks are not coming really from AI, but from humans.
<freeemint>
T
<freeemint>
risk/mallicousness/stupidity
<beneroth>
T
<freeemint>
I find AL very dangerous
<beneroth>
I see two risks in that field: 1) we continue to plug everything together and place more and more stuff under AI (the google type) control.. and the stuff has flaws but they only show very rarely..but can have then devastating effects, as we plug everything together
<freeemint>
(to the human species)
<beneroth>
2) the quest for self-improving AI. that is a major race going on right now. build an AI which can help you build a even better AI, and you have a run-away effect.
<freeemint>
You won't have a run away effect
<beneroth>
it doesn't have to be consciousness in any way, it doesn't even has to work correctly. just if there is reasonable strong evidence to believe that one group/company/nation developed such an AI, there might be a risk of other power players going into traditional war, to try to eliminate their opponents with the AI before the can out-develop them
<freeemint>
I do not believe that.
<freeemint>
I see that risk
<beneroth>
doesn't has to work, just that people believe it.
<freeemint>
but again humanity survived the cold war but again back then humans were in charge
<freeemint>
T
<beneroth>
on another perspective, these problems are very speculative. there are other more nearer threats.
<freeemint>
like?
<beneroth>
one being the cold war not really being over, not at all. MAD doctrine is still active. currently that story is freezed, but still multiple powers on the globe watch and sensor every aircraft and other move of the other players, ready to go into nuclear war if it appears necessary. that option of self-destruction has not gone away.
<freeemint>
2 Tesla GPUs in a Raptor drone with questionable objecitve function?
<beneroth>
that will do damage, but be a risk for humanity.
<beneroth>
e.g. every space rocket launch is communicated, so that no other nuclear power wrongly believes it might be a intercontinental rocket. even the rockets bringing secret military satellites into orbit are announced.
<freeemint>
grimm trigger is a bad (game theory) strategy. To bad people are still stuck in it
<beneroth>
well it is a dead lock situation, kinda. hard to get out of it, because every player who leaves the board makes the remaining player more powerful.
<beneroth>
and the other grim view is the whole climate change thingy. the specifics are hard, but the thing about more heat getting into earth atmosphere than out is pretty simple.
<beneroth>
and it absolutely doesn't matter if it is human made or not, it seriously threatens our civilisations. humanity as a species will probably survive, but probably not our civilisation.
<freeemint>
i would have said the opposite
<beneroth>
so you fear the civilisation surviving and the humans dying out? or you mean the climate change thing?
<freeemint>
our civilization will survive but mybe not humanity as a specias
<freeemint>
that is what i think atleast
<beneroth>
possible, but I find it highly unlikely. so far we haven't much managed to build sustainable electronic technology. one illustration for this is the old soviet satellites and stuff, as they actually tried to build long-lasting stuff, while the capitalism functions kinda optimizes against it.
<beneroth>
if we continue with the current culture, it will probably end in disaster as I think the AI making jobs obsolete is a quite real thing, and if all those gains from improved technology only make the richer even more rich, than it optimises humans away.
<freeemint>
The thing is current "civilization" got many things right about the world (as far as we can tell). These ideas will not die out
<beneroth>
currently we optimize for productivity. we are at the point where technology can surpass us in it. if we don't adapt our optimization function (as a society), we will end up optimizing us away.
<beneroth>
but maybe this is just luddite talk. hard to know for sure :)
<freeemint>
Current society is not getting more productive really. If you think that like 50% of people have "bullshit job's" - job's of which the people holding them do not think they are usefull to society
<beneroth>
yeah I know the term.
<beneroth>
well productivity might still have increased. actually this is a sign that it did, else there would be no room for bullshit jobs.
<beneroth>
bullshit jobs means those people are superfluous / not required
<freeemint>
I think the problem is similar to software spped and hardware speed
<beneroth>
how so?
<beneroth>
hardware speed grows exponentially but our speed to create software not?
<beneroth>
you know of the "software curse" ?
<freeemint>
Hardware gets more efficient and faster but the software get's more slugish
<beneroth>
HM
<freeemint>
HM?
<beneroth>
thinking hm
<freeemint>
think ...
<beneroth>
it is not necessary a bad thing. just a sign that we have more than we need, so we can waste.
<beneroth>
there is an economic model/view actually building on the notion of "having more than we need"/waste.. (I can't come up with the word for it!..)
<beneroth>
going into that direction, but it is more about criticising the current used models (which determine our economy politics)
alexshendi has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<freeemint>
Oh Hayek ... that stuff needs to be older than me
<freeemint>
Well my problem with bullshit jobs is that we could work 15 hours a week and still have everyhing work out
<beneroth>
well this would require redistribution
<freeemint>
not necessarily there are other means to archive that but they are quiet ... dictatorial
<beneroth>
Yanis Varoufakis worded it that way: looks like we head either into Star Trek (post-scarity utopia) or Matrix (humans enslaved by algorithms, maybe with a few super-rich on the top)
<freeemint>
nice
<freeemint>
but in the long run it is star wars for sure
<beneroth>
star wars? what is serious about star wars, it is silly entertainment with no deeper meanings as far as I see it
<beneroth>
did you see Blade Runner (the old cult classic and now the follow-up which just came out?)
<freeemint>
T that summarzies it well
<beneroth>
what did you mean by "in the long run it is star wars" ?
<freeemint>
It is hard to summarize.
<freeemint>
Star wars describes the cycles society and the individual destined to change the society good through.
<freeemint>
*go through
<beneroth>
never understood it that way. tell me more.
<freeemint>
You now about "The hero with thousands faces"?
<beneroth>
I think I don't
<freeemint>
It is a book where somebody (inspired by Jung) looks for structures in myths from all cultures and isolates an universal hero myth with certain omni present elements.
<beneroth>
ah. nice idea.
<freeemint>
George Lukas took the blueprint of this and used as a formule to create the basic story of star wars
<beneroth>
oh. surely makes an accessible story. like the heros journey.
<freeemint>
He was critized for his intelectual laziness.
<beneroth>
not so sure if it has connections to how reality works. certainly to how our minds think it works, but thats not the same.
<beneroth>
well star wars is low scifi, can't compare it to Asimov, Philipp K. Dick, or even Gibson et al
<beneroth>
or Dune
<freeemint>
This is related to the idea hero is the person who goes in to the unknown to face thing which killed his father, makes the proper sacrifices, revives his father and reigns at his fathers site now more vigelant towards the dangers of evil
<freeemint>
Star Wars is soft sci-fi
<freeemint>
It is about society, family, responsibilty, the ever presence of evil, the fall from assumed complete knowledge into hell
<beneroth>
so, I say: nice patterns. still I don't see any relation to the underlying reality beside being a comment on human story pattern preference.
<beneroth>
and morally I like the Tolkien pattern better: small guys defeat evil by mundane deeds
<freeemint>
Short excourse: What is belief?
<beneroth>
a mental model
<freeemint>
You believe something if you live like it was true.
<freeemint>
Do you agree?
<freeemint>
*live/act
<freeemint>
well ... actually the excourse does not help mewith my arguement
<freeemint>
Did you fall asleep?
<beneroth>
no
<freeemint>
What i am trying to establish is that i act like as if these stories hold some underlying truth about the behavior of intelligent and living systems.
<beneroth>
ok
<freeemint>
any thoughts on that?
<beneroth>
on what ground?
<beneroth>
despite the patterns being found in many human cultures, I mean
<freeemint>
that is a good question
<freeemint>
let me thin about that
<beneroth>
True, it might say something about human culture = social functioning, so it could lead to some elements which also determine/influence our social life and thus our forming and acting of organisations
<beneroth>
but this is still somewhat disconnected from physical reality
<freeemint>
Yes
<beneroth>
the social layer is happening between minds, or what one mind recognizes as another mind.
<freeemint>
Thinking hardly these ideas are maybe not as universal as i hoped
<beneroth>
I would treat the hypothesis to the scientific method: can we find pattern in history (somewhat less modified story than mythology) which confirms the presence of the pattern? can we make prophecies, e.g. circumstances X produce situation Y ?
<freeemint>
Ok *we got somethings about human nature fundamentally right for civiliation to develop that far
<beneroth>
did we? do we have to understand it so it works?
<freeemint>
Yes. No.
<freeemint>
But the likelyhood that humans believe the right thing is generally increased if they understandthey talk about
<freeemint>
*understand what they
<beneroth>
how to measure understanding?
<beneroth>
also the thing about "correlation vs causation" is to be taken into account
<freeemint>
beneroth: I would not treat it to the scientific method because the scientific method is a meta belief while i claim that my insights are about the archtecture of any believe
<beneroth>
human minds are above all pattern recognizers. we tend to detect patterns even when there are none meaningful ones.
<freeemint>
yes
<beneroth>
well the point about the scientific method is that it proved so far as the best function to gain insight and understanding. versus to follow prophecies, godly rules, or traditional rituals, though sometimes they overlap.
<freeemint>
I do claim any causation. I am saying understanding of belief is not dependend on understanding but that understanding helps in general.
<freeemint>
define best
<freeemint>
"has made as progress the fastest" vs "has us evolve and survive for he longest" vs ..?
<beneroth>
increase our standard of living / gave us an edge in the evolutionary race
<freeemint>
*has helped us
<beneroth>
"evolve" and "survive for the longest" appears to be contradictory
<freeemint>
pick the second
<beneroth>
well then bacteria wins (though they also evolve fast, but when they evolve into higher order / more complicated species they seem to lose the advantage)
<freeemint>
fundamentally yes.
<freeemint>
How do we know science is not fatal?
<beneroth>
How do we know it about anything?
<freeemint>
sciene might kill all memals but we can not kill the bacterias
<beneroth>
well science proved to help more against the black death / pest than trying to calm the gods by killing their perceived enemies (in the middle ages, usually jews)
<freeemint>
The things they act on might be more incline with reality if they can survive longer .
<freeemint>
*proto-science T
<beneroth>
well less complicated life form (or anything, actually) = less prone to errors and disturbances from outside
<beneroth>
proto-sience?
<freeemint>
undecidable
<beneroth>
an example: the more complex a specimen, the more prone to damage by radiation
<beneroth>
also the more likely to develop cancer
<freeemint>
yes defeating cholera was science but defeating black death was more let's imitate the muslims
<beneroth>
black death is still around. pest is still around.
<beneroth>
penicillin helps against it.
<beneroth>
and muslims was the hotspot of science for a while ;)
<freeemint>
beneroth: humans are less likely to get cancer than the same number of bacteria cells
<freeemint>
T
<beneroth>
really?
<freeemint>
Yeah the cancer prevention mechanism are incredible
<beneroth>
T
<freeemint>
bacterias have a few magnitudes of copy erros
<beneroth>
so less probability for errors, but then less error correction in place, is it that what you say?
<freeemint>
few magnitudes of more copy erros
<beneroth>
(error corrections and mitigations like sandbox environment limiting the damage and stopping propagation)
<freeemint>
human = highly evolved copy system (land mamal type), giant source code, lot's mechanism to detect failures
<freeemint>
+ immune system reasonably good at killin cancer.
<freeemint>
the only reason why it is not better is that humans did not live long enough for it to matter
<freeemint>
*humans -> land mamals before humans
<freeemint>
If i recall correctly the copy error on humans in 1 in 10^(19~21) base pairs while bacterias are around one copy error per 1^15 base pairs
<freeemint>
Something in that order of magnitude. Sadly i do not have the exact stuff in reach
<freeemint>
But than again cancer in single celled lifeforms is basicly life itself.
<freeemint>
(oh my writing is getting very sloppy)
<beneroth>
ok, thats new stuff about bacteria to me. Thanks for correcting my data!
<freeemint>
bacterias have a simple ring like open in body DNA
<beneroth>
yeah heard that one before, cancer usually being a luxury disease, meaning you get it because nothing else got you
<freeemint>
mamal cells have the DNA in a protected core which is stable environment for copying
<beneroth>
how about plants, e.g. trees?
<freeemint>
land plants have a protected core too, algea not necessarily
<beneroth>
I read that photosynthesis only reuses about 20% if the incoming energy, most is actually spent on radiation damage fixing.
<beneroth>
but Trees can get pretty older than humans?
<beneroth>
ok. interesting.
<freeemint>
currently :D
<beneroth>
why would this change?
<freeemint>
this strange "science" you put forward :D
<freeemint>
The thing about cancer in trees is that cancer can't do much damage there
<freeemint>
because the tissue is build from cells which have an hard, smooth shell.
<beneroth>
ok
<freeemint>
The problem with cancer is that it destroys organs by replacing working cells with multiplying cells which push out the working cells from there real place. roughly speaking
<beneroth>
I'm back to the has made as progress the fastest" vs "has us evolve and survive for he longest" vs ..?
<beneroth>
so Tree's fare pretty good there?
<freeemint>
There is no danger of that when the tissue is hard as wood :D
<freeemint>
yeah
<freeemint>
They got something quiet right about the world. They convert "free energy" in to food needed by everybody.
<beneroth>
why do I have to think now of companies being milked by their CEO/owners... like cancer cells choosing the seemingly quick route to success but actually killing the environment they need to livre
<freeemint>
because same shit on another level.
<beneroth>
a pattern
<freeemint>
We are just exchanging thought germs at the moment.
<freeemint>
Same shit on another level
<beneroth>
different strategy
<freeemint>
Why?
<freeemint>
There are cancerous ideas which exploit the host to spread them as far as possible killing of the indivuidual and the people it could spread to.
<freeemint>
Think death cults
<beneroth>
yeah, but we don't exchange them right now :D
<freeemint>
How do we now -> we do not. Is idea death cult? is undecidable
<beneroth>
tolerant idea = allows other ideas beside it
<beneroth>
so basically.. absolutism vs relativsm
<freeemint>
still undecidable but that heuristic does seem to be in agreement with reality
<freeemint>
as far as i can tell
<beneroth>
most religions fall into absolutism... science falls into relativism, though it is not always practised so (so that which is done then is not science)
<freeemint>
do you know feymans "cargo cult science"
<beneroth>
ah, btw about religions.. the romans had the same approach as you, afaik
<freeemint>
huh?
<freeemint>
tell me
<beneroth>
they usually never tried to compete/destroy another religion. they just tried to identify/map their religion in it.
<freeemint>
did not work with christianity
<beneroth>
so they believed their religion to be universal and other people just using another names
<beneroth>
T, but Christianity was not encountered outside but grew up inside the roman culture, and as a kind of a counter-culture to it
<freeemint>
that works as long the religions can approximated in old terms. that was (argueably) not possible with the new strand of christantiy
<beneroth>
T
<freeemint>
christianity seems tohave a few new more in touch with reality ideas
<beneroth>
it was also purposely set out to be different. else the strong in-group mechanism of it would obviously not work.
<beneroth>
maybe with the modelled reality of/within social minds.
<freeemint>
the word choice "set out" is bad
<beneroth>
how so?
libertas has joined #picolisp
<freeemint>
set out suggest more purpose and planning than i would think were at play.
<beneroth>
maybe. maybe not.
<beneroth>
in terms of sanitary, medicine and other technologies it was a pretty big set-back.
<freeemint>
There were hunders of judism-based cults and christianity happend to be so far from that that it fell in to another atractor leading in to a better local maximum
<beneroth>
yeah. you need to different yourself from other groups to be able to form a strong in-group.
<freeemint>
Well, these elements were lost when it moved to other cultures
<beneroth>
I like the "in-group/out-group"-model. seems to explain much stuff pretty simple, I find.
<freeemint>
Oh there was a mayor different effect. Did you know christianity was an oral religion for like 60 years?
<beneroth>
we can't be sure that it even existed in that time, can we?
<freeemint>
They thought Jesus will come back soon and did not write stuff down until almost all eye withnesses died of old age. Then they started writing stuff down.
<beneroth>
yeah, with many contradictions.
<freeemint>
because different scribes got different stories
<beneroth>
well the jews surely made a better job of keeping their oral copies intact and error-corrected.
<freeemint>
some of which were mixed with other oral traditions a the time
<freeemint>
the jews had institutions to that. the early christians had not
<beneroth>
T
<freeemint>
I also imagine that there were some oppertunists in the early time which changed stuff so it suited them
<freeemint>
Also later christian communities had different sources of truth until the council of neccea where they created a common bible
<freeemint>
and lot's of people died at that time because of different interpretations.
<freeemint>
The time of Schisma there is an good video by extra credits about that
<beneroth>
well currently we have quite many flavours of christianity around
<freeemint>
yeah
<freeemint>
Also interesting christianity seems to survive nationalism and communism
<beneroth>
it adapts
<freeemint>
and changes back to the original when pressure is gone
<beneroth>
well the most dangerous treat was humanism around french revolution. christianity got tamed considerably to be able to continue.
<freeemint>
Actually christianity is well adopted for pressure, becuase early history
<beneroth>
I'm not so sure you can talk like it is the same thing.
<freeemint>
T
<freeemint>
bt
<beneroth>
bt?
<freeemint>
but it hands that there might is something very resistant in christanity
<freeemint>
I think it is the idea that the individual is holy but corruptible.
<beneroth>
what do those words even mean
<freeemint>
to tired to explain that
<freeemint>
in older religion only the king (egypt) or a selected people (judiism) had a connection to god. In christanity everone can have a connection to good regardles of their birth, occupation, sex when he lives properly.
<freeemint>
*he/she
<freeemint>
*god
<freeemint>
Does that make more sense?
<beneroth>
yes, except that it isn't fully true
<freeemint>
I think it is reasonably close but let me hear your arguement
<beneroth>
there is branch of christanity called "gnosticism" which is about that.. personally seeking and meeting good.. was always fighted against as much as possible by the catholic church
<beneroth>
s/good/god
<beneroth>
of course, the church (back then the only one) had to keep the monopoly on the messaging between people and heaven.
<beneroth>
it is their product.
<beneroth>
no fans of FOSS
<freeemint>
T you can not seperate religion from implementation.
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
well you can to get satisfying mental models which don't give you any insights :)
<freeemint>
But as far as i know chrisitanity was first to come up with the holiness of the individual.
<beneroth>
uh I wouldn't be sure about that
<beneroth>
Buddhism is older
<freeemint>
the yazhidi people had some similar ideas but they did the old inbreading trick as a prosecuted minority.
<freeemint>
oh Ti forogt about that, but i do not want to judge budism.
<freeemint>
The yazhidi religion never aimed at spreading as christianity did with mass baptism
<beneroth>
well many religions are non-recruiting
<freeemint>
but the yahzidi are activly forbiding inclusion of others.
<freeemint>
... well finge religion you know little about,let's skip them
<freeemint>
let's say christianities holy individual was revoltutionary in the mediatranian