Do religions & philosophies = operating systems for our brains?

I recall as a young elementary student, being told that brains are essentially computers. This made sense to me at a young age, but it wasn’t until way later that I began to abstract from the cross reference of cognition and computation.

This perhaps may be the most obvious parallel, but programming languages are inherently languages. Whilst one could argue that they work differently from a functional perspective as well as in the types of problems they’re intended to solve, when one begins to expand and broaden their understanding of language as a tool the differences seem to become increasingly arbitrary.

One begins to wonder, how does one written doctrine or collection of doctrines, dictate the way in which people live and organize for centuries to come; as is seen of successful religious, political, and philosophical systems.

In a sense these things exist as a set of instructions for a (group of) human(s) to follow, much like a program acts as a set of instructions to be followed by Computer processing units.

Let’s take operating systems for example. Most operating systems are created by various programming languages; as a parallel. Most belief systems, regardless of whether they exist as political, religious, spiritual, or philosophical; are conveyed through either written text or word of mouth, both of which require some level of articulated language.

Much like an operating system, the purpose which belief systems serve; is to increase, expand and or simplify the functionality of the core machinery. If one ascribes to belief system, than ideally most of their interactions with the world around them will be internalized and understood in accordance with and through that perceived medium.

Similarly most interfacing that we do with our computers is done through the medium of our operating system or tools for expanding upon our system aka languages/programming languages, and by extension schools of thought which may correlate to libraries, frameworks, and APIs for programming languages.

This can in both instances incite compatibility issues. For example if you are a believer in a creationist system like most form of Christianity than their system is in its default state incompatible with the Big Bang theory ‘thoughtware package’. Among many others. On the contrary if your an atheist, than the belief in god is incompatible.

I personally believe the world would be a far better place if more people realized they could believe in god and develop their spiritual lives and connections to the divine without ascribing to beliefs which inherently contradict scientific data, logic, reason, or common decency, but hey to each their own.

I also posit that by extension this would make Scientology the spiritual equivalent to temple OS. Both impressive systems invented under highly questionable pretenses. Both seemingly exist purely because they can, rather than arriving out of any real necessity, and both did a great job of attracting the public eye in spite of high degrees of obscurity within their respective domains.

On a similar note Since Jewish people have to be born Jewish to be accepted within the religion, doesn’t that make it kinda like Mac OS which under general circumstances is only intended to work on Apple hardware?

And what about Linux? They make it really easy for anyone to create their own version. Does Hinduism not allow for anyone to make their own derivation from its ideological kernel?

This could be argued as being true for Christianity as well, however Christianity is more often innovated by its own elected clerical leaders, rather than followers and layman. On the contrary, while existing Linux versions are often up-kept by their respective developers, new ones are being created all the time by anyone who wishes.

Technically someone could write their own version of the Bible (or windows.) But one would likely face religious and or corporate prosecution for doing so, in regards to either heresy or plagiarism respectably.

Note: This should go without saying but I will anyways: this is not to be interpreted as perfect comparison, but rather a broad theoretical framework for comparison. If my article offends you please do both of us a favor and unsubscribe. With all due to respect if philosophizing about the interconnectedness of all forms of knowledge plays on your emotions, you are without a doubt in the wrong place. However If you disagree and wanna talk about it from a level headed perspective that’s awesome, please disagree as actively as you’d like as long as your format is coherent with reason.

Now back to my train of thought. This could be a far fetched claim, but one could also correlate the innovation of blockchain technology, with Anarchist philosophy finally nearing full circular functionality.

Okay now slow down what are you getting at?

Well before blockchain technology it was kinda impossible to imagine an economic society functioning without an inherent leader. However I theorize that decentralized blockchain ledgers are the or at least one of the missing piece(s) that anarchist philosophy has been missing the whole time.

That is a way to deal with the transferring of resources without any central form of imposed government. With every end user hosting a copy of the block chain acting as a node for the server, every participating member thus holds an equal and identical representation and record.

If you really think about it, isn’t an economy where every participating member gets an equal amount of leadership; essentially the same as saying their are no true leaders?

To myself this whole thing sounds very much reflective of the systems detailed in theories which stemmed from primitive-anarchism such as mutualism, syndicalism and collectivism. I believe it indirectly speaks from all three, while still being compatible with the core fundamentals of Capitalism and thus retaining our ideological fertilizer for innovation.

There are many other places I could take this, such as the comparison of servers to real life hosts of business, services and knowledge. Or how computer networks resemble the flow of resources and information through various economic, academic, religious, political and social systems serving as network mediums.

After all networks existed before the computers we know today, postal systems a telegraph systems and telephone are all fully functioning networks. Albeit less efficient yet equally plausible methods of communicating and transmitting information even in the modern age.

I could go on much longer But I think I’ll cut this one short, as I feel I’ve painted enough of a general picture for readers to take this thought and run with it, expand on it, etc.

Actually quite literally, if a pictures worth a thousand words than this article is roughly equivalent to an entire picture. Regardless of that sentiment I hope anyone who took the time to read this article got something out of it, regardless of the how or the why. Well readers; I hope you all have a great day, thanks for taking the time to read as always!

Das Ende.

Advertisements

My thoughts on Alexa’s Noah Function and The AI movement.

Noa’s new Alexa skill has human narrators read news from NYT, FT, Economist & others

Noa’s new Alexa skill has human narrators read news from NYT, FT, Economist & others


— Read on techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/noas-new-alexa-skill-has-human-narrators-read-news-from-nyt-ft-economist-others/

I think this is a fairly useful innovation, yet it seems to lack the genuine feeling of innovation. Are they really doing anything new?

Bots that can read speech to us are nothing new. Consider Microsoft Sam or Microsoft Anna, which you may have once selected as your computer’s default voice before loading it with a list of obscenities for the amusement of you and your dumb teenage friends.

Also consider Siri’s long known ability to fetch certain songs or search results; is combining these technologies really that praiseworthy? To be completely honest this is something I assumed Alexa would have been able to do at launch.

Regardless I still have the highest hope for Alexa out of the current AI mascots. The feature that allows any purchaser can program new functions into it opens up a whole world of possibility that I don’t think Cortana or Google Home can even come close to.

While Siri’s bot is pretty damn smart in comparison to the other two as well, it’s extremely unlikely that Apple would ever permit customers the ability and API to add new functions and intentions to Siri.

I can only imagine what kind of crazy feats Alexa will be capable of once people have been messing around with learning interface for a considerable while. Before long she’ll be scheduling our doctors appoints, trading our stocks, starting our car, cleaning out our emails and reciting verses of our holy text of choice before dinner.

Though I love Alexa’s programmability, learning about her automatic self-learning and development skills left me a bit unsettled. Very generally speaking I think we should try to keep AIs dependent on sentient input to execute learning mechanisms. I’m not entirely certain what level of intelligence an autonomously motivated and potentially subversive AI reach, but I’m not sure I care to find out either.

Why do we need to keep making robots more intelligent in the first place? Wouldn’t we derive more benefit and harbor less consequential risk if we purely focused on making them more pragmatic?

Maybe I’m a sketch ball but some of the strange occurrences documented with Alexa and Google Home have left me passively frightened; that’s a story for another day though. Thanks for reading don’t forget to like, comment, share, subscribe, brush your teeth, floss and look both ways before you cross!

-Peace off

Noa’s new Alexa skill has human narrators read news from NYT, FT, Economist & others

Noa’s new Alexa skill has human narrators read news from NYT, FT, Economist & others


— Read on techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/noas-new-alexa-skill-has-human-narrators-read-news-from-nyt-ft-economist-others/