Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44618)	9/17/2003 3:00:04 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Respond to of 50167

I was surfing through Steven Den Beste's weblog to search up on the fundamental mathematical concept of isomorphism and few links later I had learnt of the "Halting Problem" devised by Turing and the "locality" of mathematics. There were also mathematical proofs butressing philosophical arguments; Russel's proof against set totality and Den Beste's further corrolary to the gaps in omnipotence, and Goddel's ontological argument for the existence of God (which to be frank I still don't fully comprehend even after reading it three times). The web-log is exceptionally informative with suitable introspection and technicality that distinguishes it from a blogosphere saturated with rants, opinions and links. The key to Den Best's weblog is that it provide an interesting overview to subjects, which I've been detached from (my interest in applied mathematics & statistics is limited to the overlap with computational finance) and actually prompted me for research further (whilst trying to research on the Turings Stopping/Halting Problem I came across this thought-provoking futurist story on a possible path to extinction as posed by Goedels sentence). I am usually an avid reader of the latest scientific advances and to read of breakthroughs, for instance the latest one is that the Israelis have developed a technique to enable AIDS infected men to father children (though I had heard of this development more than a year ago). It is do with the abstractual aspect of science that causes me to wane interest since the falsfiability of claims, the cornerstone of the field, (and my own layman understanding) usually breaks down when things becomes too ivory towerish. That is why cosmology is a heated subject, because for the moment it is quite impossible to prove one way or the other whether we live in a cosmos, universe, parallel universe or whatever. Whilst it could be conceivably interesting that every nano-second parallel realities are branching off into separate existences, as is being hypothesised, it will remain rather obscure unless we discern the practical spinoffs from such research. Through my readings I can appreciate the improbability of sentient AIs, which are synchronous and digital, the difficulty in understanding the human genome code rather than decoding it. From what I understand Artificial Intelligence is not merely a manifestation of the computing power but fundamentally relates to how well algorithms can reflect the mental processes. Since the human mind is of a fundamentally different order from a synthetic (even if the latter has much greater computing and memory capacity) it sentience or awareness cannot be replicated. Computing codes will always fall prey to Goedel's sentence, which is a construct that defies the prevailing logical system (such as "this sentence is a lie"), and when they are caught in this logical loophole they require exogenous help in the form of their programmers (or other computer programmes operating from a different logical matrix) to drag them out of the logical loop. AIs can only truly acquire sentience if they can devise codes to will allow them to circumvent Goedels law, which I believe is impossible because of the insoluble and unpronounceable Entscheidungs problem, which relates to algorithms and the universal applications of their first orders. This is why the Gene Code can't be deciphered with such ease as well because our genetic code is sufficiently complex to the degree that it would take a pretty long time to able to full understand the reactions of one gene to another. At least all this makes me understand Matrix to a greater degree at least and this time I will listen carefully when "God" is speaking to Neo in that monologue. The last time I was just laughing and staring in blank comprehension at an exchange that was far beyond my limited scope of knowledge. Perhaps Neo of the Matrix will defeat the machines through a Goedel's sentence, since as the Messiah he would be able to know a logical loophole that would cause a continuous loopholes. Though of course I don't want to speculate on a movie such as Matrix, where keeping track of what is actually going on is a sign of genius. Zachary Latif 12:21

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44618)	9/17/2003 3:03:22 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

I saw a program on Kashmir, which was balanced in articulation and judgement since it was presented by a Britisher. Afterward my brother asked for my take on the conflict. Despite my fierce political opinions I was quite at a loss since it was such a nuanced topic and it would not do any justic to reduce it to mere soundbites. My approach to all conflicts is three fold; the ideal solution, the pragmatic compromise and the ossification of the status quo. For instance ideally in the Israel-Palestine dispute there'd be one united nation with the Right of Return extended to all, and a demographic balance to boot. The pragmatic course of action would be the bifurcation into two states however what I would consider even more pragmatic, from the Palestinian perspective, would be a full cessation to conflict and a preservation of the status quo, which had followed the incorporation of West Bank (Judea & Samaria) & Gaza Strip into Israel. The political cauldron is indeed bubbling and the Palestinians do desperately want a dictatorship of their own in the same vein as their illustrious neighbours, Egypt and Syria. However it is just such bad timing to demand a state when the Palestinians are at their weakest and Israelis at their peak. It is a complete reversal to any standard negotiation tactics and it is as though the Palestinians are threatening "if you don't give us a state then not only will we destory ourselves but we'll make sure some collateral damage spills over ot your side as well". The Palestinians are a fledgling population, a strong diaspora that has a global presence and will be firmly prosperous within a few decades (such is the identification with the Palestinian cause that assimilation will be a minor threat to the community), and in the domestic society the critical threshold for development is occuring. Political autonomy is indeed important but that was already guaranteed to the Palestinians during Israel administration and sovereignty for an unprepared nation is the worst gift (cast your eyes southward to Africa). If anything the Palestinians should be evolving political structures that allows them to fight their rights within the Israeli nation, for if you want to change the nature of the state you become a part of it rather than essentially alien. I can not understand the myopia afflicting the Muslim world since the appropiate context should be placed in the history of the civilisation. The conflicts over lands since decolonisation has lasted for a little less than a century however even within this short time frame we can discern the fruits of deferring conflict and ossiciliation of struggle. In virtually every Islamic conflict conflagaration has either occurred at the onset (Israeli war of independence 1948, Partition) or in contemporary times (Intifidah and Insurgency in Kashmir). The lesson learn is that the political structure had to evolve for the local elite to spearhead their rights to replace the weary foreign powers (Egypt, Syria, Jordan and in South Asia's case Pakistan) and sustain their struggle. For instance in 1969 Pakistan spectacularly failed to stir an insurgency in Kashmir since the Kashmiri Sunni Muslims (Pakistan's prime constituents) vehemently rejected it themselves. It was only after 1984 when Indira Gandhi tried to draw Kashmir into the centre (throwing Farooq Abdullah into jail) that the real roots of dissatisfaction bore in and Pakistan was able to capitalise and woo political grassroot support for Kashmir. In the interval the Kashmiris had no particular identification with Pakistan (or India for that matter since Kashmir had always been granted special autonomy) thus their neutrality in the three Indo-Pak wars. Sheikh Abdullah, and his National Front party, in 1951 resoundingly rejected Pakistan for secular India (calling Pakistan a "feudal" nation) and this is considered to be the referendum on the legality of accession by the Indians (though of course there is the caveat that no party can run in the Indian elections if it advocates secession from the Union therefore it wasn't a complete plebiciste as claimed). The Palestinian militia and government is orchaestrating their own political suicide with little foreign interference, save for ocassional shipment of arms, weapons and terrorists, and it is an indigenous struggle. Thus we can divide intercine Muslim and global miniwars into three phases. Phase 1; where the population is illiterate and requires sponsorship by a foreign power to advance it's cause. There is virtually no real political agitation emanating from the population because their development is exceptionally inhibited by centuries of neglect and underachievement. Political aspirations are foreign and the conflict is merely a proxy for foreign powers to achieve regional preeminence. Phase 2; the population has achieved semi-literacy (those societies at the higher end have achieved comprehensive primary education, some secondary and a growing number of students at higher study institutes) and is in the throes of sustainable economic development. The political elites begin to develop and dig deep roots in this time of modernisation (the poor trod the rich gallop) and there is a sophisticated power network that mirrors in complexity to the more advanced nations. The people are aware of their growing peoplehood and of the political injustices of foreign domination. The middle class is growing but still too small to dominate society politicals passion still have the unruly edge to them and the society is especially prey to utopians peddling easy fix solutions (Islamists). Dreams float in this environment with sophisters drawing on the hopes and frustrations of the people to sell their vision of a perfect society and mobilise the masses into action. The masses are particularly sensitive at this point since they feel they don't have their due and as such is willing to fight for them. Virulent nationalism, patriotism and religiousity catches on... Phase 3 the population is literate, reasonably developed and has a sustainable political system that is mediated by middle class sentiments and is not concentrated excessivelly in demagogues, plutocrats or tyrants. The society is keenly aware of it's political status but cannot resort to violence since they have so much vested in the status quo. The progress to development is inevitable and the population cannot risk a capracious and suicidal leadership. Political solutions don't seem so farfetched and comprises are more of the norm. Iran has progressed through these three phases in each political crisis. In Modassegh era Phase 1 dominated in Iran and the people, whilst favouring PM Modassegh, were not motivated enough to unseat the Shah. when the society had been in the throes of transition, Phase 2, Iran capitulated to the Republican Revolution and overthrew the monarchy. Now two relatively stable, and autocratic, decades under a theocracy has safely planted Iran in Phase 3(though some elements in the nations are still stuck in Phase 2 but they are a dwindling minority) and made the population averse to a possible bloody Counter-Revolution focussing rather on the dire economic situation. Palestine is in Phase 2 and it now comes to pass whether they'll do the same mistake as the Iranians and succumb to this growing passion or drift peacefully into Phase 3 and confront the Israelis in a more mature manner and in societal strength. They could throw it away with hastily won sovereignty and suicide tactics, that will lead to global disengagement, or the political leadership (Fatah and the power network) can restrain their political ambitions for now; a Palestinian state need not be inevitable. Kashmir is intermediate between Phase 1 & 2 but tends decidedly toward the latter. The people are taking their struggle in their own hands and Musharrafs policy in recent years has been to withdraw Pakistan's engagement in the region (gradually of course and without significant alarm to the massive pro-Kashmir element in Pakistan) with the hope that the insurgency and Indian military response will lead to a hostile population in the Vale of Kashmir inimical to India. Naturally the Kashmiris have lost their earlier neutral detachment to both nations for a greater national pride however Pakistan's strategy has been to set this off in order to force outright hostility and rebellion amongst the entire populace. The Kashmiri insurgents (and there are many) and the Afghani mujahidin are meant to serve as an escalatory factor that will serve as fodder for secessionary struggle. This strategy success can only be truly measured by the scenario test that if the bases were closed in Azad Kashmir/POK would the struggle still continue and the Kashmiris motivated enough to upgrade their passive support to a more engaged stance. Zachary Latif 13:39 latif.blogspot.com