REVIEW - Unabomber manifesto: mostly useless.

936

•

REVIEW - Unabomber manifesto: mostly useless. (www.youtube.com)

Verdict: Mostly bullshit written by an individual that has high IQ in abstract symbolic thinking with an obsessive compulsive disorder that doesn't allow him to understand the world outside of the abstract symbolic psychological cage that he has built for him self.

Ted clearly has ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience in life, zero experience in organizing groups of humans, zero experience in running organizations and zero understanding of human and animal psychology. I have met people like this. They are usually mathematicians or programmers, are hugely productive in their specializations and can concentrate for long periods of time. But, they have no capacity to think outside of their rigidly defined framework of how they believe the universe works. You can't ever get them to concede that they could be wrong.

What he does get right, and correctly predicts as a problem that we will have to deal with in the future (from the perspective of the time when the manifesto was written) is leftism. Although his description of the psychological profiles of leftists are a little too high level, I think he might have provided a reasonable way categorize and think about what is a leftist, how their mind works and what drives them.

What he really gets wrong is the whole thrust of the manifesto: technology has destroyed everything and is the cause of all misery. This is where his obsessive compulsive disorder really shows up. He spends all of his time trying to make the case that technology has destroyed everything and that in order to be saved we must return to ... something nature something. Basically a ludicrously childish set of insights, incomprehensibly retarded analysis and a conclusion that is so vague there is no conclusion beyond we must return to nature.

I know he was experimented on by the government when he was young, but, this guy was broken at birth. In ancient times he would have been killed because he would not be able to provide for the tribe, today these types are useful in expanding fields of specialty that require a lifetime of dedication to move forward.

Overall:

1) Reasonable points made in the first 30 minutes or so.

2) The whole middle is nonsense by someone that has no clue about anything at all.

3) In the last hour or so he doubles back a bit and makes a few reasonable points.

4) The last part is absolute garbage.

VERDICT: The description of leftists might be useful because it summarizes their psychological profile better than most people that I have seen online. Other than that, the manifesto is useless nonsense.

FINAL THOUGHTS: I am forcing my self to read through a bunch of the stuff people link to or keep on bringing up like this manifesto. So far, honestly, most of it is utter garbage. For sure, all of it has some minimal value in either gathering up historical facts that have been deliberately ignored or obfuscated or perhaps even offer a marginal set of insights that MIGHT be considered useful. Overall, virtually nothing that I have read provides any useful information.

Next I will try to get therough the New Zeland manifesto. I agree with those that say that there is something odd about the massacre. I watched it, it did NOT look like people died, especially when he enters that one room with all the bodies in the corner and he fires a couple of shots at them and walks out. I have no proof (seen a few critiques online) but it doesn't read right. Let's see what this manifesto is all about.

So, recently I have been forcing my self to read various things in the general categories dealing with race. I thought Ted Kazinskys manifesto might be interesting so I downloaded the audiobook version online. Verdict: Mostly bullshit written by an individual that has high IQ in abstract symbolic thinking with an obsessive compulsive disorder that doesn't allow him to understand the world outside of the abstract symbolic psychological cage that he has built for him self. Ted clearly has ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience in life, zero experience in organizing groups of humans, zero experience in running organizations and zero understanding of human and animal psychology. I have met people like this. They are usually mathematicians or programmers, are hugely productive in their specializations and can concentrate for long periods of time. But, they have no capacity to think outside of their rigidly defined framework of how they believe the universe works. You can't ever get them to concede that they could be wrong. What he does get right, and correctly predicts as a problem that we will have to deal with in the future (from the perspective of the time when the manifesto was written) is leftism. Although his description of the psychological profiles of leftists are a little too high level, I think he might have provided a reasonable way categorize and think about what is a leftist, how their mind works and what drives them. What he really gets wrong is the whole thrust of the manifesto: technology has destroyed everything and is the cause of all misery. This is where his obsessive compulsive disorder really shows up. He spends all of his time trying to make the case that technology has destroyed everything and that in order to be saved we must return to ... something nature something. Basically a ludicrously childish set of insights, incomprehensibly retarded analysis and a conclusion that is so vague there is no conclusion beyond we must return to nature. I know he was experimented on by the government when he was young, but, this guy was broken at birth. In ancient times he would have been killed because he would not be able to provide for the tribe, today these types are useful in expanding fields of specialty that require a lifetime of dedication to move forward. Overall: 1) Reasonable points made in the first 30 minutes or so. 2) The whole middle is nonsense by someone that has no clue about anything at all. 3) In the last hour or so he doubles back a bit and makes a few reasonable points. 4) The last part is absolute garbage. VERDICT: The description of leftists might be useful because it summarizes their psychological profile better than most people that I have seen online. Other than that, the manifesto is useless nonsense. FINAL THOUGHTS: I am forcing my self to read through a bunch of the stuff people link to or keep on bringing up like this manifesto. So far, honestly, most of it is utter garbage. For sure, all of it has some minimal value in either gathering up historical facts that have been deliberately ignored or obfuscated or perhaps even offer a marginal set of insights that MIGHT be considered useful. Overall, virtually nothing that I have read provides any useful information. Next I will try to get therough the New Zeland manifesto. I agree with those that say that there is something odd about the massacre. I watched it, it did NOT look like people died, especially when he enters that one room with all the bodies in the corner and he fires a couple of shots at them and walks out. I have no proof (seen a few critiques online) but it doesn't read right. Let's see what this manifesto is all about.

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

No, no. it's fine. I got it all and already know Jordan Peterson and agree on not liking him as well.

I see what you are thinking about. Obviously I can't really disagree with anything that you wrote and we will have to see how things develop and work through it.

The problem with predicting the future is a problem of resolution (high resolution vs low resolution).

For example, in the late 80s early 90s I remember one author predicting that in the future people would mostly do information work. I remember thinking they were crazy, how can anyone build a house by just typing. Well, their prediction was low resolution and directionally correctly. But, if you zoom into their prediction and look at the high resolutione details, they were completely wrong. Not only did we automate virtually nothing, the amount of people employed increased and we had no idea that the whole information worker would be spear headed by sex workers and thots followed by big conglomorates NONE OF WHICH EXISTED (that is to say none of the blue chips of the day managed to really get a stake in any part of the information age). IN other words, we all could feel change was on it way, but absolutely no one could predict any of it.

We can see all kinds of predictions like this, that are directionally correct at low resolution but completely wrong at high resolutions:

Tesla and Arthur C. Clarkes thoughts on global communication were dead on. But no one had any clue that Twitter and Google would be part of the military industrial complex working to tear the country apart.

If you look at all of human writing and prediction making, you will find an intersting point: NO HUMAN PREDICTIONS OR FICTION WRITING IS PREDICTING ANYTHING BEYOND THE INVENTION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

It's as if there is a dead end in our imagination and we cannot see beyond it.

Perhaps the Matrix tried, but that stops at AI and doesn't go beyond it. Dune is predicated on humanity fighting a war against ai and outlawing computing machines forever. If you think about it, Dune is the real Ted Kazinsky manifesto.

So, we seem to be able to make enough low resolution guesses about the future that some of them turn out to be true, while, we have made infinite amounts of guesses about the future at a high resolution of detail and basically 100% of those guesses were wrong. I have never read a single one that was correct at a high level of resolution.

So, what does that mean?

I am not sure. It suggests a computability problem. Either we don't have enough computing capability to compute the future at a high enough resolution OR the future is not coputable at high resolution. If the future is not computable, it might be for quite a few reasons, one of which would be that while the universe is deterministic it is only computable in the past and not the future. That just means that if you run the universe simulation with exactly the same starting point and variables you will end up with different results in each simulation run.

You can actually see this in humans trying to compute the outcome of different economic systems. Rigid ideologies are held by people that spend all their time thinking that they can compute the future at a high resolution so they implement command economies like communism in order to generate outcomes that they want. Well, the simulation guarantees that not only can't you compute (predict) results at a high enough resolution, even if you could, each time you ran the simulation you would get different outcomes so you would never be able to guranatee the outcomes that you want.

You can also technically think about what communists do, but don't understand, is that they extract computing out of the system and centralize it in a single location in the system. In doing so, they serialize all computation and slow it down.

This is why capitalism works. What it does is simply acknowledge that while you can compute a directionaly correct trajectory, you CANNOT compute at any high enough resolution to be useful. Capitalism simply allows computation to happen at EVERY part of the system simultaneously. The end result is infinitely parallel computation that results in fast coputation.

Our brains work on the same principle. Inter neuron communication is slow but because computation happens in parallale at such a massive scale, you can have low bandwidth interconnects handle enormous visual systems, high level logic systems and all of the independent low level primitive systesm all calculating informationsimultaneously AT BODY TEMEPRATURE. No need for a cooling case beyond what your body provides.

So, when I read detailed analysis like yours, well, they could be right. And, it is useful to try and imagine all of the permutations we could run into. But, the math guarantees that we can only get things directionally correct and won't ever be able to predict anything at a high enough resolution to be useful.

And you aren't wrong. I remember the communist fall in eastern europe in the 80s and the leadup to that. The people that left all made money, the people that stayed all are poor (mostly). BUT! The people that left lost their souls, lost their culture, lost their children to foreign cultures and the people that stayed retained their history, their culture and have a future in their countries. The problem with my saying that we cannot predict the future at any detail kind of glosses over the fact that there is great pain in change and great pain in no change.

What I like about everyone on this site is precisely this: we are all trying to figure out what to do about the future, how to get together and organize as people without loosing our souls and our children to evil.

My answer is, let's keep on having these conversations and I want to read everything you guys predict. BUT!!!!! The most important thing all of us can do is to start working towards having 10 kids + per family. Of all of the strategies and goals that we can reach for, THAT is the single greatest and most fruitful calculation that we can make in the simulation.

// EDIT: The part that reads that the universe seems computable in reverse (into history) as opposed to is actually wrong. I meant that in the sense that hindsight is 20/20 and the future is really difficult to predict. That colloquialism is also wrong. First, while the future is incredibly difficult to calculate at high resolution, we can make predictions at low resolution, for example we can predict the positions of all of the planets to great degrees of certainty far into the future. We can predict all sorts of low resolution things about the future. Likewise, the math that predicts the future is the same math that lets us calculate things about the past. The saying 'the past is always 20/20' is a nice way of saying 'just like you cannot predict the future to any great degree, you cannot predict what would have happened if any single piece of history was changed, because the simulation needs to be processed forward from the point of that change'.

Basically, that whole part is wrong, I should have written something like "the past seems certain while the future does not". Or maybe not written it at all.

No, no. it's fine. I got it all and already know Jordan Peterson and agree on not liking him as well. I see what you are thinking about. Obviously I can't really disagree with anything that you wrote and we will have to see how things develop and work through it. The problem with predicting the future is a problem of resolution (high resolution vs low resolution). For example, in the late 80s early 90s I remember one author predicting that in the future people would mostly do information work. I remember thinking they were crazy, how can anyone build a house by just typing. Well, their prediction was low resolution and directionally correctly. But, if you zoom into their prediction and look at the high resolutione details, they were completely wrong. Not only did we automate virtually nothing, the amount of people employed increased and we had no idea that the whole information worker would be spear headed by sex workers and thots followed by big conglomorates NONE OF WHICH EXISTED (that is to say none of the blue chips of the day managed to really get a stake in any part of the information age). IN other words, we all could feel change was on it way, but absolutely no one could predict any of it. We can see all kinds of predictions like this, that are directionally correct at low resolution but completely wrong at high resolutions: Tesla and Arthur C. Clarkes thoughts on global communication were dead on. But no one had any clue that Twitter and Google would be part of the military industrial complex working to tear the country apart. If you look at all of human writing and prediction making, you will find an intersting point: NO HUMAN PREDICTIONS OR FICTION WRITING IS PREDICTING ANYTHING BEYOND THE INVENTION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. It's as if there is a dead end in our imagination and we cannot see beyond it. Perhaps the Matrix tried, but that stops at AI and doesn't go beyond it. Dune is predicated on humanity fighting a war against ai and outlawing computing machines forever. If you think about it, Dune is the real Ted Kazinsky manifesto. So, we seem to be able to make enough low resolution guesses about the future that some of them turn out to be true, while, we have made infinite amounts of guesses about the future at a high resolution of detail and basically 100% of those guesses were wrong. I have never read a single one that was correct at a high level of resolution. So, what does that mean? I am not sure. It suggests a computability problem. Either we don't have enough computing capability to compute the future at a high enough resolution OR the future is not coputable at high resolution. If the future is not computable, it might be for quite a few reasons, one of which would be that while the universe is deterministic it is only computable in the past and not the future. That just means that if you run the universe simulation with exactly the same starting point and variables you will end up with different results in each simulation run. You can actually see this in humans trying to compute the outcome of different economic systems. Rigid ideologies are held by people that spend all their time thinking that they can compute the future at a high resolution so they implement command economies like communism in order to generate outcomes that they want. Well, the simulation guarantees that not only can't you compute (predict) results at a high enough resolution, even if you could, each time you ran the simulation you would get different outcomes so you would never be able to guranatee the outcomes that you want. You can also technically think about what communists do, but don't understand, is that they extract computing out of the system and centralize it in a single location in the system. In doing so, they serialize all computation and slow it down. This is why capitalism works. What it does is simply acknowledge that while you can compute a directionaly correct trajectory, you CANNOT compute at any high enough resolution to be useful. Capitalism simply allows computation to happen at EVERY part of the system simultaneously. The end result is infinitely parallel computation that results in fast coputation. Our brains work on the same principle. Inter neuron communication is slow but because computation happens in parallale at such a massive scale, you can have low bandwidth interconnects handle enormous visual systems, high level logic systems and all of the independent low level primitive systesm all calculating informationsimultaneously AT BODY TEMEPRATURE. No need for a cooling case beyond what your body provides. So, when I read detailed analysis like yours, well, they could be right. And, it is useful to try and imagine all of the permutations we could run into. But, the math guarantees that we can only get things directionally correct and won't ever be able to predict anything at a high enough resolution to be useful. And you aren't wrong. I remember the communist fall in eastern europe in the 80s and the leadup to that. The people that left all made money, the people that stayed all are poor (mostly). BUT! The people that left lost their souls, lost their culture, lost their children to foreign cultures and the people that stayed retained their history, their culture and have a future in their countries. The problem with my saying that we cannot predict the future at any detail kind of glosses over the fact that there is great pain in change and great pain in no change. What I like about everyone on this site is precisely this: we are all trying to figure out what to do about the future, how to get together and organize as people without loosing our souls and our children to evil. My answer is, let's keep on having these conversations and I want to read everything you guys predict. BUT!!!!! The most important thing all of us can do is to start working towards having 10 kids + per family. Of all of the strategies and goals that we can reach for, THAT is the single greatest and most fruitful calculation that we can make in the simulation. // EDIT: The part that reads that the universe seems computable in reverse (into history) as opposed to is actually wrong. I meant that in the sense that hindsight is 20/20 and the future is really difficult to predict. That colloquialism is also wrong. First, while the future is incredibly difficult to calculate at high resolution, we can make predictions at low resolution, for example we can predict the positions of all of the planets to great degrees of certainty far into the future. We can predict all sorts of low resolution things about the future. Likewise, the math that predicts the future is the same math that lets us calculate things about the past. The saying 'the past is always 20/20' is a nice way of saying 'just like you cannot predict the future to any great degree, you cannot predict what would have happened if any single piece of history was changed, because the simulation needs to be processed forward from the point of that change'. Basically, that whole part is wrong, I should have written something like "the past seems certain while the future does not". Or maybe not written it at all.

parent
link

(post is archived)