Today there is no more famine, plague, or war.

Past: 2.8M French or 15% of the population starved to death between 1692 - 1694 during the reign of Louie
the 14th, the “Sun King”. In the 1330s - Black plague 75M to 200M died in England or 1 out of 4 citizens
and this was not the world’s worst event. Famine can be prevented today by international aid but when it
happens its thought of as a mistake that can be corrected not just “how things are”.

Present: It is predicted that half of the world will be overweight by 2030 - obesity is now the biggest killer.
Disease can spread faster due to air travel during modern times however diseases have decreased due to
medicine by vaccinations, antibiotics, and improved medical infrastructure.

Old Outlook - Peace: No war presently but unsure about the future. (Basically a cease fire) New Outlook -
Peace: Inconceivable under any foreseeable circumstances that war might break out between countries.

Cyber Warfare will be how war will be conducted going forward and within the countries of those
participating. Logic Bombs - Malicious software code.

Progress and death

Defeatists attitudes are those that do not acknowledge humanities achievements. What would be the point
in attempting to improve conditions? Things now are just like they were back then - violence, war, corruption,
disease, famine, poverty but this is not true.

We cannot blame it on what is - it is within our power to make things better. Humans always want more.
We are rarely satisfied with what we already have and are always on the lookout for something better.
Technological success breeds ambition, “what can we do with this new ability?”, old technology is used to
make new technology in a never ending cycle. If old problems are decreasing, what will take their place?
New age problems…

Given the choice between economic growth or stability, we always choose growth. Always new, bigger,
better but we don’t work on perfecting what we have. Next goals: Immortality, Happiness, Divinity (upgraded
into gods by superior power through technology) Peter Thiel wants to live forever.

People either accept death or deny it but few fight it through medical research which I feel is the correct
choice. Old View - Death is the source of life’s meaning. Modern View- Death is a technical problem that
we can and should solve.

Given the choice of helping people out of poverty or funding something else, the rich have chosen equality
is out and immortality is in. A-mortal not immortal. If life doesn’t end but by accident, people will be anxious.
People take chances with their life today because they know it will end no matter what. Woody Allen - made
a career out of death.

We settle on art, ideology, and religion due to death. We do this to live on some other way but once a
chance at escaping death is possible people will jump ship.

The supreme good

Finding the key to happiness. Happiness rather than life itself is the supreme good. Author says Epicurus
pursued happiness but I thought it was pleasure. Who is correct?

Social Benefits were created but it was to strengthen the country not for happiness. It was for the strength
of the nation not the needs of the individual. So what if the GDP is higher, does this matter if citizens are
not happy? or even worse if they are miserable?
Gross Domestic Happiness: People don’t want to produce, they want to be happy. Production provides the
materials but it isn’t the means. Highly productive but less satisfied or less productive but satisfied? Is deep
friendship better than a friend orgy? (quality vs quantity)

Epicurus - We are happy when we feel pleasant sensation and are free from unpleasant ones… Maybe he
was for happiness but used pleasure to obtain it?

One view: People are not happy by winning the lottery, a promotion, of finding true love. People are made
happy by one thing and one thing only. Pleasant sensation in our body.

Pleasurable sensations don’t last long so we are constantly on the hunt for more, but that’s okay since it’s
the journey that counts. Example: flirting and foreplay more exciting than having an orgasm, climbing mount
Everest more exciting that stand at the top (disagree) and conducting experiments more rewarding then
receiving praise and prizes. To me the climb is more rewarding if you are looking for an accomplishment,
but if your goal is observing a tranquil view then the summit is more rewarding (skip the climb).

We are wired to keep on wanting and desiring to persevere? To keep going and spread our genes?

Seeking pleasurable sensation poses a problem and that is a new thrill is always required. Climbing
mountains, playing video games, sexual adventures - one night stands, business men and the stock market.
There is little satisfaction from yesterday’s adventures, a new kick needed every day. Yesterday’s
challenges become today’s boring. Maybe the key to happiness isn’t the journey nor the destination but
they right doses of excitement and tranquility.

Maybe if the biological system is set we should hack this system with drugs? Recently we have been using
sleeping pills, anti-depressants, and stimulants. Most crimes are due to the pursuit of happiness (drugs) or
are committed under the influence of drugs when committing a crime. Waging a war on drugs = waging a
war on biochemical crime. Drugs that strengthen stability and growth good (Adderall) but manipulations
that weaken it are bad (cocaine).

Some say happiness is the supreme good but not the biological definition of happiness as the experience
of pleasant sensations. Epicurus unmoderated pursuit of pleasure is likely to make people miserable.
Moderated pleasure seeking is called Enlightened Hedonism. Buddha says the pursuit of sensations is the
very root of suffering. Such sensations are meaningless vibrations even when we experience them we don’t
react with containment but we just crave for more. No amount of pleasant sensations will satisfy.

If… Happiness = Fleeting pleasant sensations = crave to experience more and more of them = no choice
but to pursue them constantly. When you finally get them they quickly disappear and memory of past
pleasures will not satisfy (disagree), and must start all over again.

The more you crave, the more stressed and dissatisfied you will become. To attain real happiness humans
need to slow down the pursuit of pleasant sensations, not accelerate it. As long as people crave pleasant
sensation without experiencing them they remain dissatisfied.

Most people place their bets on the biochemical solution - develop products and treatments that will provide
an unending stream of unpleasant sensations and never be without them.

Buddha’s solution - Reduce our cravings and not allow them to control our lives. All sensations arise and
pass = they are meaningless vibrations and when we realize this we lose interest in pursuing them.
The economy, religion, and consciousness
The modern economy needs constant growth indefinitely in order to survive. If growth stops it will fall to
pieces. The economy is built on growth and needs new projects to pursue or goals to keep it going.
“Limitless projects”. Huge goals that can’t easily be outgrown or reached are preferred.

Fun fact: Plastic surgery started after WW1 injuries but it was realized that it could also be used for non-
injured people as well.

Chekhov’s Gun - A weapon introduced in Act 1 will be used by Act 3. A dramatic principle that states that
every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed; elements should
not appear to make "false promises" by never coming into play. The reason why police are so aggressive
is because when you give them military grade gear they are going to naturally want to use it.

We constantly move toward more complexity, genders, choices, personality traits, subcultures and groups
represented. People may become or have the opportunity to nurture their complexness.

In the past there were some safe bets in predicting the future. The overall structure was unlikely to change
but today we have no idea what the next 50 years will hold due to exponential progress and the amount of
possibility around the corner with the potential to disrupt the status quo.

History is important not to predict the future but to free yourself of the past and imagine alternative destinies.
You need complex people to face complex challenges and to be able to live in a complex world.

Mass extinctions occur every millions of years so existential threats are slim. No need to worry about
volcanoes, asteroids, and other threats of this type. Large animal extinctions were the main victims because
there were relatively few and they breed slowly.

Animistic (Animalistic) attitude - animal personification - thinking of elephants in terms of human

personalities considering their unique feelings instead of thinking of them as all identical. There are different
personality among humans therefore there should be (and are) different personalities among animals.
When the snake speaks – this is the only animistic story in the Bible. Other than that all animals are the
same.

Brain structure evolution: Reptiles - > Monkeys -> Humans

Domesticated Animals = 90% of all large animals today - 10% are large wild animals.

Raising animals to eat: Is it better to die by a lion than by a man? Different pros and cons but humans
overlook their emotional, physical, and social needs which leads to a different form of suffering then
surviving in the wild. We neglect them on animal farms.

Example: A pig lives in cage while pregnant. Objectively all her needs are met - food, water, shelter,
vaccinated against diseases, but subjectively she still feels the need to explore and be free. The pig feels
frustration and despair in these conditions. How do we know they feel this way? Aren’t they animals after
all? Because emotions are common to all animals.

All emotions are biochemical algorithms. The name mammal from translated word of original meaning
was “shared emotions”? Mammals can’t live on food alone, they need emotional bonds too.

Theist religions = man and god w/ animals silently in background. Animist religions give animals a more
prominent role, you could go in the forest and talk to things for what you need vs praying or asking god for
them. Ask for the pests to stay away from your crops, for the trees to give more fruits, and for the clouds to
bring more rain.
The Bible thinks it is alright to destroy all animals as punishment for the crimes of humans as if their
existence (animals) has lost all purpose if humans misbehave. The Bible can’t imagine a scenario in which
god repents creating humans and wipes us and spends eternity enjoying animals instead.

Some religions emphasize great empathy towards animals but they to always found a way to exploit them
to their benefit and to fuel human superiority - used for food, milk, labor. The Bible’s thou shall not kill is
covered only by humans, does not apply to animals.

Religions of hunter gatherers more involved with animals because of their close relationship hunting them
and being hunted by them. Religions that came after the agricultural revolution are not concerned with
animals and leave them out because they are not dependent on them and therefore they are not important.

Ignoring the feelings of animals is not surprising when humans ignore the feelings of their own kind (slaves).

Religious evolution -> animals, man, god -> agricultural revolution -> man, god -> scientific
revolution -> man only (humanists) -> technological revolution -> man is god?

Having a soul is incompatible with evolutionary theory.

1 - Example: The eye is made of parts that evolved to create this system and a soul has no parts to evolve.

2 - We evolved into a complex being of many systems. At which point in time did a soul come into existence?
It was there one second and not the next? Hence it didn’t evolve.

Consciousness = feelings and cravings? Descartes (philosopher - look up beliefs relating to this…)

The State of Science: Not only can Scientist read certain emotions but scientist can stimulate the brain to
feel certain emotions on demand. (A Google search confirms this – Transcranial Electric Stimulation)

When cars create a jam = no consciousness

When stock holders sell shares = no consciousness
When trillions of water molecules form clouds in the sky = no consciousness

but…
When billions of electric signals move around in a brain, a mind not only emerges, but one that can also
feel furious ( a conscious emotional state).

Scientists don't know how a collection of electric brain signals create subjective experiences. What is the
evolutionary benefit? Why do we have subjective experiences of hunger and fear? (IMO maybe because
we are not wired 100% the same way).

Why do we need a mind when the body works autonomously on so many levels? Why add subjective
experiences to this chain of processes? Why do neurons need feelings to kick start some chain of events
while others don’t? Feelings are only needed in 1% of cases after all, 99% of body activities do not require
conscious feelings.

Historians don’t argue that the allies won the second world war because god was on their side. Economists
don’t blame god for the 1929 economic crisis and Geologists don’t cite god for tectonic plate movements.

Torture and rape bad due to the subjective experiences involved but it’s just certain chemicals from a
neurological perspective. Reactions happen in the brain and various electrical signals move from one bunch
of neurons to another.

Noise from jet engines don't propel the plane forward and humans don't need carbon dioxide but
each breath fills the air with more of the stuff. Consciousness may be a kind of mental by-product
produced by the firing of complex neural networks that doesn’t do anything, it’s just there. If true
the consciousness experiences by billions of creatures is just pollution.

The analogies used through history mislead and distort the truth because they must confirm to the leading
technology of the day because you are forced to justify preconceived notions.

ex 1. minds are like steam engines

ex 2. minds are like the internet

How do we determine if AI has feelings or is just a collection of mindless algorithms?

Cites philosophy which concludes there is no way to prove conclusively that anyone other than oneself has
a mind, in the case of others we just assume they have consciousness.

If brain patterns of animals are similar to brain patterns of human it would be convincing that animals are
conscious since we share similar features.

Rat, dogs, and other animals have consciousness but unlike humans they lack self-consciousness. They
may feel depressed, happy, or hungry but they have no notion of self. They are not aware that the emotion
they feel belongs to a unique entity called “I”.

There could be different levels of self-consciousness, only humans understand themselves as an enduring
self that has a past and a future perhaps because only humans can use language to think about their past
self and future actions, other animals exist in an eternal present. Even if it seems they are reacting to past
and future they are only reacting to present stimuli and momentary urges. ex. squirrels hiding nuts for the
future, it is programmed in because squirrels who never lived through a winter do this too.

What gives us the ability to be the dominant species? It’s not intelligence or tool making but the ability to
cooperate in large numbers and to believe in and understand the concept of intersubjective entities like
money, law suits, banks, nations, human rights, and gods.

People in power stay in power by controlling networks of cooperation such as the army, trade unions, and
sports associations; they don’t allow for people to organize opposition. They also prevent the creation of
rival organizations (political, economic, and social).

Objective Reality: Gravity - It exists even if we don't believe in it.

Subjective Reality: It depends on individual beliefs and feelings.

Intersubjective - It depends on many people’s beliefs and feelings. Example: Money (people believe in its
value). The collapse of the soviet union happened on paper and people stopped believing. Writing and
money make mass cooperation possible through raising taxes to fund socialized benefits such as
government and infrastructure. Intersubjective reality will triumph over objective reality one day, and we will
make our beliefs come to life.

Humans - objective, subjective, intersubjective versus Animals - objective, subjective

Inventions and education

Writing - Prior to writing, stories had to be remembered by people and could not be overly complex. With
writing you could create extremely long and intricate stories, taxes, tithes (church offerings), contracts, laws
and regulations, and accounting is possible. Writing is powerful - with a stroke of a pen thousands of
refugees excepted and lives saved from the holocaust.

Egyptians didn't have use of the wheel – it wasn't invented yet. There were no horses or iron tools available.
Bronze tools were available but they were rare. Egyptians mainly used stone and wood tools operated by
human muscles. They built pyramids not by aliens but by great organizational skills. They recruited enough
bureaucrats and laborers and had enough food to keep them at work for years. When tens of thousands of
people cooperate together for decades they can build a pyramid even out of stone tools.

1958 Mao’s China - Mao’s impossible demand. Largest famine happened by inflating crop yields reported
to please superiors and each step of the way it got further inflated. When the official report when published
it was 50% more than the actual. China then traded fake 50% surplus of crops for weapons and heavy
machinery to other countries unknowingly leaving their country with half its food to feed itself.

When schools started using precise measurements the lives of teachers and students changed
dramatically. Before you either passed with a degree or you didn’t – there was no such thing as 80% or
90%, an A or a B. This was the mass education system of the industrial age. Governments were custom to
thinking in numbers and the school followed their lead. Schools then focused on performance and the
grades that the faculty and students received instead of the student’s education. Good grades don’t equal
a good understanding of the subject being taught. Grades trump real education in our society now.

Powerful human organizations get their power by forcing their fictional beliefs on a submissive reality taking
worthless pieces of paper and declaring them valuable and forcing citizens to participate in this system
because they must pay taxes with it which reinforces the government’s power in this cycle. College degrees
are worthless paper with real consequences. Entrance exams are another example. Fictions enable us to
cooperate better but the price we pay is that the same fictions also determine the goals of our cooperation.

The modern deal, capitalism, and humanism

Abandoning intersubjective myths (god saves) for objective knowledge (antibiotics) which save you even if
you don't believe in them. The narrative now is about what can be done right now and not later in an afterlife
that may or may not exist. The Bible’s parts were written during different times in history and then complied
into a book later.

Sam Harris says we just disagree on what makes us happy when our values clash. He thinks that all
humans want to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. That all ethical debates are factual arguments
concerning the most efficient way on how to maximize happiness.

Islamic fundamentalist want to reach heaven to be happy. Liberals think increasing human liberty
maximizes happiness. German nationalists think everyone would be better off if Berlin ruled the world. The
problem with resolving disputes is happiness can’t be measured in units of happiness and misery can’t be
measured in units either for comparison and planning purposes. There are no ethical disputes just factual
disagreements about how to best realize their common goal of happiness.

Modernity - Humans agree to give up meaning in exchange for power. Humans can’t live forever, they
cannot escape all diseases and cannot do what they please.

Old View: Everything happens for a reason, even war and plagues have a good ending. Trust god as the
director of the movie of life. He knows what he is doing.

New View: We are not actors in some larger than life drama - there is no director and no meaning. The
universe is a blind and purposeless process.

Since there is no script and no role we are to play there won’t be a happy ending or a bad ending or an
ending at all, things just happen one after the other. Modernity motto, “ shit happens.” Sine there is no
predetermined role, we can do anything we want provided we can find a way. We are constrained by nothing
but our own ignorance. There is no paradise but we can create one provided we overcome the technical
difficulties.
The modern deal - Omnipotence (having unlimited or great power) is in front of us, almost within our reach
but below us in the abyss of complete nothingness. Modern life consist of a constant pursuit of power with
a universe devoid of meaning. Modern life is the most powerful in history but we still seek and create ways
for more. It is plagued by more existential angst than say previous culture. The modern pursuit of power -
we have agreed to renounce meaning in exchange for power. The pursuit is filled by scientific progress and
economic growth.

Modern view - if you have a problem you probably need more stuff and in order to have more stuff you must
produce more of it.

Modern politicians and economist insist growth is vital for three principles reasons:

1. When we produce more, we can consume more, raise our standard of living and enjoy a happier life.
2. As long as human life multiples, economic growth is needed merely to stay where we are. There is a
limited number of jobs - economy needs to grow to create new jobs for new people otherwise
unemployment will rise with the same amount of jobs for a larger population.
3. Even if no new people are born and people are satisfied with present standard of living, what do we do
with the poor? If the pie doesn’t grow and stays the same size you could only help the poor by taking
from the rich.

During cold war both capitalists and communists believed in creating heaven on earth through economic
growth and disagreed on each other’s method. Belief in economic growth is almost a religion – it does such
good things that people go “all in” on it.

In USA free market capitalism is the rule and anything that helps it is protected like freedom of expression
but anything that stands in its way is not tolerated. If economic growth demands that we loosen family bonds
and encourage people to live away from their parents then so be it.

Capitalism deserves some credit in reducing human violence and increasing cooperation. Unlike other
religions that promise a pie in the sky, capitalism promises miracles here on earth and sometimes even
delivers. Capitalism has allowed famines to be solved with relative ease if people care.

Capitalism gets people to stop seeing the pie as zero sum and start seeing it as a win/win.

Capitalism “thou shall invest thy profits in increasing growth”. People that make or come into a large sum
of money now seek the best return, not satisfied with their money as is or thinking about spending it on
lavish luxury like past generations, now they usually put it in stocks instead of letting it sit in low interests
bonds, CDs, or real estate.

Economic growth = raw materials, energy, knowledge.

Knowledge gives you the most bang for buck because as you use it, it grows and it can also get you more
raw materials and energy. This is the scientific road to growth. Example: You invest in energy (oil) and oil
runs out or you can invest in knowledge which creates solar panels which gets you more knowledge for
doing bigger things in the future plus energy (solar) in the present.

The greatest scientific discovery was the discovery of ignorance, once people discovered how little they
knew they had a reason to seek new knowledge which opened up the scientific road to progress.

The economic pace will keep accelerating. We will need to merge with machines to keep up.
Previously if it was enough to invent something once a century, today we need to come up with a
miracle every two years. This current pace will only increase, in the future the economy will be
moving so fast that a recession could last as little as 5 minutes. Humans are not built to handle 21st
century data flow, our algorithms are out of date. We can try to upgrade but the internet of all things
might produce so much data flow that even upgraded humans might not be able to handle it. When
the car out did the horse, we didn't upgrade them, we retired the horses. The experiences humanist
praise are just outdated biochemical algorithms. Humanist argue that god is a product of the human
imagination but dataism (discussed at the end of the notes) says human imagination is the product
of biochemical algorithms. The dataist revolution could take a few decades or maybe a century or
two.

Global is warming overlooked because dealing with it could mean slowing down economic growth. The
poor are supporters of a strong economy because those who are worried about paying rent care more
about the economy than melting ice caps. The poor lives only improve when the economy grows.

Rat race = high levels of stress but is part of the modern deal to keep the economy running. The
modern deal needs to work hard to make sure individuals and the human collective don’t retire from
the race. We are inspired to constantly increase our income and our standard of living, even if we
are quite satisfied with our current condition, we should strive for more. Yesterday’s luxuries
become today’s necessities.

Social harmony use to depend on restraint since the pie was viewed as fixed size. Having too much (being
rich) was seen as ruining it for everyone else. In exchange for power the modern deal expects us to give
up meaning. The resulted in today’s world being not only more powerful but also more peaceful and
cooperative.

Humanist Revolution: The modern deal offers us power on condition that we renounce our belief in a great
cosmic plan that gives us meaning to life but if humans manage to find meaning without deriving it from a
great cosmic plan it is not considered a breach of contract.

It is impossible to sustain order without meaning. Since the universe doesn’t care about us and
there is no one overseeing the operation no one sets limits to our power.

Humanist expect humans to play the part god played in other religions. Humans are to give meaning to
their own lives and universe. “Create meaning for a meaningless world”.

You don’t have to disprove old religions to move on, you just create new ones and if it takes off the original
intent of disproving old ones has been accomplished.

Humanist - we are the ultimate source of meaning and our free will is the highest authority of all. Don’t rely
on an external entity, rely on our own feelings and desires.

Humanist slogans: “Follow your heart”, “listen to yourself”, “do what feels good”. Things are wrong
under humanism not because of what God thinks but because of how humans feel. Humanists look
inward at feelings instead of outward to the heavens. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

How do we determine what art is? Art is anything we think is art because what higher authority is there to
tell us we are wrong? This also compares favorably to a free market where the customer is always right - if
the customer doesn’t want the product or service, it is bad.

Example - chickens that are enhanced for meat can’t stand, customers don’t like this but buy it anyway.
The blame under this view falls on the customer not the producer. Is a company evil? If a company is
profitable then it is a force for good because the customer is always right and human feelings are the source
of all meaning and authority. (This example is one of liberal economic principals)

Humanist formula for ethical knowledge: Knowledge = experiences x (times) sensitivity.

We must connect to our inner experiences and observe them w/ sensitivity.

Experience = sensations, emotions, and thoughts. Sensitivity = Paying attention to sensations,

emotions, and thoughts and allowing these things to influence me, change my views, my behavior,
and my even personality. Experience and sensitivity build on each other in a never ending cycle.
You cannot experience something if you don’t have the necessary sensitivity and you cannot
develop your sensitivity except by undergoing a long string of experiences. Example: Had sugar with
tea while reading the paper. Cut out the sugar to pay attention to the tea. Moved to experiencing and trying
new teas (new experiences) and now enjoy a niche tea.

People use to use science and religion side by side. Science was for practical matters like building a bridge
and religion was for ethical matters. This is no longer the case today.

Van Humbled (early 1900s) 1. “The aim of existence is a distillation of the widest possible experiences of
life into wisdom.” 2. “There is only one summit in life, to have taken the measure in feeling of everything
human. (humanist motto?)

Every scientific yang - power, contains a humanist Yin - meaning and ethical judgement.
Often people only see the yang.

Yang - Reason and emotion - laboratory, museum, production line, super market.
Yin - Human feelings, desires, experiences, travel agents, restaurants, chefs, things to do and see (art).

Humanists view life as a string of experiences and tourism and art rely on this view.

Modern novels and films revolve around feelings now instead of external events and actions of the old.
Books now focused on feelings and experiences rather than heroic deeds. They are concerned with how
ordinary people feel and not about nobility or Greek gods. (however super hero (Marvel) movies are an
exception and I wonder if these do well because it is a take on the old that has been forgotten)

Certain TV shows like Survivor has elements of the past with people battling it out but really it’s a show of
feelings and people talking as there can obviously be no real fighting. Crusaders from long ago would not
relate to the show even though that’s what it’s going for.

Wizard of Oz and most classic modern books end w/ everything they wish for being already within
themselves. There is no need for some god like being in order to attain sensitivity, wisdom, or bravery, you
just need to “follow the yellow brick road” and open yourself to whatever experiences come your way. Also
true with Captain Kirk, Huckleberry Finn, and others.

Paintings use to be painted with the view point of how military units looked so you could observe the
formation not the individuals and their feelings. The artists want you to admire the strategic chess game not
the soldiers.

Books and paintings use to focus on generals, emperors, and gods but the focused now shifted to the
common soldier and his/her experiences.

Branches of Humanism:

Orthodox - Each human being is a unique individual possessing a distinctive inner voice and a never to be
repeated string of experiences. Every human being is a singular ray of light which illuminates the world from
a different perspective and which adds color, depth, and meaning to the universe so… we must give as
much freedom as possible to every individual to experience the world, follow his or her inner voice and
express his or her inner truth. The more liberty individuals enjoy the more rich, meaningful, and beautiful is
the world.

Liberal humanism - practiced in many forms. Motto: “What about me and my feelings?”
Liberal Art: Beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Liberal Economics: The customer is always right
Liberal Ethics: If it feels good, do it.
Liberal Education: Think for myself, I will find the answers within.
Socialist Humanism - Socialist and communist movements. Motto: ”What about everyone else’s feelings?”

Evolutionary Humanism - Nazis most famous advocates. They believe conflict is something to applaud.
That conflict is the raw material of natural selection which pushes evolution forward. human kind should
gradually become a more improved version of itself. They believe that not all human experiences equal –
a drunk vs a pioneering genius – some should get different treatment or preference. The experience of war
pushes human kind to new achievements. War also allows natural selection at last and gets rid of the weak
and rewards the fierce and ambitious. War wakes people up from the daily experience of life. It allows you
to live in the moment and not be preoccupied with the regular. Evolutionary humanism likely to play its
greatest role with genetic editing.

Democracy only works if people already agree on the basics and share a similar view but disagree on
certain issues.

Some think self-reflection is likely to distance the self even further from truth about the self because it gives
too much credit to personal decisions and too little credit to social conditions – Example: being rich or poor
is not ones fault necessarily but is most likely a cause of social conditions. This is a situation where reflecting
on personal decisions might not reveal the truth.

Only by understanding the surrounding socio-economic system and taking into account experiences of
others could you truly understand what you feel and only by common action can we change the system.

In liberal politics the voter is always right (self-exploration). In socialist politics the socialist parties and trade
unions are always right. (strong collective institutions).

Collective Experiences
1. Socialist Politics - Party knows best
2. Socialist Economics - Trade Union Always Right

Individual Experiences
A. Liberal Politics - Voter knows best
B. Customer is Always Right

Which experience is the most valuable?

1. Professor listening to Beethoven at an opera

2. Guy in convertible on a road trip blasting rock music
3. Hunter hears choir of girls singing an initiation song
4. Wolf listening to howls of a female

Liberal Humanists says all are equal except wolf. Socialists agree wolf is not equal but regarding the other
three, experience matters not only to individual listener but on the impact it has on the experiences of other
people and society as a whole. Socialists look at the content of music and what is stands for, its meaning,
and what’s being listened to. At the end of the day they leave it to the party to decide. Evolutionary
Humanists believes we are superior to wolves – that human music better than wolf howls – that there is an
unambiguous hierarchy of human experiences and we shouldn't be apologetic about it.

Taj Mahal > Straw Hut – Classic Art > 5 year old drawing; not all human experiences equal.

A dataist (this ideology covered at the end of the notes) would argue the entire exercise is misguided
because music should be evaluated by the data it carries rather than the experience it creates. A dataist
may argue that the 5th symphony carries far more data than the initiation song because it uses more cords
and scales and create dialogs with more musical styles. You need far more computational power to
decipher the 5th symphony and gain far more knowledge from doing so. Music according to this view is
mathematical patterns.
There is no serious alternative to the liberal package as of present day.
This package consists of:

1. Individualism
2. Human Rights
3. Democracy
4. Free Market

China is not a democracy nor a truly free market economy. China a promising breeding ground for
the new techno religions in Silicon Valley because it is not rooted, still flexible, and subject to
change. Religions that loses touch with the technologies of the day pose a problem and could become
extinct. Ideologies work best when they take into account the challenges of the current day and don't look
to ancient texts. For example, Communism can only exist with trains and electricity because you need these
tools for the logistics of transferring and shipping supplies to make everyone equal.

Have relevant answers to new problems = Marx ideology = first techno religion. Socialism failed to keep up
to date with the new technology.

Neurology and psychology

Humans and free will: People are finding out they have less free will then they otherwise thought. Genetics
are running the show in some cases, people might feel they choose to do something but it’s their genes
they are listening to.

Left vs right brain - creating a narrative of what appears to be a single self with a consistent and
clear inner voice. There are at least two entities in play at any given time.

How do you decide between a vacation in one city over another? Or over one brand of car over another?
There is no single self but different and often conflicting inner entities. Which algorithm will win? If you are
indecisive about something maybe two exists that are equally as strong.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) - Used for depression among civilians, but the military is
developing it for attention to benefit soldiers. Gaining the motivation to accomplish objectives could be a lot
easier in the future. TMS will help you focus by silencing and drowning out the unnecessary information
and distractions of the world.

Humanism says listen to your inner voices even if some scare you and identify our authentic voice and then
follow its instructions regardless of the difficulties.

Technological progress has a very different agenda, it doesn’t want to listen to our inner voices, it wants to
control them through TMS. Once we understand the biochemical system producing all these different voices
we can play with the switches, turn up the volume here, lower it there, and make life much more easy and
comfortable.

You can balance out some algorithms so they don't compete against each other or control which ones
should be dominate during a certain time or in a certain situation. In order to really listen to yourself one
must turn down the inner screams and chatter. This is potentially a good thing, focus on what matters and
drown out the things that don’t. We will be able to turn inner volumes up and down and give up authenticity
because it is no longer clear who’s hand is on the switch. Silencing annoying voices inside your head seems
like it’s a wonderful idea provided it allows you to hear your deep authentic self, but if there is no authentic
self how do you decide which voices to silence? and which to amplify?

Narrating vs Experiencing Self and the Peak/End Rule - People remember experiences by averaging their
climax and ending (narrating self).
Water Experiment: Cold climax + Cold ending = Cold but Cold climax + Hot ending = Warm. The narrating
self is duration blind, the length of the experience doesn’t necessarily matter for the climax and ending.

Peak/End Rule - Evaluates the whole experience by their average and doesn’t pay attention to the lengths
of these parts. The narrating self doesn’t aggregate experiences (pain example), it averages them and
duration doesn’t matter in the average. 10 climax and 1 ending becomes a 5 average despite the 10 pain
lasting much longer and the 1 pain level very short.

If something is unpleasant but ends well then it will be remembered by the narrating self as less harsh even
if the unpleasant part lasts longer for the experiencing self. The narrating self reflects on the past and plans
for the future. Common research cited is the Colonoscopy experience by Daniel Kahneman

New Year’s Resolution is the Narrating Self (When someone says “I” they mean the narrating self)
but when it comes time the experiencing self doesn't feel like going through with the resolution.

Liberalism is based on people having free will yet we are finding out there are no truly free individuals.
Liberalism won’t be threatened by this discovery but technologies such as Transcranial Magnetic
Stimulation (TMS) and relying on Google’s algorithms on what is best for us (basically being told what to
do but being better for it) will be the begging of the end for liberalism as we know it today.

If you want to make anyone believe in anything have them sacrifice something for it. Related: People
have a hard time of cutting their loses, this is why projects still get funded even after they are way
over budget.

Threats to liberalism
1. Humans will lose their economic and military usefulness due to technological developments, hence the
economic and political system will stop attaching much value to them. Robots handle production and
services and as well as military like drones and cyber wars.

Consciousness is not necessary, only intelligence it needed for a variety of tasks. Right now it just so
happens that the most intelligent beings happen to have consciousness. Intelligence is mandatory, while
consciousness is optional.

2. The system will still find value in humans collectively, but not in unique individuals.

3. The system will still find value in some unique individuals, but these will be a new elite of upgraded
superhumans rather than the mass of the population. Not everyone will receive these types of upgrades,
but they will receive some. In the future, unenhanced humans will be completely useless to the economy.

Humans vs machines
1. Organisms are algorithms. Every animal – including Homo sapiens – is an assemblage of organic
algorithms shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution.

2. Algorithmic calculations are not affected by the materials from which you build the calculator. Whether
you build an abacus from wood, iron or plastic, two beads plus two beads equals four beads.

3. Hence there is no reason to think that organic algorithms can do things that non-organic algorithms will
never be able to replicate or surpass. As long as the calculations remain valid, what does it matter whether
the algorithms are manifested in carbon or silicon?
Collapse of Liberalism
The liberal belief in individualism is founded on the three important assumptions that we discussed earlier
in the book:

1. I am an in-dividual – i.e. I have a single essence which cannot be divided into any parts or subsystems.
True, this inner core is wrapped in many outer layers. But if I make the effort to peel these external crusts,
I will find deep within myself a clear and single inner voice, which is my authentic self.
2. My authentic self is completely free.
3. It follows from the first two assumptions that I can know things about myself nobody else can discover.
For only I have access to my inner space of freedom, and only I can hear the whispers of my authentic self.
This is why liberalism grants the individual so much authority. I cannot trust anyone else to make choices
for me, because no one else can know who I really am, how I feel and what I want. This is why the voter
knows best, why the customer is always right and why beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

However, the life sciences challenge all three assumptions. According to the life sciences:
“1. Organisms are algorithms, and humans are not individuals – they are ‘dividuals’, i.e. humans are an
assemblage of many different algorithms lacking a single inner voice or a single self.
2. The algorithms constituting a human are not free. They are shaped by genes and environmental
pressures, and take decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not freely.
3. It follows that an external algorithm could theoretically know me much better than I can ever know myself.
An algorithm that monitors each of the systems that comprise my body and my brain could know exactly
who I am, how I feel and what I want. Once developed, such an algorithm could replace the voter, the
customer and the beholder. Then the algorithm will know best, the algorithm will always be right, and beauty
will be in the calculations of the algorithm.

People will stop listening to themselves, liberalism and individualism will cease to exist, and people stop
following their inner voices. People will no longer see themselves as autonomous beings running their lives
according to their wishes and will instead be accustomed to seeing theirselves as a collection of biochemical
mechanisms that is constantly monitored and guided by a network of algorithms. The algorithms don't need
to be perfect just better than our own and make fewer mistakes than we do. It would then make sense to
trust the algorithm than to trust one’s self with life’s choices.

The algorithms wont revolt and enslave us, rather the algorithms will be so good at making decisions for us
that it would be madness not to follow their advice. People will sacrifice privacy and autonomy for health.
Angelina Jolie had her DNA analyzed and trusted an algorithm that indicated she had a very likely chance
of getting breast cancer and made the decision of having a double mastectomy. Breast cancer also ran in
her family.

The qualified-self movement argues that the self is nothing but mathematical patterns. These
patterns are so complex that the human mind has no chance of understanding them. So if you wish
to obey the old adage and “know thy self”, you should not waste your time on philosophy,
meditation, or psychoanalysis but rather you should systematically collection biometric data and
allow algorithms to analyze them for you and tell them who you are and what you should do. The
movements motto is, “Self-knowledge through numbers.”

The narrating self that guides you through life will be assisted by algorithms. You will make the final
choice but it will be heavily influenced by outside advice (software).

Liberalism will collapse on the day the algorithms know people better than they know themselves.
As we have seen humans are no individuals and they don’t have a single unified self. Should the
algorithm obey the narrating self by keeping you on track with your goal or the experiencing self by
allowing you to relax and tune out as you please?
Regarding upgrading humans, the agricultural revolution downgraded farm animal intelligence because the
most savvy goat in the heard causes the most trouble. Humans could face the same path as some quirks
are not desirable in the economy – what will algorithms decide behind our backs?

The rise of dataism

Dataism - The universe consists of data flows and that the value of any phenomena or entity is determined
by its contribution to data processing. As much information as possible needs to flow as freely as possible.

How to improve dataism:

1. Increasing the number of processors. A city of 100,000 people has more computing power than a village
of 1,000 people.
2. Increasing the variety of processors. Different processors may use diverse ways to calculate and
analyze data. Using several kinds of processors in a single system may therefore increase its dynamism
and creativity. A conversation between a peasant, a priest and a physician may produce novel ideas that
would never emerge from a conversation between three hunter-gatherers.
3. Increasing the number of connections between processors. There is little point in increasing the mere
number and variety of processors if they are poorly connected to each other. A trade network linking ten
cities is likely to result in many more economic, technological and social innovations than ten isolated cities.
4. Increasing the freedom of movement along existing connections. Connecting processors is hardly useful
if data cannot flow freely. Just building roads between ten cities won’t be very useful if they are plagued by
robbers, or if some autocratic despot doesn’t allow merchants and travelers to move as they wish.

Thinking of humans as processors: the construction of the sapiens data processing system passed through
four main stages each characterized by a difference in different methods.

There were more processors at the expense of connectivity which resulted in isolated cultures with their
own views.

Stages of Dataism…
1. Cognitive Revolution - Made it possible to connect an unlimited amount of sapiens in a data processing
network. There is a strict limit to the number of other Neanderthals and animals you can connect to the
same network. This gave sapiens the advanced over other humans and animals. However as sapiens
spread into different lands and climates they lost touch with one another and underwent diverse cultural
transformations.
2. Agricultural Revolution - Increased demographic growth so the number of data processes grew sharply.
Allowed for dense local networks. Create new incentives and opportunities for different networks to
trade with one another.
3. Writing and Money - Human groups bonded and merged to form cities and kingdoms.
4. Scientific Revolution - Internet of Things (IoT)

Dataism is mutating into a religion of data flow. Human experiences are not sacred and homo sapiens are
not the apex of creation or the precursor of some soon to be upgraded superhuman. Humans are merely
tools for creating the internet of things which may eventually may spread from earth to cover the galaxy and
universe. It will be like god and cover everywhere and everything and humans are destined to merge into
it. A human is superior to a chicken because it can process more data and more efficiently but if a machine
can process more data than a human doesn’t that mean it is also superior? Dataist should maximize data
flow by connecting to more and more media and producing and consuming more and more information.
Dataism is also missionary, it wants to connect everything to the system including people who don't want
to be connected. Every living and non-living thing must be connected to the great web of life. The greatest
sin is to block the data flow. The freedom of information is the greatest good of all.

Freedom of Information vs Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression is a right given to humans to think and say what they wish which also includes
the right to keep their mouths shut and thoughts to themselves.

Freedom of Information is not given to humans, it is given to information. This value may infringe on the
value of Freedom of Expression because data must move freely and under Freedom of Expression one
may restrict data.

Just as free market capitalist believe in the invisible hand of the market, dataist believe in the invisible hand
of the data flow. You don’t need to understand it, it will sort itself out just keep data flowing and answer your
emails faster, keep contributing etc.

One day connecting to the system of data becomes the source of all meaning. Humans want to merge into
the data flow because when you are part of the data flow you are a part of something much bigger than
yourself. Data religion says that your every word and action is part of the great data flow, that the algorithms
are constantly watching you, and that they care about everything you do and feel. For true believers being
disconnected for the data flow risks losing the very meaning of life.

What’s the point of doing or experiencing anything if nobody knows about it and it doesn't contribute
anything to the global exchange of information. Humanists thought that experiences occur inside us and
that we ought to find within ourselves the meaning to all that happens thereby infusing the universe with
meaning. Dataist believe that experiences are valueless if they are not shared and that we need not and
indeed cannot find meaning within ourselves. We need only to record and connect our experience to the
great data flow and the algorithms will discover its meaning and tell us what to do. Writing a diary would be
pointless, why write anything if nobody can read it? The new motto is if you experience something, record
it. If you record something, upload it. If you upload something, share it.

What makes humans superior to other animals? In themselves human experience are not superior to
wolves or elephants. One bit of data is as good as another, however a human can write a poem about his
experience and post it online thereby enriching the data processing system and that makes his bits count.
A wolf cannot do this, there for a wolf’s experiences, as deep and complex as they maybe are worthless.
No wonder we are so busy contributing our experiences into data. It isn’t a question of trendiness it is a
question of survival. (so algorithms can keep providing expert advice in all range of things) We must prove
to ourselves and to the system that we still have value and value lies not in having experiences but in
turning these experiences into free flowing data.

Dataism is neither liberal nor humanist. Dataism also isn’t anti humanist, it has nothing against human
experiences it just doesn't think they are intrinsically valuable. When we surveyed the main humanist sects
we asked which four experiences are the most valuable, a dataist would argue the entire exercise is
misguided because music should be evaluated by the data in carries rather than the experience it creates.
a dataist may argue that the 5th symphony carries far more data than the initiation song because it uses
more cords and scales and create dialogs with more musical styles. You need far more computational
power to decipher the 5th symphony and gain far more knowledge from doing so. Music according to this
view is mathematical patterns.

Humans are not built to handle 21st century data flow, our algorithms are out of date. We can try to upgrade
but the internet of all things might produce so much data flow that even upgraded humans might not be
able to handle it. When the car out did the horse, we didn't upgrade them, we retired the horses. The
experiences humanist praise are just outdated biochemical algorithms. Humanist argue that god is a
product of the human imagination but dataism says human imagination is the product of biochemical
algorithms. The dataist revolution could take a few decades or maybe a century or two.
Where to get expert advice?

1.When people didn’t know what to do they read the Bible for ideas.

2.Humanist - humans invented god, wrote the bible, and then interpreted it, so humans themselves are the
source of all truth, if you are facing any dilemma just listen to yourself and follow your inner voice. Humanism
then gave detailed practical instructions on how to listen to yourself, recommending things such as watching
sunsets, reading Goethe, keeping a private diary, having heart-to-heart talks with a good friend and holding
democratic elections.

3.Dataist - When you read the Bible, you get advice from a few priests and rabbis who lived in ancient
Jerusalem. In contrast, when you listen to your feelings, you follow an algorithm that evolution has
developed for millions of years, and that withstood the harshest quality tests of natural selection. Your
feelings are the voice of millions of ancestors, each of whom managed to survive and reproduce in an
unforgiving environment. Your feelings are not infallible, of course, but they are better than most
alternatives. For millions upon millions of years, feelings were the best algorithms in the world. Hence in
the days of Confucius, of Muhammad or of Stalin, people should have listened to their feelings rather than
to the teachings of Confucianism, Islam or communism.

Yet in the twenty-first century, feelings are no longer the best algorithms in the world. We are developing
superior algorithms which utilize unprecedented computing power and giant databases. The Google and
Facebook algorithms not only know exactly how you feel, they also know a million other things about you
that you hardly suspect. Consequently you should now stop listening to your feelings, and start listening to
these external algorithms instead. What’s the use of having democratic elections when the algorithms know
how each person is going to vote, and when they also know the exact neurological reasons why one person
votes Democrat while another votes Republican? Whereas humanism commanded: ‘Listen to your
feelings!’ Dataism now commands: ‘Listen to the algorithms! They know how you feel. “When you
contemplate whom to marry, which career to pursue and whether to start a war, Dataism tells you it would
be a total waste of time to climb a high mountain and watch the sun setting on the waves. It would be
equally pointless to go to a museum, write a private diary or have a heart-to-heart talk with a friend. Yes, in
order to make the right decisions you must get to know yourself better. But if you want to know yourself in
the twenty-first century, there are much better methods than climbing mountains, going to museums or
writing diaries.

Here are some practical Dataist guidelines for you:

‘You want to know who you really are?’ asks Dataism. ‘Then forget about mountains and museums. Have
you had your DNA sequenced? No?! What are you waiting for? Go and do it today. And convince your
grandparents, parents and siblings to have their DNA sequenced too – their data is very valuable for you.
And have you heard about these wearable biometric devices that measure your blood pressure and heart
rate twenty-four hours a day? Good – so buy one of those, put it on and connect.

If Dataism succeeds in conquering the world, what will happen to us humans? In the beginning, it will
probably accelerate the humanist pursuit of health, happiness and power. Dataism spreads itself by
promising to fulfil these humanist aspirations. In order to gain immortality, bliss and divine powers of
creation, we need to process immense amounts of data, far beyond the capacity of the human brain. So
the algorithms will do it for us. Yet once authority shifts from humans to algorithms, the humanist projects
may become irrelevant.
Summary
Today having power means knowing what to ignore. So of everything that happens in our chaotic world,
what should we focus on?

If we think in term of months, we had probably focus on immediate problems such as the turmoil in the
Middle East, the refugee crisis in Europe and the slowing of the Chinese economy. If we think in terms of
decades, then global warming, growing inequality and the disruption of the job market loom large. Yet if we
take the really grand view of life, all other problems and developments are overshadowed by three
interlinked processes:

1. Science is converging on an all-encompassing dogma, which says that organisms are algorithms, and
life is data processing.
2. Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness.
3. Non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms may soon know us better than we know ourselves.

These three processes raise three key questions, which I hope will stick in your mind long after you have
finished this book:

1. Are organisms really just algorithms, and is life really just data processing?
2. What’s more valuable – intelligence or consciousness?
3. What will happen to society, politics and daily life when non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms
know us better than we know ourselves?”