AI and its Discontents

       I love the AI community. Still working diligently after all these years, always believing the answer is just around the corner. Sort of like Fusion researchers. I expect they will figure it out... eventually. 

      They’ve been quite successful with various types of expert systems, but since the AI community keeps subdividing itself into smaller and smaller specialties working on smaller and smaller problems, I’m not sure if they’ll ever be able to put all the pieces back together again to create a system with general intelligence. And general intelligence is a requirement for autonomous AI. 

It could happen tomorrow. 

        But I’m not holding my breath. 

In the very early days of AI they thought it was simply a question of the number of components and connections. A neuron is nothing but a simple switch, right? only two possible states, right? fire/no fire, on/off, polarized/depolarized, sooo if we just connect enough switches together it should follow that the system will become self aware.
       Or something like that.
      (There is the minor issue that each neuron/switch may be connected to ten thousand+ other switches, but we'll just ignore that inconvenient little detail for the moment.)

There’s even a short story in the early SF literature about the mechanical switch phone system, (Yes, my children, telephone switching technology was originally mechanical!), of the period achieving self awareness after the total number of mechanical switches created enough potential connectivity to exceed the (unspecified) critical connectivity number.  
      Abracadabra, poof! self awareness. 
     Can’t for the life of me remember the author or title at the moment. Made a bit of an impression. The system announced its awakening by ringing every phone on the planet. That was its birth cry. 
      (As you will have gathered, the story was written pre common knowledge of software and programming.)

Didn’t turn out to be that simple, as anyone watching the growth of the web should have noticed. Billions of processors, millions of computers, a frickin universe of software, and the search algorithms still don’t come up to the level of a good reference librarian. 
      Often frustrating as hell.
     Things keeps improving, but still, I don’t want 2.648 x 10^6 hits. I mean shit, no one looks through more than the first three pages of results. But still, here we are with an entire planet worth of connections, server farms, mainframes, cloud computing, all talking to each other at the speed of light, and still no evidence of self awareness. Not even a hint of it. So it can’t merely be the number of processors. 

And speaking of processors, how about the chess projects. 

When the computers finally won against the Grand Masters, it was an interesting achievement. But wasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, anything even remotely resembling AI.

Unfortunately the Media, in search of the elusive sound bite, totally missed that point. 
     The designers freely admitted their computers were not using AI. That it was too hard a nut to crack. And also, strangely enough, Chess was chosen because it is one of the easier games for computers to deal with - the game of Go, on the other hand…. (Tho I do believe they have made progress on that front.)

Success in chess was the result of brute processing power dedicated to a single task.  They used a bunch, (that’s the technical term), of processor chips running in parallel, to crunch a lot, (another technical term), of numbers at very high speed, thus allowing the system to basically play out every legal response to the Grand Masters move to end game, and also, (and I love this, I really do), the folks who designed the hardware and software were allowed to tweak the program as the games were being played. So, I have to ask, was it really ChipTest and his descendants? or the programmers? As far as I can see, they only proved that a machine can win at chess if it can run almost all the possible permutations in a reasonable amount of time. Which is a good thing, after all, It’s no good if we die of old age before the damn machine makes the next move. 

  But it cast ZERO light on how a human Grand Master wins. 

      Tonight on Thursday Night at the Fights!

  We have - In the Blue Corner!

This year, adding 100 more processors running in parallel, with faster clocking, (42 teraflops more per second!), running our new and improved software, using hundreds of watts of electricity, producing thousands of Btus of waste heat,  and weighing in at over 100 pounds of metal, silicon, plastic, and this that and the other.
"The Current Hardware!”

 
      And, The Challenger, In the Red Corner!!!  We have!!!

The same brain as last year!!! (Also known as, "Some Russian Guy"!)

Weighing in at about three pounds! That wrinkly grey blob of organic matter that runs on glucose and oxygen, consuming almost enough power to light a twenty watt light bulb. Yes! That three pound blob of organic matter that can “calculate” approximately three positions per second.  That three pound blob of jello, dedicating a minor part of itself to solving the problems of the game at hand. 
      Yes! It's “The Same Old Wetware!” 

 
The computer is a specialist, it plays chess. That’s it. That is all it can do.

The human Chess Master not only plays chess, the Chess Master can drive a car, talk, walk, learn, think about what he wants for dinner, and, look at the sunset and appreciate its beauty. (Well, that last one is a stretch, admittedly.) The total physical area of his or her brain actually involved in playing the game might equal the surface area of one of the chips in Big Blue. (Or whatever the current generation is called.) 
     It's just not fair.

But, if we do succeed in building AI with general intelligence, (and I'm fairly certain we eventually will), there’s this still this minor problem - I think of it as the fly, (or bug, if you will), in the ointment. Potentially, a really big, really ugly fly - that anyone who gives the matter a moment of serious thought should see. If the system is to be totally autonomous, it must want to do something. It has to have some sort of drive. It must have desire. (It doesn't need to know why it wants to do something - that will come later - but it does have to want to do something.)

There’s a syndrome called akinetic mutism. It occurs in cases of stroke or other damage to the frontal lobes, or damage to the cingulate gyrus. Though it is also called Coma Vigil, it is not what most people would consider a coma. The people affected have fairly normal sleep / wake cycles, and during waking they are conscious, they will follow people moving about the room with their eyes. Most people who present the syndrome die. But in the few instances where folks have returned to the land of the active, and been interviewed, they report that they were aware of what was going on around them, but they had no desire to do anything. The systems were in place, data was being processed, awareness existed, but they did nothing. They understood when they were requested to perform actions, but still they did nothing. They say they did not experience a desire to respond. They simply didn’t want to do anything.

So, it would seem, the design of an autonomous AI system must include, oddly enough, a desire module, and also, if it is to survive in the real world outside the controlled conditions of the lab, (long enough to achieve its goal), an instinct for self preservation. 

Here’s the big ugly fly.

The moment someone, (and if we succeed in AI it will be a someone), wants or desires something, has a goal, or an objective, in a world of other someones, who have competing, conflicting, or mutually exclusive goals or desires, there will be conflict, it will be unavoidable, and always potentially lethal. (How bad do you want it? What would you do for it? How far would you go?)
     Asimov invented the "Laws of Robotics" as a sort of end run around this problem, hard wired in, as it were. And they made for good stories,


      But -

The behavior of any system that complex, with that many lines of code*, that amount of processing power, and that degree of necessarily flexible architecture, (capable of reprogramming and rewiring itself on the fly, in real time), will be inherently unpredictable. 
     We can't currently predict the behavior of unintelligent software being run on unintelligent hardware. (If we could, we could design systems would never crash or lock up.) And, if certain hypotheses are true, we will never be able to. The best we will be able to achieve will be probabilistic predictions, aka "best guesses". It’s N^n beyond the Halting Problem. 

If you design a system to learn, as soon as you turn it on it will begin to change, and you will no longer be able to predict what it will do with any certainty. (Any parent knows this.)

And here’s another thing. Just like any of us, the AI program can only know the world through its senses. Whatever senses we may chose to give it, or eventually it may choose for itself. 

See where I’m going with this?

And so, when we have something at least as complex as a human brain, with the brains N^n potential states, not all of those states will be "healthy states".  This is inevitable given the law of unintended consequences. (And it is a hard and fast law.) So what do we do when, (not if, but when), our AI program becomes psychotic and delusional? Especially if we've given it control over something very important? 

  
    It will happen. I guarantee it.


* I am not a believer in the idea that AI can be found in software. Or that software can ever achieve intelligence. I'm fairly certain that brains run on minimal software, and that intelligence is the result of a flexible neural architecture with continuous remodeling re-weighting capability, and genetically coded, (for lack of a better word), firmware. 

Copadocetic

Dedicated to George Rekers....

So I'm wonderin, as I so often do, about the whole omniscient thing. Like, what would it be like to know everything it is possible for you, as G, to (logically) know? (I threw that "logically" in for the theologians and philosophers, it helps to keep them happy. Not sure why.)

And whether G, who is all good, can know what it's like to be, say, Jeffery Dahmer, or Adolf Hitler.

Or whether G, who is pure spirit, and wholly incorporeal, can know what it feels like to have a boner.

Or hard nipples and a wet pussy.

You know, to really experience the temptations of the flesh. I mean, G could have an intellectual understanding of it, understand it from a design standpoint, maybe, (by the way G, about the whole design thing? Needs some serious work. How about next time you engineer the mammalian visual system you run the wiring behind the photon detectors, you know? instead of over the top? where it gets in the way of the photons? avoid the whole huge blind spot smack in the middle of the visual field issue? And, (and this is just a thought you understand), maybe point the photon detectors towards the front? - Oh wait, that's right, you did do that. With the Mulloscs! On the fifth day! Before you made people. So... what was up with that...? Squids get better designed eyes than people? When you created us on the sixth day, after you created squids, and octopi, and cuttlefish and slugs! had you forgotten what you had done the day before...? Dude, you must'a been smokin waaaaay too much weed!), but, back to the subject at hand, is that in any way the same experience as being in a body and HAVING a boner? And as regards having a hard nipples and a wet pussy? Or what it's like to give birth? (The crucifixion lasted, what? three hours tops?) Well, as G only incarnated as C, who was undeniably male, I guess the creator of all must not have thought that understanding the undeniably weak, and inferior, and most originally sinful half of his creation was worth the effort.

Jeez! Ladies remember - Eat ONE fricken Apple.... (He never forgets. Never ever forgets.)*

I mean, I know there's all that theology about C, aka Logos, aka the word, (which is father to the thought, or vice versa), becoming incarnate so that G/C could know what it's like to actually be corporeal, and, since G and C are consubstantial, i.e. what C knows, G knows, ya know? I mean they're like this, (I make crossed finger gesture here), right? They have to know each others innermost thoughts! They ARE each others innermost thoughts! Except... Well... there is that stupid pesky scripture, Matt 24:36, where C pleads ignorance about the arrival time of Gs imperial rule.

Unless C was lying about not knowing....

But other than that? G and C?  Totally Simpatico! I'm tellin you!

But, at the same time, there's the entire tension about whether C actually experienced the temptations of the flesh. Cause he has to be the perfect sacrifice, which means unstained by sin, right?

But, if I remember my catholic doctrine (or is it dogma? whatever... I can't be bothered to look it up right now), rightly, to even have the impulse is to commit the sin. To even consider the thought is to have, or form, the intent, and is therefore the same as actually committing the sin. So c'mon dudes, if simply having the boner is a sin, really, I'm thinkin "as well in for a penny as in for a (wait for it...) pound".  I mean, ya gotta wonder... did C ever look at Mary Magdalene and think, "Daddy Damn! But I would love to get me some of THAT! Mmmm mm mmm mmm mmmmm. Must be a little... coooool in here tonight. Just look at those hellascious nipples pokin up through that robe. Bet they're sweet as the grapes in the Garden of Gethsemene! Yummy!"

Except, as soon as that thought, impulse, desire, (or anything else for that matter), arose, BANG! C has SINNED! And no more perfect sacrifice.

But if C never has any of those thoughts or desires, then C has no idea what it's really like to be in the flesh, doesn't know what it's really like to be one of us, and the whole exercise is pointless.

And the immaculate conception? What a terrible thing to do to a person. (Yeah, I know that's only doctrine, and not to be found, in any way shape or form, in the scriptures. Still....)

Mary is sitting in the living room, wondering what to cook for dinner, when suddenly!

POOF! Flash! Bang! Big cloud of smoke!


ArchAngel Gabriel appears!

Gabe: Yo yo yo! Yo! Mary! ArchAngel Gabe here! Guess what! You were born without sin! On account'a G is the man with the plan! An he knows how them silly catholic theologians is gonna come up with a doctrine what gots NO basis in the scriptures. But that won't stop them! Those darn catholics! They so funny!

Anyway! 

G's gonna knock you immaculate self up! Yeah, thas what I'm sayin! You gonna get pregnant by G! By "The Man" hisself! Well, actually, he's gonna send down the holy spirit to do the job, on accounta... well...  you bein... a girl an all... see...  well... G... G got this... this... thing about pussy, see? You know how it is... all that "unclean" shit? I mean you read The Law right? I mean we know you immaculate, and ain't never bled, an won't never bleed... or have sex... or an orgasm... which is a shame really... really... really a shame... cause you a  fine lookin girl... an those look like some really nice boobies you got under that there robe...  But... well... it's just a G thing ya know? We don't question it. He bein The Boss an all. But G not gay or nothin like that!  Not gay. No Way! Nooooooot gay! Absolutely Not!  Not even a little tiny bit... Even tho he created Adam first, an wasn't really plannin on creatin women... um... Eve, at all... cuz.... um...  you know how it is... An all that ragin bout men layin wit men like they was women, an how it's an abomination... an ya'll shouldn't be doin that, else G gonna do somethin REALLY bad to ya... Like he did later on? Ya know? That whole sodom an gomorrah destruction thing?  All that Hellfire an Brimstone rainin down... Weren't nothin to do with... Umm.... Cuz G don't got NO internal conflicts, or nothin like that... No way... None a dat shit... So....

Anyway... 

The holy spirit gonna come down an knock you up! So his son can die for the forgiveness of sin and save the world! (but you an Joe gotta raise him on you own, see, cause G ain't gonna be around much... G be busy runnin the universe you know... Full time job... That ol G... he busy busy busy...)

Mary: (Shocked silence)

Gabe: Now I can see you got some concerns here, but I'm gonna be talkin to Joe 'bout this real soon, so don't you be worryin your pretty little head about what he's gonna say or think, or none a that, cause we got that covered.

Mary: (Stunned silence)

Gabe: Oh. An did I tell ya they's gonna be some wiseguys comin from th' east? No? Yeah. Three wiseguys. From the East. They gonna follow some star, see? so old Matthew, or whoever, can work that ol Star Prophecy into the gospel. An those three wise men don't got nothin to do wit makin a reference to G an friends visitin Sarai and Abram. Nothin A Tall! Anyway... They gonna be bringin you an the baby gold an frankincense an myrrh an all that. An if ya'll sell the frankincense an myrrh on ebay, an invest that gold, why, you an Joe gonna be set financially for life! I'm tellin you! It's all good. Would I lie to you? This is Gabe here! Th' ArchAngel! See these wings? Pure Gold!

Mary: (Strangled silence)

Gabe: Oh, an 'bout those wiseguys... they is gonna be a little problem wid dat, see... just a little one... see... uh... they gonna be talkin wit crazy ol King Herod on th way in, right? 'Bout your son bein the new king a the jews an all? An... well...  you know that crazy old herod, how he kinda got that psychotic an delusional thing goin on? So, he's gonna be orderin the murder of all the babies under two years old, to try an kill yo... kill Gs son. So... ya'll might wanna be headin out egypt way after the wise men show up, ya know?

Mary: ...

Gabe: Now I know what you gonna say, bout all them innocent babies bein murdered, when G could certainly prevent it from ever happenin, him being G an all. Like maybe him appearin to the wiseguys an tellin em NOT to talk to herod on the way in... like he gonna do... on the way out... Uhhh... But ya gotta believe it's all part a G's greater plan. I mean, Eternal Salvation versus a few thousand dead babies an broken hearted mamas an all that innocent blood runnin in the streets... Brr, give me chills jus thinkin about it... Still... I mean...  a few thousand murdered babies... salvation... a few thousand murdered babies... salvation.... You do the math. An after all, I mean... it ain't like G got a problem with murderin babies... they is some precedent, what with  G murderin of all th eqyptian first born all those years ago... An the canaanite genocide... Cept for the virgin girls... An all those years what G demanded the infant sacrifice of ya'lls first born... Which ain't gonna be totally erased from the scripture...

Don't know why he gonna let that slide...

Mary: ...

Gabe: Bad planning? Bad planning? Watch'u talkin 'bout Willis! Bad planning... Sheeit! This is G you talkin about! Ain't no bad plannin involved! He seen this since the beginnin a time. Ain't you read your book a Job? Ya know? "Where was you when the foundations of th earth was laid" an all that? He's G! He's The Man! Don't you be talkin no "bad planning"!

So anyway, thas the plan. The holy ghost gonna be along any time now an be gettin down to bidness. So... You have you a good day! I'll be headin back to heaven now. Gotta tell G things is alright on this end. Got places to go an people to see! (whispers) Me an Mike got us a game a texas hold'em with Lucifer an the boys tonight. Lucifer he be gettin some bad press, but he not a bad guy at heart.

So... Be seein ya!

Peace, Out!


*Actually he forgets stuff all the time, but that's fodder for another post. Probably dozens of other posts. Maybe hundreds! I'll NEVER run out of material! He's a fricken Gold Mine! A license to print money! 

Witness of the holy ghost/spirit

There's this term I keep running across, (and no matter how many times I run it over, it still won't die!), "the witness of the holy spirit/ghost".

I'm not really sure why it's called the witness of the holy ghost/spirit, since it is usually described as a "feeling", or as "knowing in your heart".

It's sometimes good, and sometimes bad, depending.

This feeling is evidently how christians "know" when they're on the right track, doing what  G wants them to be doing, and all is right with the world.

Apparently it's a sort of warm fuzzy feeling when they're doing the right thing, (like executing a man in a crowded church), and a cold prickly feeling if they're contemplating doing something the holy ghost regards as wrong, (like not executing a man in a crowded church).

Oh. Sorry. Cheap shot.

OK. How about this.

It's the cold prickly feeling christians experience when they have an evil impulse, like a desire to masturbate, (remember, all fleshly desires are evil!), and the warm fuzzy feeling they get when, instead of masturbating to orgasm,  they haul out their flagellum (thought I was going to say something else didn't you!) and flagellate themselves to orgasm. That way they can feel really good and really bad at the same time! (It's called mortification of the flesh. You should try it! It's great! )

(For those of you unfamiliar with catholicism and it's pathological love of pain and suffering, there is the practice, found within certain holy orders, of the flagellum, (think cat '0 nine tails, or scourge, (like christ, get it?)) called "the discipline". Its application to the bare skin of the back, by oneself, or others, (hard enough to draw blood being optional), is an act of great spiritual merit. I think it's sort of like spinning a prayer wheel, or hanging a prayer flag, except it's effective, unlike those other unholy, satanic, pagan practices!)

The witness of the holy spirit/ghost is also what tells christians when they're interpreting scripture correctly. (Though one would think that an omniscient deity would be capable of conveying his desires to us in a clear, concise, nonfigurative, non-metaphorical manner that would not require warm fuzzy feelings to validate the correctness of his believers interpretations, since Gs perfect crystal clarity would make his desires obvious to everyone, and thus render interpretation either totally unnecessary, at best, or seriously counterproductive, at worst.)

Unless, maybe, G is a strict deconstructionist, (I think I read somewhere that derrida is god, so....), in which case... not even he has any idea what he meant! (G, not derrida... unless derrida is god... in which case... oh the hell with it!) Whatever! It means the rest of us are just S... O... L...!   I think...

But that could just be me.

This witness just seems like an added and unnecessary step. (Unless the holy ghost is like the vp and really has nothing else to do with his time, so this is Gs way of keeping him busy and out of trouble. I mean, don't forget there was that whole lucifer and the fallen angels fiasco!  Oy! What a disaster!)

But I'm not at all sure why they refer to the holy ghost in the singular.

I mean, if there is only one holy ghost, and one god, and one son, and they're all on the same page, and they all want the same thing, and all have the same plan - which they must, because, you know, all their channels of communication are always open, I mean, they have to be, since they are consubstantial, (unless maybe G has some sort of divine dissociative personality disorder or something?) - anyway, given that, why are there so many christian sects/churches/movements? Often disagreeing vehemently with each other, all the while claiming "witness of the holy ghost/spirit" as absolute proof of their rightness! (Implying, it goes without saying, everybody else's wrongness.)

This fact of conflicting witness would seem to indicate a multiplicity of holy spirits. (Unless the holy ghost is just having us on, you know, as a sort of joke?)

But they keep telling me there's only ONE! *

Since it's obvious, (at least to me), that these conflicting witnesses can't all be right, how, exactly, is one to choose? How is one to determine whether or not one has experienced a true witness of the holy spirit/ghost? and that the warm fuzzy feeling one is having is not the result of satan! or the bunch of lunatics one has fallen in with having spiked ones coffee with something psychoactive. (Mmmm. good coffee... wow... I'm feelin kinda funny...  A little... Odd...  Ooooh! Pretty colors! Why yes, I will give you money. How much do you want? Blank check? Sure! Why not. Ooooooh! Pretty! )

(And yes, I know, as far as the catholic church is concerned, it is still the ONLY church, and, barring Gs grace, (which, like his peace, passeth all understanding), all protestants are, at the very least, going to spend a looooooooooong time in purgatory, if G doesn't choose the condemn them to hell for questioning the authority of the pope, who is Gs representative on earth, (at least until the son rises), which makes questioning the pope exactly the same as questioning G. This is catholic doctrine, (just like "it's OK to sacrifice children to protect the church. After all G did it"), it hasn't changed. Theirs was, and is, the only true church. And they have the scars to prove it! ("Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!" Sizzle... Whack!  "Thank you sir! May I have another!")

Apostolic and universal, whose holy faith let us now declare.

Though they don't trumpet it publicly, the basic feeling in the catholic hierarchy regarding protestantism remains  "See what happens when you let any idiot read and interpret the scriptures?"

It's heresy I tell you!

Heresy!

*Until they get their shit together, I'll remain a godless heathen. 

Which Passover?

 Now if ya'll don't believe that the bible is inerrant, then the following won't be a matter of ultimate, or even mild to moderate concern, but, ya know, as a reasonably, (but not excessively), intelligent, (and also, as you can see, extremely modest), general reader, unacquainted with the rube goldberg constructions which I am absolutely CERTAIN that some apologist somewhere has come up with to explain the following conundrum,  I must admit I am puzzled, yea verily! I say unto thee! I am puzzled by the following

According to 2 Chron 30: 1 - 27, Good old great grandfather of josiah, king hezekiah, re-instituted the passover.

(Interesting to me also. verse 16, "They took their accustomed posts according to the law of moses the man of god...." more on this later.)

Though, interestingly enough, hezekiahs passover, which is such a big deal in chronicles that it merits an entire chapter, is not mentioned anywhere among his doings in 2nd kings. (Which doings don't reflect particularly well on him, i.e. begging sennacherib for forgiveness for leading a revolt against the assyrians, and then denuding the house of the lord of its gold and silver in order to bribe sennacherib not to sack Jerusalem. (2  kings 18: 15-16) All the other various and sundry verses singing his praise as a godly king notwithstanding.)

Now, admittedly, the reason for that might be that these books were written by different people for different reasons and -

No they weren't!

What? Who the devil are you? ? And what do you mean by, "No they weren't"?

I am a believer! And those words were written by God himself!

Um... I don't think so....

You don't think so, hmmm? Then who wrote them?

They were written by scribes in the employ of either later priests, or kings, (or possibly both), who were intent on justifying their rule, and those scribes knew perfectly well which side their bread was buttered on!

Well well well, we'll see what you think when you're burning in the LAKE of FIRE for all eternity!

There is no lake of fire, so it is unlikely I'll burn for even a minute, let alone all eternity. Whatever the hell that means.

What are you? One of those damned atheists?

Well, yes.

An unbeliever huh?

Well, it's actually a little stronger than that, given the more or less complete absence of evidence...

Evidence? Evidence!!! What do you call the bible!!!!????

Well, since you asked.

I call it the quasi historical mythology of a minor group of early tribes, and later minor kingdoms, in the middle east, who, (foolish children), had the misfortune to choose to live between egypt and sumer/babylonia/assyria/persia/rome etc etc etc, and, as a result, were consequently overrun, captured, and dragged off into captivity by the big boys, (Sumer, Babylonia, etc, et al), on a fairly regular basis.

I admit, if the bible were our only source of material about the history of the area, one would be inclined to believe the israelites were a major player, and a force to be reckoned with. But, given the fact that we have records from the REAL major players, (see "et al" above), who pretty much never mention the israelites AT ALL, (except on the odd occasion as, "an annoying bunch of hicks, with delusions of grandeur, who don't seem to be able to play well with others", and also as, "a bunch of smelly unwashed goatherds who believe some nonsense about there being only one god", (OMG! Shades of crazy old Akhenaten! Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? Such nonsense! I mean seriously!), and who also believe that they are, "gods chosen people"! (Which is also silly! And redundant! Because, as every educated person knows, every tribe is some gods chosen people!) And possibly one mention somewhat along the lines of "Fought some king of the lineage of david here, whupped his ass."  [1]

But as it is, the bible is not evidence of much of anything, except that the judeans had an inflated sense of self, and were piss poor at choosing real estate.

And speaking of poor judgement!

The (someday to be) israelites didn't have to follow avram (aka: abram, and, eventually, abraham) you know. No sirree! Not at all! Nope, they could have STAYED right there, in warm sunny fertile Mesopotamia! Where everything was nice and warm and green and fertile! Fertile I tell you! And those Mesopotamian women? Whew! I... tell... you! Hottest things since, (or would it be before?), Minoan women! Love that Snake Goddess! Hot hot hot!

(There was even a sumerian king who, if I remember rightly, composed a hymn in praise of his queens pussy! She was soooo hot! He said she was a goddess! But do the patriarchs compose hymns in praise of pussy and the joys of sex? (Ok, I'll give you the Song of Solomon, (though it's only a PG-13 at best). But other than that?) I think not! Nope, the patriarchs are all like, ewww! pussy is nasty! unclean! don't touch! don't look! stay away! women are icky! And then, when they're not getting drunk and knocking up their daughters, they're offering them up for rape and murder, or as a human sacrifice to their perverse god, or cutting their concubines up into pieces, and mailing them off to the relatives.... I mean, what is wrong with these people?)

But anyway, do they stay in Mesopotamia? No. Avram has to listen to the damn voice in his head and wander off into the desert, and, since he is the patriarch, you know, everybody has to follow! (Stupid patriarchy.) And all because of some stupid promise from the voice in his head that his descendants "would be a great people, numberless as the stars, yea verily, as the grains of sand on the beach! or in the desert, or something...." [2]

So, G, about that promise?

Still waiting....

(As you can guess, I do not accept the interpretation that christians have, through some sort of covenantal holy legerdemain, mystically become the children of abraham.)

Or, much later, when the israelites finally got a good look at the so called "promised land" after the exodus, and after those forty years wandering in the fricken sinai and all, Joshua could have said to god -

Joshua: Ummm... So, god, let me see if I actually understand you here. You're telling me that this rather dry, barren, and uninviting land, (with absolutely no oil under it, which, I admit, is not a matter of  ultimate concern right now, but... well... you being god and all, well... shouldn't you ought to know that it will be a matter of ultimate concern in a few thousand years. I mean... shouldn't you...? I mean, I'm just sayin...). You're tellin me that the uninviting land over there, across that little tiny river, (jordan, did you call it ?), well not really a river actually, more like a creek, or a brook maybe, is "the promised land"? Umm... You're joking right?...

G: (mumble, mumble, mumble...)

Joshua: Not... not joking...? (pause, throw down aarons rod, then streeeeeetch it out) Sooooooooon of a Biiiiiiiiiiiiitch. (turns)

Joshua: (clears throat, shouts) Hey guys! Yo! Guys! Yeah, all you levites, benjaminites, aaronites... oh fer chrissakes, Yes! ALL you -ites! You tribes! Yeah! I'm talkin to you! C'mere!

I've got some bad news. Looks like Moses did it to us again. Yup. First he drags us out of Egypt and into the desert, and then admits he can't read a map, and won't ask for directions, (imitating moses' voice, in a "neener neener" fashion) "follow the pillar of smoke by day and pillar of fire by night", my ass! He's never heard of GPS? Jeeeeeeeesus Christ! So we have to wander in the desert for forty fricken years... 

(aside to G) And what the hell is it with you and the number FORTY? Forty days, forty years, moses lives to be 120? which is three times forty! This is significant? Should I be writing this down? And then there's number THREE thing! What is it with you and three?! Three, and Forty, and 120, and 360, which are all part of a base 12 number system, which is frickin Babylonian! Babylonian! I don't think they even EXIST yet! So that has got to be post exilic! I mean seriously! What is this? Foreshadowing? Pre-exposition? Jesus! And don't EVEN get me started on you and the number seven thing!!! 

(back to israelites)... wander in the desert for forty frickin years with no Superstores! and no Starbucks! And now this? Yeah. That's what I'm tellin you. G says that this... that... that... this rock strewn wasteland is the land of milk and honey. And guess what? He's not really giving it to us. No. We have to fight for it... No we can't kill Moses!  He's already dead.

What say we go back to egypt?


*     *     *

The israelites were also good at stealing ideas, stories, myths, from the surrounding peoples and claiming they were their own. And what about you? Where's your evidence?

When you have faith you don't need evidence!

Let me know how that works for you the next time you're in court.

Anyway.

According to 2 kings 23: 21 - 23

"The king (josiah) commanded all the people, 'Keep the passover to the lord your god as prescribed in this (just now miraculously discovered) book of the covenant. No such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged israel, even during all the days of the kings of israel and the kings of judah;"

2nd Chron 35: 18  "No passover like it had been kept in israel since the days of the prophet samuel."

Take that Great Grampa!

Now let us quibble.

Perhaps these are two very different things? You know, passover vs "passover", and there's some sort of technical minutiae which I am missing here. (Entirely possible, as I merely hold a BA in theatre and am certainly unqualified to question my betters with more letters.) And since I don't read hebrew, (and have no intention of learning at this late date), I must trust that the same word is used in both cases and has been translated correctly, since I can't imagine why, if two different words are used, the translators would use the word "passover" for both, if the meaning and intent are different. (Unless we're talking about the NIV, in which case, anything goes.) But that's just me. (It's satan, I tell you! Sowing the seeds of discord! (By corrupting G's holy word? Now there's a can of theoepistemological worms!))

Theoepistemology! It's the coming thing! And remember, you read it here first! (Or would it be Epistetheomolology?)

I suppose the argument could be made that even though the old testament authors called hezekiahs celebration "passover", it wasn't, (couldn't be?), a real passover since, at that time, the book of the covenant/law was MIA, (and had been for several hundred years), and therefore, hezekiahs passover might not have been strictly according to the law, and therefore somehow, invalid, perhaps? A faux passover, as it were. Even tho things seem to be pretty much in order according to the description in 2nd chronicles chpt 30 verse 16: "They took their accustomed posts according to the law of moses the man of god...." after all the bible says what it means and means what it says! (Except when it doesn't....) Still, how the devil could they know that it was a kosher passover when the book of the covenant/law was MISSING?

I'm soooo confused.

Anyway, whatever, passover or no passover, during the reign of hezekiah the book of the law was missing, and in it's absence those darn fickle judeans, (and also the israelites), had been merrily sacrificing to allllll sorts of other gods and goddesses, and therefore, I suspect, being a priest of yhwh in the temple of the one god would no longer have been a sinecure. Which would have suckethed.

At least until hezekiah re-instituted the passover, (or not), and temple worship, (or not). Even given the absence of the book of the law.

Or not....

But, whatever was, or was not, going on in the interim, (are you as confused as I am?), according to 2 kings 22: 8 and 2 chronicles 34: 14, the book of the law was "accidentally discovered" during the renovation of the temple during the reign of hezekiahs great grandson, the "godly" king josiah. Who, being a godly king, promptly "re"imposed the six hundred however many laws of the book. He also - when he wasn't busy cutting down asherah, smashing altars, murdering priests, and then burning them, grinding their idols to powder, and scattering the bones and dust on their holy sites in order to desecrate them, (he sounds like a simply charming fellow) - re-instituted the temple sacrifices. (Which guaranteed the Priests all the free meat they could eat! ) [3]

Now while scholars argue over just exactly what "the book of the law" or "the book of the law of the lord given through moses" means, and whether is was the entire pentateuch, or maybe just deuteronomy, I'm going for the simple interpretation, everywhere else in the old testament the book of the law is the pentateuch in it's entirety. So there! [4]

So, to be honest, if I were arguing in a court of law, I believe I could make quite a strong  legal case that it is impossible to prove that "the book of the law" even existed prior to it's "discovery" during the renovation of the temple.

In the words of deep throat "follow the money".

Who stood to benefit most from the "re"imposition of the "law"?

Josiah and, most especially, the Priesthhood.

Nuff said.




[1] It has been a never ending source of annoyance and irritation to christians that the big wigs evidently considered the twelve tribes unworthy of either serious consideration, or notice, and so didn't mention them very often in their histories. Also, one would think that the sumerians and assyrians and various and sundry other peoples worldwide would have noticed things like the sun hanging motionless in the sky, or a planet wide flood - regarding which, please explain to me why there are unbroken written records spanning the time period during which, if the bible is true and the earth but 6,000 years old, the flood must have occurred - and mentioned them in their chronicles. And then there's the question of why the romans, who documented everything, (I mean, good lord, we even know when they took a good shit!), completely fail to mention the darkness at noon, the earthquakes, and the dead rising from the grave and wandering about the streets of jerusalem talking to people! (I mean, that's newsworthy! Why would they completely fail to mention that? Hmmm... I don't know. Maybe cause it didn't happen??)

[2] starting at gen 15: 5, 17:16 - 22, 29: 13 - 14, 46: 3, and maybe num 23:10

[3] Recent studies of the mummified bodies of egyptian priests show they often suffered from "diseases of affluence" i.e. atherosclerosis, caries, obesity, probably diabetes, etc etc. Priests ate very well since they got to (had to) eat the "leftovers" after the gods had "taken their share". So, even though the israelites didn't mummify their dead, and we therefore have none of their priests bodies to examine, it is absolutely certain the aaronite and levite priests ate very well since it was required by the law. I expect the priests even ate well during famines. At least until the peasants revolted.

[4] Actually, it wouldn't have been the pentateuch, but the quadrateuch, since deuteronomy is a very late addition to the books of the law. It was most likely composed during the reign of josiah himself as a polemic against the polytheism rampant in 6th century judah/israel, and as a divine justification for his brutal repression of the native polytheism of the common people. A divine mandate, shall I say, for his imposition of a remarkably intolerant monotheism, and his concentration of all power in the hands of the king, and the priests of the temple.

The Singularity is Forbidden.

So I was wondering the other day.
What if singularities do not exist?

What if they cannot exist?

What happens if singularities, for whatever reasons, are absolutely forbidden?

What happens if, instead of a singularity, there is a solid object more or less immediately beneath the "surface" of the event horizon?

Now, all the physicists are immediately up in arms because "the numbers say..."

What if the numbers are wrong?

What if the approximations are even more approximate than we believe?

What happens if matter is not allowed to fall out of the universe?

Then a black hole becomes an area of extremely high, but finite density.

extremely high, but finite curvature. (aka extremely high, but finite gravity.)

And the search for a theory of quantum gravity becomes moot, because we never have infinite gravity at the planck scale.

It also means we can stop looking for a unified theory, cause gravity simply doesn't play well with others. Doesn't have to.

If there is no singularity, there is no quantum gravity problem, cause they ain't never a situation where gravity matters at the quantum scale.

It was reading Traveling at the Speed of Thought, (Daniel Kennefick, 2007) which sort of started me down this particular road, since it was there I learned that gravitational interactions are calculated as though gravity emanated from a singularity at the center of the astronomical mass, as this is evidently easier than calculating from the actual surface of the object. Even though everyone freely admits that the objects gravity is not actually the result of the distortion of spacetime by a zero dimensional object with the mass of that particular object, be it planet, star, whatever. But for mathematical purposes it can be treated that way. 

But I have to wonder.

There have been some new hypotheses I've read recently that are intriguing, one of which states that spacetime itself may exert a force that prevents matter from collapsing into a singularity of infinite density and gravity. Under one of it's variants black holes are actually hollow spheres filled with, something really strange. But the point is that there is no point.

No singularity.

There are also folks working on theories which would eliminate the need for dark matter, since the speed of galactic orbits can/might be accounted for by the error of calculating gravitational effects for galaxies, (which are rather large, usually non spherical, and without a clearly defined center), as though their gravitational field was a zero dimensional point somewhere in the center.

Spacetime is strange stuff, and though Einstein's theories are the best we have to date, they are certainly not the final word on the subject.

Inerrancy

So this is the latest as I understand it.

It was only the original autographs/manuscripts of the old and new testaments, (which, of course, we do not have), that were inerrant. And since, over the centuries, transcription and other copying and editing errors, redaction, etc... have crept in, it is necessary to go back as far as possible and study the oldest versions, as they are the ones closest to the originals. (The oldest extant versions of certain texts are currently the dead sea (qumran) scrolls, and those are a mere two thousand years old.) And that's also why folks have to spend all those years learning dead languages and idioms. (Which we may, or may not, have interpreted/reconstructed correctly.)

Where shall I begin? I mean seriously, where to begin?

(Well, you know, if we could just find that damn Ark of the Covenant all our questions would be answered. At least about the Pentateuch. But until that day....)

So where are the originals? Have they been destroyed? Have they decayed? Have they been lost? How is that even possible? How the HELL could that happen to G's word? G couldn't be bothered to inscribe them on something imperishable? (Now that would be a miracle, and grounds for belief!) I mean think about it. G knows all there is to know, right?! (Or at least all it is logically possible for him to know.) So G should know high technology, right? G should have been able to quantum transcribe his word into the spin structure of the carbon atoms in a diamond and provide a reader! With encryption and error correction! Easy! There you go! Unalterable! Imperishable! G could have arranged the stars in heaven so they would spell his word out across the sky for everyone on earth to see! Easy!

But he didn't.

In the beginning he apparently used oral transmission, (aka. story telling, legends, mythology), and then, after the invention of writing, he used stone and skin to record his word.

(There is an entire section of apologetics dedicated to explaining why G used only the technology available to humanity at the time of revelation. And also why the scriptures contain no information that was not generally available to the "prophets" at the time they were "prophesying". And, I hate to tell you this, (well actually, no I don't), but, (here comes an appeal to authority), as far as serious biblical scholars have been able to determine, NOT ONE of the supposedly prophetic books in the bible was written down BEFORE the facts or events it supposedly prophesied occurred. This is made clear by the undeniable fact that the "prophecies" are accurate up to the date they were known to be written down, (i.e. were recounting, (more or less accurately, depending), history up to that point), and then their accuracy goes to hell-in-a-handbasket when they begin prophesying about what would be actual future events. (Where the devil is jesus by the way? He was supposed to be here by now!) If  someone is writing a history, that usually means it's being recorded after the fact, by either the victor, or someone else with an axe to grind.)

But, I have to ask you, why should omnipotent omniscient G be constrained by the technology we had available at the time? (And speaking of high technology - why did G create us ignorant when he could have started us out in the garden with Big Screen TV and internet!) I mean G could have created  The Sacred Imperishable Incorruptible Flash Drive and Holy PC of Antioch. (With some sort of eternal solar/nuclear power supply!)

Or would G use a Mac? (Hmmm, I thinks I detects the potential for, The Great Schism.)

But does he?

No. 

G uses his finger to inscribe stone tablets! (Or maybe Moses used a chisel? Who knows? We don't. We only have Moses' word on that, and he seems to be a pretty unreliable narrator if you ask me. Writing about things that happened after he was dead... What? Did he think we were stupid?) And then Moses breaks them by throwing them on the ground?! (Must'a been some pretty shitty quality stone.)

And, you should also remember, there are two, very different! sets of commandments given! Ex 20: 1 - 17 vs Ex 34: 17 - 27, which includes the commandment for the human sacrifice of all firstborn children, (should you be unable to afford a "redemption lamb"). He's a bloodthirsty sumbitch, is old G. 

You didn't know that? For G's sake read the damn book! 

Anyway, Moses smashes G's handywork, and G doesn't strike Moses dead? For perishing his imperishable word? And start over with someone more trustworthy? Or at least more careful? What is up with that? (Unreliable narrator I tell you! Absolutely Unreliable!)

And how come Aaron, who is responsible for the whole golden calf debacle, is NEVER punished? But, in fact, seems to be rewarded for his error. (Versus the 3,000 innocent bystanders slaughtered by the Levites.) Why didn't G just vaporize old Aaron and the calf on the spot? Problem solved!

Anyway, for whatever mysterious reason, (Can't explain it? Just put on the silly hat, call it a Mystery, and the sheep will continue to believe, and, most importantly, continue to give money, so you can sit around and drink the sacramental wine and fondle the altar boys), G chooses that his eternal word should be inscribed on perishable items! Leaving his sacred word to the tender mercies of mold, mildew, scroll weevils, pigeons, and the few people around who know how to write. 

And then he can't be bothered to make sure they copy it correctly?

Oh give me a break! This is G we're talking about here.

Effing CAPITOL G!

Not a sparrow falls but he knows about it! Nothing happens anywhere without his OK. (Modern liberal theologizing that G could not, for possibly logical arguments, create a world in which he has total control over everything, notwithstanding.)

He's G! 

Omniscient!

Omnipotent!

Omnibeneficent! or benevolent! or whatever! (Well, the jury is still out on that one. But today isn't about theodicy. It's about inerrancy!)

This is his Word! These are the most important documents in human history! G is The Author! The Immortal Souls of his creation hang in the balance!

And he can't be bothered to proof his text?

Omnipotent Omniscient G can't be there to whisper in the ears of the monks and rebbes and scribes? G, who has ultimate power over everything, can't be bothered to guide the hands of the men copying his word and make sure it is transmitted without error!?

What the hell?

- You know that the verse Matt 1:23 "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" only works because it's based on a mistranslation? And had old Matt actually spoken or read hebrew, which he obviously didn't, he would have known that? The original verse contains no mention of a virgin conceiving anything.

Young woman, yes.

Virgin?

No.

I think, in fact, that it's Isaiah who knocks the young woman up. (But I can't be bothered to check that out right at this moment.) And anyway, Jesus isn't ever called Immanuel. But I digress, sort of -

Because this brings me to translation.

And the question I have is "why?"

Why translate?

G could have written his word imperishably, in G language, and provided each and every one of us with the genetic ability to read and understand that particular script.

No problem.

And even if I grant the apologists arguments for why G should choose to convey his word exclusively to the members of a bunch of petty feuding tribes, in a rather obscure series of languages, spoken by the peoples of a very minor kingdom, who begged borrowed and stole mythology from every civilization surrounding them, in what would eventually become the middle east, I still have to ask - why would later translators differ over what was meant?

I am regularly informed, (by those who believe), that G is actively involved in the world. That G answers prayers. That G produces miracles to this very day!  And yet he cannot be bothered to whisper into the ears of the translators of his word so that they all agree?

No. Evidently he can't.

All translations are works done by committee, with final interpretations decided by vote!

(Or, in the case of certain decisions reached by certain councils regarding doctrine during the reign of Constantine, by unfortunate "accidents" befalling whose who disagreed with Constantine's party line, and with a new "vote" being taken after the funerals of the unfortunates.)

If G, or the holy spirit, can inspire and guide the committee, he could certainly inspire the individual translators, could he not?

You know what would incline me to belief?

If the 72, (OK, silly obscure reference), all went off into their separate rooms with the same text, and, without conferring or communicating with each other in any way, came out with every single one of their translations agreeing word for word with each other. Because that would mean G cared enough about his word to whisper into their shell like ears and prevent any confusion.

But that has never happened.

And it never will.

Because, either G doesn't care.

Or he doesn't exist.