“É preferível eleger um bandido que um entreguista-neoliberal.”

Por Jocax , Setembro de 2010

Antes de tudo, quero deixar claro que , como todo mundo, sou totalmente CONTRA a corrupção,

o tráfico de influências , o despotismo e todas as mazelas antiéticas que permeiam a política nacional e mundial.

Entretanto, O PIG (“Partido da Imprensa Golpista”) quer nos fazer acreditar que apenas um determinado tipo de “honestidade” ou “ética” deve nortear a votação popular, e que qualquer outro parâmetro de valor deveria ser relegado a um plano secundário.

É claro que a honestidade, a ética-política é um quesito importantíssimo no julgamento que se deve fazer para a escolha de qualquer candidato, mas existe um quesito muito mais importante do que esse: A concepção ideológica do candidato.

A ideologia de quem vai definir os rumos do país é que vai nortear, de fato, o destino da nação. É a partir da ideologia do dirigente maior que dependerá a felicidade da nação. Vejamos alguns exemplos:

1- Mao Tse-Tung - “O Grande Timoneiro” - dirigente chinês 1966-1976 com sua política de revolução proletária, praticamente baniu o ensino superior na China e levou o país à fome, causando a morte de milhões de chineses [1] :

“Mao é acusado de com seus programas sociais e políticos, como o Grande Salto Adiante e a Revolução Cultural, causar grave fome e danos a cultura, sociedade e economia da China. Políticas de Mao e os expurgos políticos de 1949-1975, provocaram a morte de 50 a 70 milhões de pessoas” [2]

Se o “grande timoneiro” tivesse apenas roubado alguns bilhões de dólares de seu país, o prejuízo a nação chinesa teria sido muitíssimo menor, mas com sua ideologia de culto ao “trabalho braçal” e a negação da cultura intelectual, apesar de bem intencionado, mergulhou a China daquela época na pobreza e no atraso tecnológico.

2- Adolf Hitler – Hitler foi eleito democraticamente antes de se tornar ditador [10]. Se Hitler tivesse simplesmente roubado vários bilhões de dólares de sua pátria e se tornado o homem mais rico do mundo, ao invés de tentar conquistar o mundo e jogar a Alemanha numa guerra infernal, com dezenas de milhões de mortos. O mundo todo, com certeza, agradeceria.

3-Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC) é o nosso exemplo caseiro. Considerado por mim e por muitos como “o pior presidente que o Brasil já teve” [3], FHC é um neoliberal típico. Partidário do “Consenso de Washington” que apregoa a globalização e o neoliberalismo quebrou o Brasil duas vezes levando-o quase à miséria:

“Desemprego Recorde, Subemprego em proporções pavorosas, Mendicância, toxicomania, prostituição e outras atitudes desesperadas de gente fraca e sem perspectiva existencial diante da crise interminável que a defesa da moeda forte nos trouxe.” [3]

Um neoliberal, em geral, está comprometido com o "consenso de Washington" que apregoa (entre outras coisas):

“Privatização das estatais; Abertura comercial; Redução dos gastos públicos; Desregulamentação (afrouxamento das leis econômicas e trabalhistas); Juros de mercado; Câmbio de mercado; Investimento estrangeiro direto, com eliminação de restrições; Estabilizar privatizar e liberalizar tornou-se o mantra de uma geração de tecnocratas que estavam tendo sua primeira experiência no mundo subdesenvolvido, e dos líderes políticos por eles aconselhados; “[5]”.

Assim, FHC e sua ideologia neoliberal levaram o Brasil à bancarrota, colocando o país na chamada “Década Perdida”:

“...o Brasil vivenciou problemas gravíssimos, todos sob os auspícios dos tucanos que, no período, ampliaram o fosso que separa os ricos dos pobres, dilapidaram o patrimônio público nacional alienando-o a interesses multinacionais em troca de rigorosamente nada para o povo brasileiro, promoveram o crescimento do analfabetismo, o fomento... o desmantelamento do parque industrial brasileiro em benefício de empresas e indústrias estrangeiras, conseqüentemente o aumento do desemprego, do desespero, da fome e da miséria...” [4]

Um exemplo hipotético simples pode ilustrar melhor a idéia:

Suponhamos, hipoteticamente, que o pleito seja disputado entre dois participantes:

O primeiro, um político com suspeita de "ladrão", porém, com caráter nacionalista. Seu concorrente, um político com fama de honesto, porém um seguidor do neoliberalismo globalizante. Dentro deste quadro hipotético, qual dos dois deveríamos votar?

Acredito fortemente que nosso voto deveria ir preferencialmente para o político nacionalista (mesmo que com fama de "ladrão") ao invés do pretensamente “honesto” político neoliberal. O risco de prejuízo para a nação seria bem menor que se o eleito fosse o neoliberal, se não vejamos:

Com uma “penada de caneta” (um acordo oficial, feito legalmente) o presidente poderia, por exemplo, vender a Petrobrás (A Vale do Rio doce foi vendida a preço de banana [8]) , ou mesmo vender a AMAZÔNIA ao estrangeiro! (Veja que A Rússia vendeu o Alasca aos EUA, e o Acre foi comprado pelo Brasil da Bolívia e do Peru) , ou então abrir as fronteiras e acabar com o parque industrial nacional gerando (outra vez) milhões de desempregados e famintos, com um prejuízo incalculável, não apenas econômico, mas social sobre o futuro de gerações de brasileiros, que cresceriam sem emprego e sem futuro, agravando a marginalidade e a violência. Tudo isto de forma totalmente legal e “honesta”. Enquanto que seu adversário “bandido”, do nosso exemplo, por sua vez, poderia no decorrer do seu mandato, roubar apenas alguns bilhões de dólares, sem comprometer de forma irreversível o futuro da nação, com um prejuízo muito menor ao país.

O PIG [9], por razões provavelmente ideológicas e elitistas, quer nos fazer acreditar que a pretensa honestidade do candidato deve ser o mais importante parâmetro na escolha do voto. O PIG gosta também de alardear a idéia de que o imposto é a pior praga que recai sobre uma população, mas, obviamente, não dizem que esta é a principal forma de distribuição de renda e recursos dos mais ricos aos mais pobres, sem impostos não haveria recursos para investimentos em infra-estrutura, educação, saneamento, saúde principalmente nos lugares mais pobres e necessitados. O objetivo do PIG parece ser o da TOTAL concentração de renda, semelhante talvez à época medieval, onde os senhores eram detentores de todos os recursos e a população –sem nenhum direito- só poderia sobreviver trabalhando para eles. Nas palavras de Bauman:

““ no cabaré da globalização, o Estado passa por um strip-tease e no final do espetáculo é deixado apenas com as necessidades básicas: seu poder de repressão. Com base material destruída, sua soberania e independência anuladas, sua classe política apagada, a nação-estado torna-se um mero serviço de segurança para mega-empresas”( Bauman, p.74).”[11].

Por esta razão que eu digo:

“É preferível eleger um bandido na presidência a um político entreguista-neoliberal” (Jocax)

======================================

Referências:

[1] A revolução cultural de Mão Tse Tung:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Cultural_Chinesa

[2] Mão Tse-Tung
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Tse-tung

[3] Fernando Henrique Cardoso
http://www.culturabrasil.pro.br/fhcopior.htm

“”

[4] A “Década Perdida”
http://www.culturabrasil.org/decadperd.htm

[5] O “Consenso de Washington”

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consenso_de_Washington

[6] O Brasil comprou o Acre

http://www.portalbrasil.net/estados_ac.htm

[7] EUA comprou o Alasca

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasca

[8] A fraude da privatização da Vale do Rio Doce

http://www.pstu.org.br/jornal_materia.asp?id=5977&ida=20

[9] Lula o Analfabeto?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nacionalismo-br/message/445

[10] Adolf Hitler

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Ascens.C3.A3o_ao_poder

[11] Nacionalismo e Genismo

http://stoa.usp.br/genismo/forum/42457.html

The New Inductivism

The New Inductivism
Joao Carlos Holland de Barcellos,
translated by Debora Policastro



Abstract: Occam’s Razor (OR) establishes that one must eliminate “unnecessary” hypothesis from theories. This essay intends to establish some rules that conceptualise the “no-necessity” criterion in OR. A new version of the classic Inductivism is also proposed and later used to solve this problem.

Key-words: Epistemology, Occam’s Razor, Philosophy of Science, Science, Inductivism, Logic, "Inductivist Hierarchy”, Inductive Method.

1-Introduction

Occam’s Razor (OR) [1] is a logical-philosophic criterion used virtually in every knowledge acquisition process as well as in our everyday life.

Succinctly, OR establishes that we must eliminate unnecessary hypothesis from our theories. The criterion by itself is almost a tautology, that is, an absolute logical truth, since the hypothesis understood as unnecessary are by definition not necessary to the theory. That way OR must be considered an incontestable truth. Therefore, the whole problem is not really in OR, but in the criteria concerning the “unnecessity” of the hypothesis.

Let us use some examples to exemplify. Consider the following theories:

1a- For a car to move, it must have fuel.

1b- For a car to move, it must have fuel, and its occupants must pray the “Our Father”.

2a- For cough syrup to work the patient must ingest it.

2b- For cough syrup to work the patient must ingest it and, besides that, sing “hula-hula” while turning around for three times.

This way we could include an infinity of other craziest as possible hypothesis in each of our theories.

Similarly, the reader knows he does not have to recite a children’s poem each time he drinks a glass of water in order to avoid pouring water out of the glass. That shows OR is present in our everyday life, even in an imperceptible way.

But how should we know whether a hypothesis is really unnecessary?

How should we know we actually do not have to pray the “Our Father” for the car to move, nor turn around singing the “hula-hula” for some medicine to be effective, or recite a children’s poem so water does not shed from the glass?

Indeed, all these apparently absurd and clearly unnecessary hypothesis given in the examples could be absolutely necessary in some other universe, or even in our own universe since the moment the reader finishes this sentence. That is, we cannot guarantee that the laws of physics have changed and those hypotheses that were before seen as absurd are now totally necessary.

In short, what is the criterion of necessity (or not) of a hypothesis or any theory?

Before we answer to that important question, let us create a new theoretical framework: “The New Inductivism”.

2- The New Inductivism
The main process to connect our minds to the external world and elaborate theories about our universe, that is, the way we acquire knowledge is known as “induction process”.

The induction process, or Inductivism, establishes that experiments, occurrences or events that always have the same results will probably have the same results under the same conditions. And the more times these results repeat, that is, the more favourable observations about the hypothesis or theory are obtained, the more reliable the hypothesis or theory is.

2.1- Hypothesis Formation

Obviously, the simple observation of phenomena repetition does not produce by itself any theory. To exemplify, a monkey can observe some repetitive phenomena for its whole life as “the Sun rises in the East”, and it will not formulate a theory about that.

Therefore, the inductive process does not elaborate finished theories. Instead, it provides us with important clues so that we or some kind of processing can create hypothesis or theories about reality. That way, it is perfectly possible that different people elaborate different theories or hypothesis using the same data obtained from inductive observation.

2.2- First Results

From the inductive process we create the basic hypothesis that our universe is logical, that is, it works logically according to the aristotelic logic. And also, the laws of Physics must be stable. These first results give us the trust that our universe must not have changed its laws so that water would pour out from our glasses if we did not recite some children’s poem!

The Induction process is very criticized by many scientists and science philosophers under the true statement that this process not always produces correct results.

However, that will rarely happen under the “New Inductivism”. There is an inductive hierarchy in the New Inductivism. This hierarchy establishes that new inductive rules must be subordinate to pre-existent inductive rules.

Thus, there is a law hierarchy based on more basic and reliable inductive processes, where some have more power and privilege than others. That way, it is not possible to interrupt an inductive hierarchy without a good reason for that.
So a new inductive rule can only be considered satisfactory if it does not break the hierarchy of stronger inductive rules.

In this manner, the “New Inductivism” can be defined as the classical Inductivism linked to subordination of an inductive hierarchy.

2.3-Inductive Hierarchy

It is possible to create an inductive hierarchy in a decreasing degree of power, in a way that a law with a less elevated level of power must not go against the superior hierarchical levels. Our inductive hierarchy can be defined in a decreasing level of importance in the following way:

The most basic and powerful inductive rule is that our universe is logical. No illogical event has ever been observed. We can suppose then, by induction, that the universe follows logic. Any theory that goes against this first rule must, in principle, be considered false.


The laws of Physics form the second class of our inductive hierarchy. Obviously they must not oppose the first level of hierarchy. And, for that reason, the laws of Physics can use mathematics, which is totally based on logic. The laws of Physics are created by observation of the most extense set of observations on regularities of our universe. For that reason, they must be among the most reliable rules built by mankind. The power of these rules resides in the fact that they must be verified, direct or indirectly, in every observable universe and they should not be limited to our planet, nor even to our solar system.
The laws of Chemistry could form the third level of our hierarchy.


The laws of Biology, the forth level.
The other norms, rules or laws must not oppose the theories of the classification above, unless they are exhaustingly verified.


It is possible to notice that the degree of strength in the inductive hierarchy is based on the extensibility, that is, the quantity of favourable observations in space and time in which the theory approaches in a favourable way. Inductive rules of short range in space and time have fewer favourable cases than large range ones. For that reason, such rules must be subordinate to the most general ones that had been tested and, because of that, present a greater level of reliability.

2.4- Inductivist Response

Now, with that classification, we can rebut the argument against the inductive principle: “The Sun Rising Argument”. It says that if we use the inductive process about the rising of the Sun every morning we will create a law establishing that:

“Today and always, every 24 hours the sun will rise in the East and set in the West”

However, we can “rebut” (*) this argument by showing that it goes against the inductive principles of the second hierarchy (the laws of Physics), since according to these laws, the hydrogen of the Sun will end in four billion years and our star will explode. That way, one day, unfortunately, the Sun will not rise anymore and therefore this principle cannot be considered satisfactory.

2.5- “Inductivist Refutationism”

We must make it clear that the inductive process, as any other process, does not necessarily lead to the truth. Something that has always been stable and reached the same results can have these results changed by some new condition or some new observation. We will never be sure about the ultimate truth of the universe.

That way, it is natural that a law or rule created by an inductive process stops being valid in case a new observation “rebuts” (*) the inductive regularity. In that case, evidently, the induction does not exist anymore, since this refutatory event did not pass through induction. The induction, in that case, was broken and therefore it is not an induction, it is not valid. We can clearly notice the brakeage of the inductivity by an unfavourable event as analogue to “popperian refutationism”, where evidence contrary to a theory is its own rebuttal element.

2.6- The Deductive Hypothetical Method

The Deductive- Hypothetical Method (DHM), in which hypothesis and theories are released to be later tested, does not go against the inductive method. If not, see:

In DHM a theory (or hypothesis) – not necessarily of inductive basis – is proposed. From this theory we can use logic and verify the consequences that it causes. If any observation “refutes” (*) the consequence of this theory or this theory itself, then the theory will be “refuted” (*). But clearly if the consequence of a theory is “refuted”, then the theory that originated it will also be refuted, since the strongest inductivist rule is the logical one, and by logic (more specifically by “modus tollens”) if the consequent is false then necessarily the antecedent will also be.
That way, we can verify that if DHM shows some case which results in a “refutation” of the consequence of a theory, this fact will also break the Inductivism of the theory that originated it. The opposite is also clearly true: a flaw in Inductivism by an observation would also “refute” (*) the theory.

2.7- The Evidence

An evidence is an observation, fact or event that corroborates or not a theory. The inductive method, in general, elaborates its theories from evidence, that is, inductivity has its basis on reality as a starting point. Thus, Inductivism has advantages over other creation processes.
It is important to notice that theories or hypothesis generated by creation processes that do not come from empirical observation will also need to go through some kind of validation process, that is, a sequence of tests and empirical observations will also be necessary for the theories to be reliable.

Obviously in principle a newly created non-inductive theory, and yet with no favourable evidence can be true, while another that has been tested can be false. However, until the observations or experiments decrease or enhance the reliability of the theories, we must credit the theories that have already been through some observational test. In that case, inductive-based theories would have the initial advantage and therefore must be taken as more reliable than the non-inductive ones.

2.8 – Degree of “Inductive Reliability”

As a particular case, but not less important, we could say that a theory that does not have any favourable evidence, that is, the number of favourable inductions is zero, must have in principle, zero reliability.
As the amount of favourable evidence (quantity of valid inductive events) increases, the inductive reliability degree must also increase.

3- Necessity Criterion in Occam’s Razor

From this new theoretical base we can now answer the question in the beginning of this essay:

What is the necessity (or not) criterion of any hypothesis or theory in OR?”

The answer to this question can be given according to the “inductive reliability” degree (IR) presented by the hypothesis concerning the theory. The lower the inductive reliability (IR), the more unnecessary the hypothesis is.

Take the following theory as an example:
1b- For a car to move, it must have fuel, and its occupants must pray the “Our Father”.

The hypothesis of the necessity for the prayer for the car to move has a very low IR and therefore can be considered unnecessary. But in case our universe changes or the fact happens in another universe, this hypothesis can have a high degree of IR and then be a hypothesis that is not unnecessary. It all depends on associated inductive reliability.

(*) “Refute” is between inverted commas because, according to P.I.F [3], it is never possible to know whether an observation is true or not. Therefore, it is never possible to know whether something was refuted or not.

References:
[1] A Navalha de Ocam – Occam’s Razor
http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto24.htm
[2] Ciência Expandida – Expanded Science
http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto25.htm
[3] O Princípio da Incerteza Filosófico – The Philosophical Uncertainty Principle
http://www.genismo.com//logicatexto31.htm
[4] O Argumento Indutivista – The Inductivist Argument
http://www.ecientificocultural.com/ECC2/artigos/metcien2.htm

Portuguese version: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/forum/42550.html

Felicitax: The Construction of Deux

Felicitax: The Construction of Deux
Joao Carlos Holland de Barcellos,
translated by Debora Policastro

“God does not exist, but can be built.”
(Jocax)

Friend,
The issue I have slightly mentioned about an autonomous concept of happiness is so important that I have been searching for a name that would define the idea for a long time. I wanted a name that could express a limit to our “final quest”. I have thought about some, but could not find any that would really be worth the concept.

I will call it then “FELICITAX”. Maybe this is my last great idea to be published and, in fact, I have been keeping it for a long time. Few people had the privilege of knowing it.
My intention was to publish it in my book about genism, as its last chapter, which would be entitled “Beyond the Genism”. Although Felicitax is not a direct consequence of genism, it surely can be developed from the scientific “Meta-Ethics” (SME), of which genism is a ramification. (Un)fortunately, some (evil?) gene makes it difficult for me to keep secret of great ideas. Anyway, I herein register this one. I will then summarise Felicitax, even under the risk of not being comprehended.

Introduction

The objective of genism is happiness. We cannot have it, in its full potential, if we do not realise what we really are. However, evolutionary biology gives us the answer: we are “gene-perpetuative machines”. From this finding, genism proposes a philosophy whose ideas affect our routine, becoming itself a life philosophy. Genism establishes that we do not deny our intrinsic biological condition of “gene-perpetuative machines”. This is the first step to reduce internal conflicts, those triggered by the “culture x biology” dichotomy – memes x genes conflicts – the integration of our “cultural being” with our “biological being” through genism reduces this kind of conflict, resulting in less suffering and more happiness. If besides that we notice that our true “me” is not our traditional consciousness, but something I called “genetic-me” (our genes), that will make us gain a kind of immortality and, as a consequence, more happiness.
But happiness is defined through time and feeling [2]. Happiness by itself can be considered as an autonomous entity. Happiness does not need and should not be selfishly restricted to ourselves or to our kind, nor to biological beings!
Genism is also a scientific theory: it is a testable method that seeks the maximization of happiness in biological beings that evolved through natural selection. However, before the advent of the scientific “Meta-Ethics” (SME), there was no scientific approach to ethics and moral. There was no scientific tool that could approach the true effectiveness of the ethical theories through science in an objective way. As SME is yet totally unknown and is in state of development, the political usage of the theories for the good or for the bad could be done with no kind of scientific and objective control. Thus, it is not unlikely that unscrupulous, unreliable or narrow-minded people could try to deviate the objective of genism, distorting it. That could be done, for example, as a political decision, by establishing which GROUP should have its happiness maximized. But this is extremely dangerous: some could want the maximized happiness to be restricted, for example, to species; others, to nations or countries, or even to a specific ethnic group. However, the scientific “Meta-Ethics” to which genism belongs to, claims that the group should be understood as the set of all sentiate beings (capable of feeling) and that means the group is not restricted to human kind.
Oxen, cats, dogs, rats, cockroaches, fleas and everything that is capable of feeling should be involved in the genist group, since they are, in principle, all capable of feeling. At first sight, that looks quite weird and radical but, as we already mentioned, it is not. The difference is that our brain has around 100 billion neurons, but an insect like a flea, for example, has only a few hundreds. Furthermore, the function of pleasure can rise exponentially according to the quantity of neurons or the kind of internal organization, not necessarily in a linear way.
What I mean is that organisms do not have the same weight on the compute of total happiness. Happiness depends on the capability of feeling that each organism owns. The suffering of a single human brain, for instance, could be of such magnitude that it would justify the elimination of the whole specie that made it suffer like, hypothetically, the one that causes cholera, or the fleas. Thus, if the human capability of feeling is larger, we should also have more rights than other species with shorter capability. Moreover, scientific “Meta-Ethics” establishes that happiness must be computed within the longest possible period of time. Thus, intelligence is a crucial aspect, since by its means it is possible to avoid the extinction of the planet caused by a meteor collision, or even avoid the extinction of life (and of happiness on the planet), as it is expected to happen in 4 billion years with the explosion of the Sun. That all must be taken into consideration (and in our favour) in general happiness as a whole.





FELICITAX

Although the long introduction above, many people will certainly not understand what I am about to expose. The “dictatorship of consciousness” might prevent you from seeing it. However, I will herein register it, for the future. Someday, perhaps, this idea will have great value and might stop being a science fiction project to become a real fact.

When I tried to explain FELICITAX to a few people, I used a simple hypothetical example, and I will do this again:

Suppose you are “face to face” with a simple insect, like an ant, for instance. Imagine that you “look” each other in the eyes, and stay like that, beholding each other for some minutes. Suppose that this insect has some idea of what you are. You own more than 100 billion neurons and capability of feeling and thinking. The ant may have only a few hundred neurons and, if it could, it would notice that its small neural net in its minute body is contained in the net of the observer. Thus, in a certain way, ITS BEING WOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE OBSERVER: you would have all the perception the ant could have, but only in a greater level. However, the opposite would not be true. Not all you feel and perceive could be felt by the minute insect. This hypothetical ant would “know” that it could never feel, notice or understand the universe as you do. If the ant could analyse your potential, it would comprehend you almost as a “god” before it. Therefore, by noticing all that, it would probably worship you.
If, by hypothesis, either your life or the life of the insect had to end, and the decision was empowered to the insect, then maybe it would choose to finish its own life only to save you. After all, your happiness potential is much larger than the one of the ant and, in a certain way, it would continue to “live” in you. Your happiness, your capability of feeling may be a thousand or a billion times superior to the capability of the little ant. Therefore, even under the point of view of measuring happiness, of SME, the decision of the ant about giving up its own life in order to save yours would be absolutely correct.







Deux

What if, in the hypothetical example above, us humans were the ant?

Then, who would this “you” be, a “you” that would be to us as we were to the ant of the example above?!
This “you” does not exist. At least not on Earth. But, if it existed, it would be a being of such magnitude that we should, if possible, give up our own life to save the being’s life!

This hypothetical being could enhance happiness in the universe A LOT simply by the fact that it can feel a billion times better than we can. We must name it. Let us call it “Deux”. Thus, if Deux existed, we should give up our own life to save His, if necessary.

But Deux does not exist!

LET US CREATE IT THEN!

If we *had* the technology, this should be our objective. But why? Why should we create Deux? The answer is simple: by definition, Deux would have a much larger capability of feeling than ours. Therefore, He could enhance happiness in the universe. Thinking only about our own happiness or the happiness of a specie is not ethical. Reasonings not connected to ethics can lead to any kind of barbarity. A perfect and free universal ethic must consider happiness as an autonomous entity, not attached to any species our subgroup. We already know what happens when rights are directed to specific subgroups.

The biggest problem in the SME is the mathematical quantification of “feeling”. If this problem was solved, perhaps Deux could be built as a computer or as a big biological brain, something like a huge neural mass immersed in a large tub that would provide it with food, oxygen or energy.
We must notice that there are not and there should not be limits to the continuous improvement of Deux; his capability of feeling and thinking could be continuously enhanced. Therefore, Deux would have an infinite potential. In fact, He should design his next “version”, with modules that could be attached and added to his neural net or even design enhanced clones. Obviously the seek for knowledge should continue through Deux, since this would be the best way to foresee and avoid the dangerous occurrences of a Universe in constant transformation.

Thus, Deux should be designed with the objective of increasing happiness in the universe. For that to happen, Deux’s main purpose would be feeling pleasure, great pleasure. However, in order to continuously enhance happiness in the universe, there must be intelligence and knowledge enough to produce technology for that goal. Therefore, Deux must own an intelligence capable of extending itself at each new version, capable of learning, producing and absorbing more and more knowledge. His evolution would happen exponentially with time. He must “self evolve”.
And what about us? As the real “ants” of the whole story, we should know that, in a certain way, we would also be contained in Deux. But, what should be our end then? Deux was designed to maximize happiness in the universe. I guess thatiIf we were “in the hands of Deux”, we would not have to worry, right? After all, would not we be contained in Him?



PS: Felicitax, in our era, must be considered as a philosophical entity, or as a science fiction element, not as reality. Until it can be understood and become a feasible project, many millennia must elapse. However, it is not impossible that Deux has already been built in another planet. In that case, He shall reach us.

Portuguese Version: http://stoa.usp.br/deux/files/-1/8794/deux.htm

--//--