Thursday, 28 June 2018

Plausible Explanation for a Continent's Bizarre Soccer Record


Poignant sight of the wreckage showing the cockpit of the plane carrying the Zambian football team that perished when the plane crashed, killing all on board. The biggest loss for Zambian football, perhaps, was the death in the crash of the coach, Godfrey Chitalu.

Might just have an over-active imagination to look at it the way I do but, cannot help myself. They say healthy paranoia is a reflection the realisation has dawned that things are more connected than one previously thought.

This is my issue.

African players do exceptionally well in well known European and far eastern football teams. They have produced some of the best players leagues here have known, for instance Didier Drogba, etc., yet ... come the world cup, the continent doesn't fare well at all.

When I look at this in depth, and I have taken this issue apart several times before, CSI Miami style, I can but make one conclusion: foul play. Foul play not in the form of corruption, or defiling by biological agents which might get obvious, but in the form of weaponry firing invisible bullets that don't just injure, but can cause confusion, without leaving signs they were used, weaponry in the hands of a group keen on ensuring a kind of people win because they do not want some facts about this continent to become clear ... and here I speak of them using the kind of silent weapons used in the Cuba/Uzbekistan/China USA Embassy attacks to achieve this.

I know what you will say to this. You will ask why they do not do the same to Brazil if the motivation is racism?

I think they do not touch Brazil and some other South American teams "as much" because of two things:

1) Mentality: South Americans are too open to issues globally. They are also more open with their feelings. They will discuss issues Africans would rather consider better to keep to their own selves. This has to do with cultural sensibilities, the kind that make Africans easy targets of covert attacks. South American society is also more advanced than African society. People in South America have as a result broader imaginations on average than Africans. Players here will definitely notice as well as talk when things do not seem right. Somebody will eventually put two and two together and point out an external influence.
2) The performance on the international stage of South American countries pre-dates the advent of the tech that can cause athletic under performance. Also, where quality has already been ascertained, questions will be asked if things change for the worst.

FYI I do not subscribe to the idea the fault is because Africa is allowed to send too few teams to the world cup either. This is a sign of bias of course, but exceptional ability should shine through no matter how few the numbers of exceptional teams in the groups. South Americans do well whether they have two or just one team past the group stage.

I also do not subscribe to the other rationale circulating around that says Africans are not very ambitious? They will be happy with a position among the top teams? Problem with this is the desire to win is universal. people will always do their best in tournaments. A good number of African players lead their teams from major league to premier league victory in European and far eastern countries, scoring the goals that clinch the victories. What more proof do we need that Africans do not go to tournaments with the mindset of being satisfied with a group stage success?

Let's consider a factor that always gets me to the point I cannot help seeing foul play using exotic weapons ...

Africa's juniors or under twenties do way better than the senior teams, and consistently at that. They are a force to be reckoned with. Ghana won the FIFA U-20 world cup in 2009 and have managed to be third since. Africa U-20s have emphatically defeated the big names in football, repeatedly, so why the under performance of the grown lads?

Could it be that African men become redundant after 20? But what about blacks in America? In the NBC? Some get better as they grow older. Hmmm.

Is it what we eat in Africa that has not yet affected the younger people because they have not chewed on too much of it yet? But players like Didier and many others, raised on African food, played well into their mid thirties. Hmmm.

Whatever it is, the under performance seems to only hit right before the games, apparently, because our teams do very well in friendlies with major footballing nations before major matches. The Zambian team that perished by plane crash in 1993 defeated major teams by margins that were shocking. They defeated Italy by 4-0 then repeated this score line with Guatemala, a South American team that is not a walkover. Come the actual championship this record was hardly expressed ... Hmmm ...

If I was coaching African players, I would have them sleeping in faraday cages surrounded by rubber walls ... seriously. I remember thinking this after I had done the math, when I remembered a bizarre injury on the field in Europe. Cisse, the current Senegal coach, broke his leg some time back in a manner that had me thinking the point at which it broke had been receiving invisible bullet bombardment as he slept. Cisse's leg broke as he ran, without a rough tackle on him. How strange is that?

Or maybe I am just too paranoid? Lol.

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

The AI Debater: The Next Frontier For an Idea Theft Culture's Dreams of World Domination


Two AI robots Sophia & Han debate the future of humanity on youtube. Click the image to be taken there ...

The pomp surrounding the computer that can argue as well as the very best human thinkers out there and the surrounding attempts to present the computer as a more reliable means of arriving at truths, even if by way of potential, has roots in a culture that has taken to idea theft as the only realistic method of advancement.

This is exactly what people mean when they speak of an inadequacy complex or the lack of trust in one's own ability to sort issues out, and also of one's own lack of faith in one's own viability, leading to the addiction to get direction and guidance by not consulting with self or other people ... but actually turning into a quasi parasite, even though actively denying this state, and though it can be rationalised that man is always going to fall short on thoughtfulness, and a helping hand in a machine is always a plus, that no boundary that separates how much a machine can mentally benefit man can be drawn, some thought needs to be made about this ...

The program that plays chess with you is basically a predictive/pre-emptive algorithm. It is mathematics in use at base. One plus one equals reaction or pre-emptive move.

This is represented quite bluntly by a computer program's "IF" or "WHEN" "condition A" is met or not then machine executes a set line of code as an activity.


Line of code

But then, as we all may know, computer programs that are programmed to win chess games cannot just be check mated and defeated, they can become too predictable, and not just for the very best chess players out there.

Part of the reason for this is computer programs do not and can never have actual spatial awareness save that left in the programing language by the programmer. They therefore are not geometric in their rationalisation meaning they could only accidentally produce the better logic that works all the time under what ever circumstances that arise. They can not get body language feedback from their opponent save that which the programmer includes in snippets here and there in their programming. Well, maybe a good thing because they then cannot deliver emotional judgements but then they cannot have real telepathy because of this lack except artificial which is always going to be inferior. Their pronouncements should be suspect because they will be inhumane as a result and if you have had enough of inhumane and immoral behaviour then you ain't seen nothing yet! Just wait till Robots are what we rely on for the imprisonement of our children.

Fact of this matter is a computer lacks consciousness as we understand it, and though this represents a weakness on the chess board, it is a major drawback in terms of debating issues that have a bearing on consciousness, including such unlikely areas of debate as government policy.

The argument pundits of a thinking computer put forth in favour of the machine's superiority is that it will be objective given a machine can argue any which way. Unfortunately for this group, the fact remains machines programmed to argue can usually only do this in two directions or dimensions alone, whereas humankind can argue on more planes than just two.

But is this inadequacy with which a program pursues arguments both ways worth relying on and why is it so hard to see that there will aways be limitations to how deeply into an issue a computer will delve and argue given it forever lacks capacities needed for sound judgements?

Imagine for a while that an abstract such as existentialism was the subject of debate. Would it not be wise to use a computer's capacity to argue two ways as a reference guide for humans involved in the discussion, a way of checking what they could have missed? This would make a machine much more useful than actually confronting it to give a guru's objective point of view?

Note here that an opportune variation in a point of view would be a feat for a computer to accomplish but is it not enough knowing the thing can never savour basic consciousness to disqualify it from participation in any discussions till it possesses a basic, viable and autonomous consciousness?

I see in the hurry to sell a reasoning computer to some third word country the need to do away with balanced human reasoning, especially of the exceptional kind that occasionally makes a contribution that impacts significantly on the direction taken and spoils or foils some control freak culture's aspiration to deceive and rule.

Idea theft is a cultural orientation the current leaders in the dominant culture adopted from the Greeks. This is a fact. Certainly, much of the progress this culture has attained was at the cost of somebody's freedom or even life, with the added bonus of the afflicted or targeted being but a fallible human being, therefore the switch to stealing ideas from a computer would be the next step ... a positive thing if not for a few facts that will relegate the use of computers for guidance and inspiration to the ruled and enslaved.

Basically, reliance on computers will lead to the same creative bankruptcy and activities that have so disgraced the dominant culture as the previous method because it is ultimately the same thing inasmuch as the reasoning is an aggregate of what are thought of as the best thoughts out there, filtered and picked out by what people involved in the programming think are the better thoughts among the total they have been exposed to, censored by the space and time required to fit the collected thoughts into one program.

The programmers are sure they have the best thoughts as well as the best manners of thought out there, or have they really?

Idea theft is a cultural orientation that only a low brow latches on to, no two ways about this. Anybody outside the idea thief's cultural imperialism bracket thinking this is the better way of forging ahead is really deluded.

Related Articles: Idea Thieves