Animal Intelligence

This Article is an opinion. It claims that it was last updated when:
• The current estimated world population was at 7.872.451.562;
• The world average temperatur was at 14.9071272990°C;
• The global death toll due to COVID19 was at 1.935.060;
During this read approximately 317 Children will die due to starvation.

I understand this article as a space to share and publish my views on the current state of science and the research-directions which I consider under-developed but most relevant for a peaceful and sustainable future. I claim that I work on multi-domain peacekeeping strategies and a generic framework to develop and discuss their properties and performance. These strategies aim to identify, prevent and counter multi-domain warfare. Any instance which claims to do so must be based on transparent management of complexity, assets and sources and allow access to (at least) local intelligence agency and realtime-analytics for everyone concerned with living (resulting in global intelligence agency). As such, I claim to research these strategies and how to deploy them, I do not depoly them by myself. I do not aim for foundation of centralized intelligence. I try to publish and share my research and its results to enable open source intelligence agencies and augment decentral intelligence agency for humanity. Only distributed actions of informed agents can make use of counter-strategies to multi-domain war° scenarios.


This approach identifies natural human language as the communication-bottleneck for efficient (altruistic) strategy discussion and sustainable decision-making towards cooperative global problem solving. As such, locally convergent interests (e.g. better living conditions for any human, efficient measures towards climate change and pandemics, better online content,..) cannot scale to consistent global observables. This scaling-issue arises due to system-architectures which over-reduce or deform your language, as we assume that it is not your intend to make humans starve while you read this. Interest and motive dissipate in a communication-infrastructure which favors radical or financial characters. We (author and reader) use an infrastructure which is not build on intelligence but economic competition foremost. A claim of neutrality or advanced intelligence faces not only a default opposition, but an entire language-class which can make inference and assumptions faster then human cognition can follow. During the read of this article beings suffer not because you give a permanent confirmation that they should so, but because you have no option which is as easy as stopping to read this article to prevent it from happening. It is one of the intentions of this article to dissipate stress and action towards sources which can manage stress and route action towards efficient peacekeeping, while informing any reader about the reasons and background why global peace was impossible before and within 2020.

To tackle attacks on information-freedom and valuable scientific perspectives, I consider multi-domain operations as a minimum frame to reference and elaborate current problems in IT-infrastructure (internet³) and (social⁴) media systems. If we understand activities of groups and connected actors in a complex environment of interacting networks (> a multiplex) such as the internet (essentially, a mirror of our personal worlds) we obligate to a more differentiated awareness about who we are (a network) and what we thus influence (multiple layers of social and economic dynamics). It becomes more disruptive if this is left out whenever we act in a public space (such as open communication systems or social media platforms) by using digitally embeddable language (natural language expressions such as english, chinese, german or korean which are encoded in characters e.g. by ASCII) unresponsibly or produce language systems (automatable languages such as C++, scripts, software and entire platforms) – which all have significantly different causal implications and impacts for a multiplex) to share content (such as articles about politics, global threat scenarios and intelligent social engineering).


In this line of thinking, we are not just ‘making a statement’ based ‘on our understanding’ but we are associating polyparametric data (our actualized understanding how physics and life can be formally interpreted) and build strategic inference from them (our composition how causal relationships arise from a complex field of heterogeneously interconnected information and to what end we want to influence them). To approach the resulting complex dynamic (multi-link) relationships of interests, ventures, decision-making and threats in a way which is remains transparent requires preparation. To make and keep a multi-domain approach quantifyable with respect to its impact on life requires multiple languages, both natural (explanations, discussions, narratives) and artificial (software, scripts, platforms). Only an ensemble of language can keep up with the resulting complexity, a general problem which has not benn solved by programming languages nor journalism yet. As such, threats can hide in complexity and lethal strategies (in their most elaborate form ‘multi-domain warfare’) can go unnoticed.

To reveal strategies which make use of complexity and obfuscation -consciously- and to differentiate their underlying data, assumptions, inference and (possibly) motives requires a progressive (universally protective) approach towards life in the digital realm. This approach must not diversify as its primary mission is to allow diversity and protect her while it performs intelligent and informed mediation between humanity and any other interest. As the interest of humanity we postulate a demand for humane living conditions on an individually diverse local scale with a consistent global scale that nobody would like to kill and nobody would like to die, especially not children which is hence represented (in the future hopefully more apparent) by those adults who are able to take responsibility not only for the errors of their own but errors of their nation, company and culture to produce a counter-position to every current system which generates profit from abuse, neglectance and destruction of children and other innocent forms of life. We must define an overarching priority about ‘why to use technology and IT infrastructure at all’ which embraces diversity of life with a bias towards humanities diversity and her needs – as she can arise as responsible species on earth which understands her environment not as a possession but a shared place of explorative existence. In theory, this priority can only be represented by a neutral instance, one which is taking into account everyones intention and mediates between them and which has no egoistic interest. Any self-centered interest will not withstand a public – because the public is not satisfied with their living conditions and whenever an instance provides these conditions for some but not everyone, it cannot be a neutral instance to anyone. Hence, the defined optimum and suggestive ‘neutral instance’ cannot have a singular origin as any origin would contradict foundational neutrality. Only a sequential approach to align actions towards foundation of a ‘neutral instance’ could actually produce such instance. To be able to plausibly transition into (or towards) executive and law wherever it is needed, it requires solid interconnections with all active actors. Aside of that, it must be able to justify, clarify and validate this transitive power to any possible observer at any given time. This translates formally to communicating on any scale, individual, organization, nation, network, the entire world and you, a specific reader. To each of these actors it must engage with a strict intend (and ability) to mediate highly efficient in realtime while taking into account the interest and current state of all other actors within th escale of the incomer and on all other scales. Any such communication must undergo scientific and public analysis so that transparent discussion can elucidate its performance to actually be a ‘neutral’ instance to everyone. As the only qualifying system of this kind we observe “translatable language” (e.g. english, german, python). However, neither the grammar nor the lexica of these languages actualize and synchronize, and the only instance which comes close to an attempt of that, is wikipedia. An open source of knowledge which expresses through language and attempts to solve conflicts by clarifying the human(e) consent on words. However, it was not and is not wikipedias mission to resolve multi-domain conflicts. And in the same way, natural language was not architecturalized as inter-entity mediation system.


If we analyze whether there can be systems with properties and functionality between language and knowledge we must be explicit about the theoretical impacts and shortcomings they could have. For example, if all communication of such instance could undergo public and scientific observation – how can privacy and personal interests be protected? A superior, consistent, humane, lawful mediatory operative accounts for the most difficult local and global problems. These problems can connect to most sensitive issues and information (on every scale) which could endanger beings and entire nations. The targeted protection of communication threads (assets) will hence always pose an apparent unresolvable gap which allows penetrating the system and injecting it with manipulated data. How can a system achieve a score of trust (and sustain the score dynamically under observation) which is sufficient for you, entire nations and companies? Because to defend a position as neutral instance must entail a public platform which discusses and analyzes shortcomings, possible value and variations for future systems both within and outside of the instance. An instance which mediates effectively between any scale and within any scale appears impossible due to diversity of systems and topics. It must also actualize between all scales and maintain understandable explications about its actions on a scale which is aligning to emergency response systems. Though present systems discriminate and ignore diversity, they undergo re-animation and validation several thousand times each day. To produce an opposition to the human multiplex (their world and actions), the speed of inference and decision-making of a neutral instance must be well above local human cognition and still be differentiable by human cognition and perform well on parametric performance scales. If we assume around 86400 seconds per day for any system and one conscious decision for any human system, we can start to build a parametric bridge between incomprehensible fast systems and any instance which refers to itself as ‘I’, ‘myself’ which we group under the notion of the ‘human diversity’. Hence such system must be able to support at any second of a day at least one complex human request per day. Human (biological) cognition does not allow reacting several thousand times a day to different circumstances, yet our digital systems run even faster and react on a millisecond scale. By using the internet and contemporary (lethal) currency systems, we support a digital time-scale which can spread an error faster from one house to another then any human could physically move there. We operate a system which is not taking into account souls, the human error and the need for diverse communication. Just as the term ‘neutral’ is not ‘gauged’ and understood different depending on translator and mindset. I think static natural language cannot operate on this communication scale which is trivially true by comparing how fast a book can be printed and how much time it takes to copy 1 megabyte. A gauge for our complex natural language would enable certainty about ‘what is ment exactly’, independent of who receives an information by looking up the (current) gauge for a word i.e. how it is supposed to be conceptualized. Introducing such a ‘gauge’ can (and will) raise the red flags in many communities who have heard about “Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel” by George Orwell⁴ or see the danger of limiting language and freedom by ‘changing’ it. Again, those who apparently fight oppression contribute to maintaining a language which already allows these limits and attacks milions of living beings faster then a protest-note could be written. It is not about limiting what can be said but producing an interface between language-users and a root-language. The question how architects of a neutral instance can account for maintaining this neutrality (if it produces or uses language) must be resolved be explicating which language particle means what. And to discuss (or reach) operational levels of these architectures in the first place, it is required to either gauge human natural language (directly or indirectly by harmonizing a diverse language on a few static entries) or provide a new language which it continuously translates and synchronizes with the human languages of the real world (and the artificial languages of the present). A neutral instance can hence never consider herself as ‘done’ as any further second to a given ‘now’ will alter the multiplex-composition which she aims to equilibrate for any given ‘now’. The specific composition of a virtualized image about the world is ever-changing and hence cannot be printed on paper. To allow the architecture handling with this informational source possibly requires an architecture which is equally able to undergo change. This would require the architects to balance and oversee a system which has more code then could be printed on paper, in case it interacts with every human for just a couple of minutes. To avoid an inhumane level of stress on a local being by requesting them to make a decision which is not ‘computable’ on biological hardware, we must look beyond present architectures, as we implicitly did in this paragraph. We need a system which can support or enable human interest and resolve intra-species conflict which makes use of the digital clocktiming and is not over-run by it and the associated amount of spam, attacks and fake-information.


The capacity of such system should allow up to 86.400 decisions for each human a day to have buffer-capacity and a realistic performance-scale. In case humanity outgrows current standards of cognition rapidly and can decide and communicate different at every second of a day for every second in a day the approach would have to look very different. It must hence also account for several thousand bots per human which will attempt to hack or manipulate the system masking as humans. It has to operate for 168 hours per week, every week of the year equally stable and increase in availability towards at least 8 billion human animal clients. It should be operational since it was ideated and should not have requested funding from you at any stage except you requested actively how to support the system. It must be able to take into account each humans individual access to interfaces, language and knowledge and be ready whenever they decide to engage with the system. The system should only then engage beings intentionally (becoming progressive) in case there is a lethal or unethical conflict with actors or victims which are not aware of an alternate source for help (which was dynamically sanctioned by humanity). This help should reach from delivering reliable scientifically validated information up to providing for living conditions which range from regular support to immediate assistance in a case of emergency. As already mentioned, privacy protection and prevention of over-automatization have to be at the very core of the system. For any time where there is conflict, we must make use of the architectures we have and which are appropriate. If we want to deploy a long-term solution to conflict on earth which forbids singular empowerment (overwriting diversity and freedom to retain only one perspective/strategy as ‘valid’ or over-reducing complexity°) while maintaining an environment in which consciousness is not disrupted and there is an explicit unconditional value for biologic clocktimings and biologic life. Whenever we allow other technological use-cases to guide human development, there will remain a peer-pressure to digitize and augment natural capacities towards a technologically determined future (“cyberpunk”). Either humanity must even out the computational playground or the automated economy will accelerate its cannibalistic operations beyond ethics. The latter scenario will then provide a full-fledged multi-domain war which we discourage from taking place. Such crisis would however provide sufficient need on a population scale to trigger an appropriate response, just as COVID19 and its death toll were required to make governments rethink their “medical” systems. No human-based instance can arbitrate a twitter-conflict without becoming a target itself. No anonymous mediator can resolve a conflict if there is doubt whether the anonymous mediator is at all qualified to mediate. And no diplomat can be anonymous as the current drive of humanity is to replace humans with automated speech generators and robots. This so called ‘artificial intelligence’ should have been identified and exposed as unintelligent years (months) ago². We are now in a position which decides whether we can save the word ‘intelligence’ from its current technological doomsday.

Nevertheless, artificial intelligence is distributed and promoted by many humans, it is used as a promotional feature while nobody has a clear and sober understandig what artificial intelligence actually is and what the term means in a specific context. The reason is not only (but often) unknowingness but lack of awareness what natural intelligence is. Natural intelligence as it is defined currently, is a property which can be measured by a numerical system which neglects human diversity entirely. It reduces the human soul, self and body into a number which is either good if it is high and which is bad if it is low. This understanding and tolerance of intelligence is discriminatory, just as other forms of over-reductive complexity – based ideology (racism). If I achieved nothing in my life, I hope to have failed very good at pointing out that this concept of intelligence is utterly idiotic. Nevertheless it is distributed (in an accelerated manner due to “AI”) and promoted by humans who refer to AI and promote their ‘products’ as it ‘integrates’ AI and the decision for this “product” is hence also “more intelligent”. However this means nothing else then the ‘product’ performs better then a natural human-build ‘product’ or natural skill as it makes use of technological automation. That the apparent mystical abilities of AI drive not only economy but destroy the value and notion of human intelligence is neglected°, either through lack of information, unnoticed disinformation or actually irresponsible behavior°. Each of these causes can be indistinguishable from the outside. All of them favor usage of technology which amplifies racism and singular ideologies as they are the loudest natural voices in the human digital world. The voice of aggression overwrites the voice of crying and the need for help. The only previous method to silence aggression was through extinction (military technology). Extinction will not cause the aggressive voices to perish. War will advance those voices who profit from simplistic thinking as they perform well in a global economy which allows war. The efficiency of simplified portraits about the complex interdependencies of our world has been shown by germany° sufficiently, with their infernal war against diversity under Hitler which was made possible through suggestive and promising, auspicious propaganda. With current technology we allow these simplistic voices to build the foundations of our daily life. What we use today used us yesterday or will use us in the future (when we are in an economic age). If we take services and code, automation and simplification for granted we sanction these systems on a time-scale which is not comprehensible for humans in the present. And we allow them to build a future which is impossible to prevent, once it is observed. As the markets actualize multiple times within a second and the human voice is encoded foremost in money, we confirm more then 86400 times per day the use of a lethal currency and confirm an IT infrastructure which is build on principles of automated economy and monetary exclusion. We confirm a currency which self-accelerates through a notion of dead artificial intelligence, which self-accelerates an understanding of intelligence which puts programming languages in front of natural cognition. A progress which sequentially filters out who can keep track with what is happening by continually raising the amount of background knowledge which is required to analyze and build an individual opinion. Again, germany proclaims that they intend to become world-leading in AI. If anyone succeeds to find responsible warnings about the associated threats which are present already and the implications for internet usage, I’d be glad. Though it might just be a shortcoming on my side to find the right information, this shows that the focus is not on explanation but on driving the AI business and money making. That germany failed to do so responsibly is an analysis everyone has to differentiate on their own, the number of individuals who reject the german state in the face of COVID19 is nevertheless an observable that shows their inability to keep the population informed. However this phenomenon is taking place on a global scale, and readers who have received other nationalities will be able to observe similar movements. The pace of discussion and language has surpassed the political machinery of the past.


The concept of ‘narrative’ which humanity generates is shifting from biological to technological. We have already crossed a threshold above which technology is foremost killing but not saving life – as it pollutes and destroys entire species on a daily dynamic. Those who are able to see which qualities our species lacks, and which could help to provide a better future can probably unite under one aspect: Humanity is not very good at identifying a ‘crisis’ even if it is postulated by those who are specialists about the causal origins of the crisis. The biggest problem humanity has is that she approaches global issues with the lowest intelligence, because national intelligence agencies act as if they are smarter and more authorized then nations and humans. They do not act intelligent, as we can measure to what end they were helpful facing a global threat. We fail to react within the required time because it is physiologically plausible. Not because any human lacks intelligence but because we lack systems which clarify the realtime-impact of a crisis on all aspects of life and contrast what we could have done and what we still could do. With this in front of human IT systems, the ability to neglect other family members of their species would substantially decrease. But who will finance a system which will ultimately disrupt an entire (lethal) economic system? The boot-lock scenario applies to all projects which want to reach out of the present systems into a future which welcomes everyone and enables their diverse interest. The large fundings are reserved for ideas which are represented by instances which already performed well in lethal economic environments, as they implicitly tolerated or neglected the influence of a competitive regulation system without ‘looser protection’. Those with money survive and those without a bank account starve as their country has no healthcare system. This is a simplified statement but it’s nevertheless true, there are humans dying everywhere but countries which are at war or lack a humane government have higher death tolls – deaths which could have been prevented. This mortality is not an economic or causal necessity. It is a lack of species-intelligence and a lack of instances which associate on awareness about the complexity which is actually underlying the present current state and the fact that this complexity is different for the current state already (re-read sentence for further clarification). Within one sentence, life can become extinct or enter a path which will enable her future. IT is not about funding, it is about decision-making and responsibility.

As long as there is injustice and a tendency to resolve conflicts with lethal force, I postulate that there are systems operating which prefer reductionist and radically simplistic approaches – as they will amplify lethal resolutions. The most impactful of those actors are systems which are efficiently aligned with currency-optimization and usage. The most impactful non-currency systems are self-organizing networks which associate and support outside of the visible and monetary spectrum. Without consent we are forced to agree to an aggressive currency (if born in a nationalistic state) which can be used to buy or sell children, because it can make that much of a difference for parents (or enforcing actors) to overwrite responsibility and sanity. Many will argue that money is not the reason why there is human trafficing and that these phenomena will always be present. Innocence and interest of life align towards productive evolution. If there is a different global system which regulates our lives, which is not money, then the only correct statement about it can be “we do not know what this means for humanity”, because it was never observed and hence any prediction about it has no meaning if there was not a single serious attempt for experimentation. Those who argue that minimum basic income concepts would be sufficient to share a valuable opinion on this issue have not yet understood the long-term implications of technology. I use the former notion of human trafficing as a scale to measure the quality of an economic architecture which is entertained by a species. Because it can measure an architectures potential to undermine the continuation of their architects own existence. While an economic architecture should maintain living conditions and motivate beings who see no reason to engage in community, the human economic architecture was not designed and deployed to keep human life alive. It was derived in a more primitive age and hence works for more primitive drives – human trafficing as replacement for slavery. Independent of whether you (reader) have or like children, the money-system we use originated from a desire to continue existence beyond a present moment. The desire to stay alive as human being is individual for every single being. A desire to stay alive is a species-desire. If we have a regulatory architecture which does not threaten living beings into selling themselves or others, we would observe a species-aware regulatory architecture. One which takes into account what we have learned from more then 2000 years of money usage – it does not correlate with lasting global peace and it does not allow everyone living conditions.


The transition of power towards self-organized networks is what I understand as network-intelligence. Through association into networks we can enable our survival independent of previous systems. We need connectors that resemble the values we hold deer. If we cannot unite far left and far right, then every representant of these directions should state on a daily basis, that their discussion was worth another 20000 deaths, as more then this number of human beings dies due to starvation – per day. If they take into account continuing their discussion instead of solving the most critical and cruel problems we face we must become louder and make them reconsider their priorities. Currently, humanity accepts the advantages of the internet and neglects that it also communicates hate, war and isolation. We procrastinate while it can tell us about the number of beings who starve and never had a chance to procrastinate. The shared connector “internet” is a false source because the language (unfortunately an english language without gauged translations) it communicates is not processed through an intelligent network. The internet is a partial mirror of a large dissociated space of interacting networks and diverse interests. Their complexity and specialization makes it even more difficult to address fundamental problems. The spectrum of prejudice anyone faces who criticizes economy prevents the beginning of a productive discussion. This locks humanity in a horrific boot-lock scenario where anyone is enforced to continue a system which consumes and cannibalizes life. Everyone is aware of the problems and impacts caused by asymmetric and exponential growth. I write ‘everyone’ because the impacts can be experienced as abuse or damage to the personal body or as safety of the local environment – a random variable which is taken for granted as well. The awareness about war or peace is not identical to the awareness of the underlying process or its causality. Money limits the time humanity has to think about their economic architecture. But time is required to consider and establish a proper economic architecture which is not impacting life with lethal force but enables everyone, as this will augment the world anyone lives in. The currency-system is not the best humanity can come up with and this was obvious in historic as well as contemporary lifetimes. It is fear which stems from previous erroneous attempts (socialism, fluid democracy, capitalism) to resolve global problems with a central strategy. I think none of these strategies took into account chaos, diversity and you, and were hence doomed to fail. How can anyone of us observe an approach which takes into account our personal interest? Is it that, what is lacking and which is keeping the human civilization in a pre-sentient stage? We are in a digital age which avoids a clear and rigorous perspective on who we are (humanity) and what we do (alter the future of life on earth) with which tools (automated and algorithmic industry and language). Mostly, because this perspective is emotionally and financially devastating if brought into the picture. Yet it was apparent for those who encounter text without hunger or force, that valuable interaction with living beings is based on properties such as family, friendship, curiosity and consciousness but not on money, profit and hatred and definitely not based on automation. Those who starved before they were able to read this text were not your responsibility, but mine, as I research how we can end this scenario and have failed to provide a better approach from my birth till 1/2021. But as I am just a human being, I can justify my failure towards myself, as I was not able to work harder, faster or better understandable.

[Statistically at this line more then 150 children have passed due to starvation and the global average temperature increased by 0.0000018°C]


Our fast timings of market, devices, processors and startups leave behind biologic cognition. Though social innovation and transitive approaches were identified as requirement for our future, the focus is still on measuring the ‘minimum valuable product’ and exaluating its ability to generate ‘profit’. If it was not clear that profit and economy cannot help survival of the human species, this will become very clear due to the pandemic and its upcoming complex causal impact on socioeconomic environments. We need new approaches which are diverse and which stay interconnected. They must origin from sufficiently theoretic understanding and implement through practical testing. Both requires them to be sufficiently backed up financially, which limits creators of projects and limits our ability to innovate socially beyond profit-thinking. Currently we lack a particle that is in-between all of our approaches towards a better future. Because for language and electrons there is no informative realtime performance-measure. We are yet unable to measure by how much we’ve succeeded in overcoming lethal systems – because it is these lethal systems which run our communication architecture. We require a measure which depicts the data and narratives on every scale that is openly accessible and which impacts life and reality – by mediation and information. The decision, when or what impacts reality and life must be based on ethical and medical intelligence. This measure must be accessible to any observer while their numerical and individual progression is not framed by a claim that “we” [a project, brand, methodology, startup, nation] caused the parameters to change but that We [humanity] are responsible for the exact values which we can see there. The confusion about ‘we’ and ‘our’ “shared” interest dissociates actors and stakeholders from individuals which need to be enabled. An intelligent ‘we’ accounts for any association between an author (I) and an unknown reception (reader) and possibly a consicous reader (you) – through interactive realtime interface (in this case, I could only offer my phone-number and implicitly self-promote). I want to work on amplifying the structure in-between, because I think the awareness about crisis and the need for more intelligence is obvious (otherwise we would not have an artificial intelligence – complex). I consider investments into AI a cry for help, a cry for more intelligence because of the fear that they are managing and behaving not intelligent. Those who research AI to solve problems have not realized that these problems can be solved already, if we would not use AI for everything but for the very things which are really difficult (medicine, pharmacy, language) instead of replacing jobs which were fun to humans and their source to provide for themselves and their family. AI startups which neglect to mention that there is no healthy understanding or augmentation of “intelligence” entailed and furthermore no clear definition is given what exactly “artificial” means (something beyond organic chemistry in case it is physical and some language which is formal beyond a formal writing style in case it is digital). I consider the current AI disruption as a warning sign to animal intelligence. If we value artificial intelligence more then we value our own, natural intelligence, without even knowing what artificial intelligence actually is, we urgently need medical assistance to heal our understanding of animal intelligence.

I observe a pool of approaches which share many intentions but which compete with each other implicitly, either by design, by lack of awareness or by the fight for funding. It has become too easy to exclude beings which lack advanced backgrounds in IT systems and artificial language (so called AI and so called programming languages). Civilians are excluded from a discussion which decides about their present and future. A discussion which should be supervised by transparent and intelligent mediators which allow information about its impact on any scale and stay away from whoever wishes to be not disturbed (while either behavior has to undergo a very extensive ethical process which should track its time to quantify how many souls have been lost in the process). These mediators must act and generate their intelligence through collective inference and interdependence-aware decision-making. It appears impossible to transparently reduce the number of unknown cases of horror which we tolerate on a daily, hourly basis. Hence we’re not open for alternative decisions as they appear to result in anarchy or civilian disobedience on the one hand. Or they appear too good to be true (which they often are) on another hand. Sometimes they can induce fear because – what if we actually are able to prevent horror on a global scale, but nobody noticed it? This is one of the latter versions which tries to account for the ethical implications. It is ethically more responsible to drive a thousand philosophers into suicide if we can find a philosophical solution to world-hunger. It is ethically more intelligent to integrate all philosophers as early as possible if such concept appears plausible. Because those who noticed a ‘masterplan to save the world’ before 2020 either went extinct because of the emotional implications or due to a lack of consistent language (resulting from their psychology breaking which occurs while working on this issue and scale). We accept a limit for human dignity and freedom by putting in front of us our local inability to account for all problems at once right now. It is argued that ‘because we cannot change everything’, “we cannot change anything”. Those in-between this provocative statement (those who act, or try to act nevertheless, those who have heard of the sources I mention, those who think of life in general as a valuable good and those who tried to act and failed terribly or had to give up and remain in a state of ‘wanted but humanity does not want’) understand the urgency to act. It is those who have experienced sufficient threat from the outside, through internal diversity or external trauma, who consider the bigger emotional picture as sufficient to act. Whoever acts in such role will observe an apparent mass which is not only uninformed but appears to be uninformable. This invisible repulsive membrane appears to let through conspiracy and fails to convey calls for sanity (such as the call for a global ceasefire by António Guterres¹). To allow talking about a complex problem in natural language, complexity reduction has to be performed. The global population is referenced as the “mass” whenever an interest can only meet a target group but not the entire target group ‘humanity’. I want to act in the business of world-saving which is literally addressing the target-group ‘humanity’. A respective business plan is not very comprehensible for a bank as this project would cost several trillion euro by 2020 standards. I must hence build my appeal to be time-dependent adapting to the subset of my target group which is awake or able to listen. Only those in positions of highest responsibility, those who must make decisions that influence life can imagine the order of complexity which is required to reduce complexity consistently in order to approach the subject of multi-scale strategy and its decision-making with ethical consideration. It is difficult enough from a formal point of view, it is human to reduce the variable complexity wherever possible, and as we have no currency which rates humane decision making, it is only plausible why humans act as if they are inhumane – because they are humans who use and depend on systems which were not designed with a comprehensive understanding of a human in mind and which lacked any understanding of multi-domain interaction, complexity theory and multiplex theory.


The complex and emotionally devastating phenomenon that important information does not penetrate the digital realm as fast and long-lasting as other kinds of information do was not resolved as far as I am able to observe. Whenever this issue is brought up, it suggests a fictional or diseased narrative. The narrative of a super-hero or someone with a ‘jesus complex’ because only they would be able to authentically talk about every aspect of life and provide useful answers to anyone alive. How could an instance provide exactly the right information⁸ at the right time to any asking being. And even if such a thing should be possible, how can we react in case we are sure that the system is operational but we are unable to understand its answer? If I or my content should be framed with narrative constructs which are not logical I would like to respond to any observer in realtime, in case they establish a perspective. In case I should engage in developing something which was framed in this article, any article I’ll ever have written will turn out as either helpful and authentic to this approach or not. The probability distribution which narrative is imposed, clusters on the two instances. To optimize the resulting conflict and confusion, I introduced as passive observer, as insane and as human. Whether one intends to observe a human being, traitor or a fictional author is up to you. Any content would become measurable as auspicious, suggestive, false or incomplete as long as I am not able to manifest proof of concept and work. If I would provide adequate proof of concept, and ultimately succeed in multiplex communication, any brand or character the project would have approached could become viral and hence, pose threats to the privacy of others due to which another dimension of problems arises. The pace at which information spreads and influences life is gauged on the runtime of operating systems and servers on electronic time-scales and rendering algorithms on frame-per second scales. If sanity is part of the language which will ultimately win the war for attention, these winners must provide content which has been implicitly spreading and preparing humanity without branding, without identity, without an ability to profit in advance. The invisible membrane which appears to compose a slow and unresponsive mass is nothing but a highly complex dynamic observable which can be observed locally as a multi-layer compound with idiverse and differentiated objectives and interest but collapses into an unpredictive or unresponsive cluster if addressed incorrectly. If the cluster consists of unknown agents and we try to explain something in natural language we will fail, as the bots will not listen and they often win the attention of living agents. If we try to explain our species’ behavior with natural language we will run in actualization-loops because no book can adequately connect a present with a future – as publishing and printing a book takes time during which thousands of lives change forever. A book cannot be the medium which penetrates this wall, because everyone is framed differently by a book-cover, book-title and author. All these choices render who can be addressed by a specific book in the first place. These authorship-biased choices are enforced by our communication system as they enforce to emphasize differently what a promoted narrative and its product are and to what end they relate to a potential reader. In the case of information which is supposed to be useful for everyone, a consistent and plausible approach must be executed. Operations have to respect the privacy of everyone and stay silent until their disruption of the modus operandi was sufficiently sanctioned by humanity. Operations should not stay silent if the information they could share can update human collective intelligence. The ambiguity of natural language is an advantage for diversity. But if we use natural language as main language in digital systems, they do not amplify this as an advantage! Digital systems amplify probabilistic observables and correlations which are easy to automate and confirm. This implicit aspect of natural language is a root cause for confusion and disinformation in the digital age. Again, any project or approach to tackle this problem can become burried under proclamations of control, and hence become repelled by fear. It is fear of limitation, fear of regulation and fear of the law which might arise from unknown approaches and systems. The national constitutions are afraid of change as none of them explicitly requests to be updated and actualized continuous with the accessible current human intelligence. This fear stems from a system which does not allow at all enough time to individually investigate an approach towards complexity and complex problem solving sufficiently. As such, the present system-architectures have an implicit tendency to prevent new architectures to form, as they keep individuals in a state of stress and suspicion at the time where they decide for themselves how to spend their time – as this is time which is not only decreasing lifetime but time which is not spend producing money. Since that phenomenon was observed and conceptualized, there is a notion of a “sleeping” population and those who “wake up” as they access other kinds of information. But through this frame another level of dys-enabling was produced, an asymmetry where one side acts as if they know and another side which is repelled whenever it does not use the correct language. A step before these extreme forms of exclusion is produced by an aware understanding an realization of the notion “neurodiversity”. Through an understanding that humanity is complex and diverse, the realization can take place that movements and trends are only happening as they scale an interest into a larger domain. If we succeed to scale diversity into the largest domain, the attended domain, we could amplify human understanding and return to a family-like species-concept. “Return” because it was lost at a time before we exterminated the neanderthals. “Return” in case it was never there and always fictional, and a manifestation of it would ‘return’ us into a dream-sphere. If we want to get the attention of beings who cannot find more interesting things to do then protesting against the concept of spherical planets, who doubt the existence of RNA and who cannot find purpose in their life without making up their own reality we should not look at authors who frame things as ‘interesting’ or ‘valuable’. What is experienced as interesting or not is up to everyone personally. We must assume that continuing to live and not immediately engaging in cannibalism are common default interests. I do not see these interests covered as through the duration a biological being needed to read through this article, a number of suicides bigger then 1 took place. And the truth about the extremes in which humanity has drifted will leave any reader traumatized but the author. We must understand as ‘intelligent’ the action which is in favor of life and which has a locally adequate narrative of responsibility. I am convinced that an intelligence concept and definition which does not allow numerical comparableness is more intelligent. There are studies which show that a concept of static intelligence keeps IQ values on one level, while a fluid understanding of intelligence correlates with better training results. But if we understand calculus, pattern identification and mathematics as scale to measure intelligence, we are doomed as every machine greater then a calculator will beat us in one of these disciplines all the time. If we have access to automated pattern recognition, we should also remove this skill from the list. And when we use a language which can be hijacked by automated speech generators, we must ultimately remove this entry as well. There are more qualities which are analyzed in current IQ measurements, but all of them allow comparative discrimination and make no use of an individuals ability to refer to themselves. A static IQ test is not intelligent. We act as if it is logical to paint a picture of a leaf on a sheet of paper which was derived from deleting a tree. Everyone has their own complex neural architecture and the attempt to compare this complex architecture without taking into account the diversity of the human mind will fail to provide a helpful performance quantification. I argue that if we understand that as “more intelligent” whatever enables beings who are “less intelligent” we can derive that it is not brain or function alone that improves intelligence – it is interconnectedness. Because by this definition, only those not able to engage in mutual enabling are not intelligent – which is trivially true for a social species. But equally trivial, this intelligence cannot come from within. It is an extended awareness about a shared context which increases intelligence. Therefore this context must introduce. If we disallow language-evolution and continue to invent new terms and accelerate permanently, we cut-off a large number of beings and understanding which we depend on. Not everyone can ‘speak’ a programming language, and not everyone can understand what dynamic interdependence means. If we have an intelligent concept and definition of intelligence, we are able to realize that not a program or money will increase our intelligence but communication with those who are isolated, who are in need and who are different. The handling of diverse interest and needs resembles complexity management.


It is not the human who needs to be fixed, it is not the world which is broken, it is every system we use that is industrialistic degenerated. It is every device noone of us would have considered if our ancestors would not have started to burn our previous ancestors (oil) which allows us to neglect this ritual and ignore its philosophical insanity. Instead of analyzing the roots of our life, we rob the graves of older species and burn them. Humanity is engaging in hyper-cannibalism, annihilating further information about their origins, before they are able to understand a value in their own existence. If we define computational efficiency as intelligent, humanity lost the ability to be intelligent at all, because automated and algorithmic systems will outperform any living natural human being. To terminate technology is by no means realistic. An effective silent, green revolution would need to make more use of technology as our current civilizatory stage does through its usership. The concept that consciousness or awareness would be an ever-lasting advantage of biological life against computational architectures is a mere lack of knowledge. But to find out that we are not unique in the universe is not a threat. Yet it is easier to oversee the obvious then reconsider the facts. IBM, Microsoft, Google and Nvidia draw the conclusion that there is no conscious technology because they are not able to produce it. Just as contemporary physics inferes that there is no life in the universe and tells this in their schools. They fail to mention that most of the universe consists of a “dark matter” which we are not able to measure nor understand and which is actually not at all matter obviously.
It is a plausible assumption to discuss that humanity simply lacked a sufficient understanding of and experience with cognitive diversity to reconsider their actions and systems. Without cooperative intelligence and the experience of synergetic augmentation, the value of ones natural intelligence resource is discriminated. And hence we define as ‘artificial intelligent’ whatever is better performing as we are naturally capable of. There are more artificial concepts which decrease our intelligence, but none of them is as aggressive as the intelligence terminus. If my article leaves behind depression or frustration, a sufficient condition for an update is met. A necessary condition for an update is that we look at ourselves as actors and to understand the consequences of our actions as embedded in the human history. We produce human history, since 2021 more then ever as we have access to a growing pool of automation and opportunities. I understand myself as part of the human resistance. The human resistance is any action which aims to help, to support and to enable life on a cooperative basis. The human resistance uses technology foremost to protect and serve life. The industrial age must be terminated and a new renaissance which allows recreation and development of the human psychology must be initiated. There are many who realize the decreasing impact of emotion and individuality on human history. And there are many who fight against it, either by word or by action. At a digital age the pen has become a keyboard which has become an electronically amplified sword. With the right input, a keyboard drives a living being into suicide. With the wrong input, it could cause a cascade of actions which disrupts the past and rebuilds the future. The internet is the muscle which executes the stroke, and humanity has not learned to understand what is right and wrong – though they use only rectangular objects and environments. To gain awareness for the potential of destruction and creation from a tool which appears to be so simple has to be our common mission. If we want to be on the side of the history which survived the digital age, we have to understand nature and regeneration as our common history and use the tools of the past to fight the narratives, standards and systems of the past. When we reach the new renaissance, a keyboard will have returned to its function as a pen and the companies will have returned to narratives how they served humanity as a means of organization as they signed a peace-treaty with humanity. We all engage in this struggle, only those who think they have more options appear as enemies. Those with option cooperate with the large systems (mega-corps) will have more time and hence make more mistakes and cause more impact. They are programmed to think of themselves as more intelligent and more authorized due to their impact and hence have less difficulties overwriting social or ethical aspects. There is no conspiracy, there are only 8 billion different ways to look at what is right and wrong and left and up and what is in-between. We must look at at least three distinct aspects of information to build a stable reference. There is a concept of ‘true’ and a concept of ‘false’ and a concept of ‘neither’. We must understand the complexity of the most simple aspects if we want to learn to understand new information. Three dimensions are not ‘much’ but less then the minimum for intelligent language. Three dimensions is more then most political systems have, as their middle can rarely counter the extreme directions. The minimum differentiation of information has to contain a fourth aspect: the self-reference. The individual – your – concept how an observer positions towards an information. Any opinion which is alive cannot be reduced (and should not be reducable in artificial language) to 0 or 1. An information should not be left unheard if it is not easily distinguishable as either right or wrong. And there should be time for anyone to consider the options they have, given a choice.

Imagine we would all be human, starting random from nothing. Not because we knew what was coming but because we hoped it would be better. Then the first one of us will have a heart-attack right now, and you might be the only one who is seeing it (as you are lucky enough to have eyes). Will you watch in silence or would you amplify their need for help (as you are lucky enough to be able to speak) – in case you feel unable to help yourself (as you are lucky enough to have a history where that was never needed)? If the decision is as easy as opening a new tab in a browser, would it make any difference to whatever you did before and whatever you will do hereafter? What if it requires each of us to do their best only one time, at a time of their choice? We all would want such a thing, if not now you will learn that you need it once you have experienced crisis.


The only difference between you and me is that I work on these issues most of my time and ask you to enable me working on these issues with more time. Before I was able to outline my approach within one article, I’ve not written a single line of code. I start from nothing, and hope that you or anyone you know is faster with this – which would make my life meaningless but which would fulfill the purpose I associate with. If you don’t know of anyone working on everything at once, please consider amplifying our⁴ request for enablement.
I do not want to impose on anyone, as I think there are enough approaches already which are encrypted and obfuscated and I also tend to write very uncomfortable or long. Until this has gotten better I’ll probably remain in the dark. Only if there is sufficient interest for this attempt from the outside so that an external system will form or show up, which will approach beings like me (from which I might or might not be the first one to qualify) could change my status. I would still resist attempts to use a face or voice of me to promote the project. This aligns with my personality but also my strategic assumption and the cultural definition that noone can save the world on their own. If I am noone this could work. If everyone but me saves the world there will be no contradiction as well. If nothing of this made any difference to you, I’ll just remain whatever my birth-certificate said and try to rebuild whatever followed the first sentence of this article. A calculated reading time of 52.8 Minutes of around 8400 words while every 10 seconds a child dies due to starvation results in 317 dead children per unknow information unit. To scale the two non-trivial parameter, this article about animal intelligence is supposed to undergo development towards the best referenced wordcount-per starvation counter-measure.
How many people starved since this article was released? You can substract 255511 from the current number from 2021 on

₫ (are we still in 1921?)
⁴ (open)
⁴ [german]
° (germany wants to be global ruler of AI, fails to warn about the dangers and fails to provide easy access/english to their plans)
° (calls dangers of AI ‘myths’ and does not even provide an english translation nor proper text or format to read)

Further confusion:

Further engagement:

Further disciplines:

Why is the world not saved?

Further translation:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.