Tribalism lives on

Fighting broke out last night in the Olympic stadium as West Ham fans clashed with Chelsea supporters. It demonstrated that problems due to tribalism in football, last seen in the seventies, haven't gone away. Nor will they ever because tribalism is in built into the human psyche. We are programmed to stick close to family, friends and community for reasons of collective security and preservation of resources.
Why then do you suppose that people who mean well ask people to willingly accept into their lives and neighbourhood people of an alien culture, needful of what that community has and cherishes? They seem to imagine that all people in the twenty-first century must be 'civilised', that they have an overwhelming desire to relinquish their hard gained benefits and hand them over whilly-nilly to a tribe from far off lands. It just might be possible if these immigrants made an effort to join the tribe of the hosts, adopting ways, customs and values that help them integrate but many newcomers do not, adhering to ancient beliefs and habits under the umbrella of ludicrous 'human right' laws. It is for this reason that I believe trouble lies ahead as the incoming tribes try to takeover the Country, bit by bit, starting with ghettos and moving outwards, driven by an alien ideology from a different time and place. The folk of the host nation, compassionate and civilised as they may be but acting under an ancient and ingrained impulse, might just say, enough is enough.

Why Professor Hawking is wrong about AI

The very name 'Artificial Intelligence' tells it all really. Scientists are trying to create robots as near to humans as they can using the physics of the day. By this means we can make automatons that are capable of using their limbs to emulate humans; they can walk, talk and do work, using known physical laws and harnessing the power of algorithms. They seek to make robots intelligent.

Professor Hawking has suggested that we humans should tread warily lest we create in the future an entity that might come to wish us harm. It is my contention that in order for an entity to have this capability requires it to have a certain level of consciousness and since this is impossible the threat is non-existant. But why can't a robot have sufficient consciousness?

Scientists, today, believe that time has only one dimension. I have shown in the 'Davies Hypothesis', https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpThiz2UeBeEI9MwGjChZ04j8XulU78uZ

that time in our universe does in fact have three dimensions, corresponding to the past, the present and the future. We only exist in the present, the now which is constantly being created as the universe expands. However, as I show in my talks, our brain works in all three dimensions. The past (‘unreal’) time deals with KNOWLEDGE and memory providing humans with a database. The present (‘real’) time is about the senses and how they allow us to experience the world about us. Coupled with the ‘unreal’ time this gives us UNDERSTANDING. ‘Imaginary’ time in conjunction with ‘unreal’ and ‘real’ time allows humans to use their knowledge and understanding to make decisions, to plan, to dream and consider the abstract. It gives rise to WISDOM. Thus we have three stages of consciousness.

Because science can only work in the ‘real’ or present time, and bearing in mind it is possible to build into a computer a memory, a robot can only reach stage two consciousness. It can never, in my opinion, reach stage three of consciousness, that involving ‘imaginary’ time, in the same way that humans can never know the future. We can anticipate, even predict the future but we can NEVER know it.

It is my belief that without this third level of consciousness, robots cannot conceive of abstract concepts such as good and evil, power and servility etc. scientists cannot create ‘AW’, artificial wisdom.

Does Nicola Sturgeon hate England and the English?

A Scottish ITV presenter quizzed Scotland's First minister, Nicola Sturgeon, yesterday, ahead of her proposal for a second independence referendum. He pushed her harder than we imagine the BBC would. It seems that the First Minister has looked at the EU referendum voting pattern and concluded that her Country would be better allied with the Europeans rather than the rest of the UK.
The presenter suggested that the Scottish economy was only half that needed to reach the entry level which coupled with low tax receipts and the plummeting price of oil painted a dire picture of Scotland plc; one unlikely to attract the interest of Berlin, say. Despite the fact that the US does trillions of dollars worth of trade in the 'single market' without hindrance, Sturgeon worries that Brexit will have dire effects on the Scotch Whisky industry. She seems unfazed that in leaving the old alliance, a well run economy, she will be joining a market of notorious economic opacity, unbridled waste and extravagance; its accounts not written off by the auditors for an unbroken 22 years. Nor does it bother her that the EU is run by unelected bureaucrats; strange when she refers to the democratic will of the Scottish electorate. It's all bollocks! There must be something else. It's England, isn't it?
So; what is it about Nicola Sturgeon's hatred of the English, because that must be what its all about. Her dislike of England and the English is driving her party to lead the Scottish nation over the precipice. Perhaps that same ITV presenter should ask her about that.

Theresa May's problem and solution

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, has a problem; a problem with parliamentarians in her own party. These MPs still have difficulty coming to terms with the electorate's resolve to leave the EU (which includes leaving the single market). She has only a small majority in the House of Commons and these rebels put in jeopardy her plans to implement the result of the referendum.
Might it solve her problem if, bearing in mind Labour's difficulties, she announces a General Election soon in the New Year and asks all the Tory constituencies to ensure that all Conservative candidates accept the reality of Brexit, dumping the europhiles. I feel sure she'd win by a landslide, especially so because UKIP supporters will change allegiance with their party in disarray and becoming irrelevant.

Driverless cars. Pods

The Government seem committed to introducing driverless cars, pods, on Britain's roads within a decade.

In my book, 'The Lamb at Nettlesham' the following passage appears

Press release by the honourable Charles Fanshaw, Minister of Transport.

"As the nation's wealth increases so more and more citizens will own and run their own cars. It is simply unfeasible to keep on building more and more roads to accommodate all these extra cars. It is proposed therefore that by 2025 all private free wheeling transport will be prohibited. Instead people will be able to own their own pods."

It is true the current 'real' proposals allow pods to be free wheeling rather than constrained by rails as in my prediction but much will be common to both ideas. Drink and driving will be a thing of the past; so too speeding. No need for police pods. Stolen cars can be redirected to the nearest police station.

For more of my prediction please read my book, available as a paperback or for download to kindle or kobo for not much more than the cost of a pint.

Ruth Davidson

I don't know about you but I believe that in watching the warm up act before Theresa May's Conservative Party speech, we may have seen a future Prime Minister in Ruth Davidson. Currently the leader of the Tories in Scotland she is proving to be a 'tour de force', a woman of vision, strong determination and effective rhetoric.