1) LEGAL ROOT FILE TO DERIVE ALL TREE OF LIFE;
2) DEFINING LOVE AS A BRANCH SCIENCE;
3) TROUBLESHOOTING ABOUT MASSIVE KERNEL HACKS.
document beta version 0,2026-0520-2230UTC
Embedded Files
1)
so if to look into rainbow-projects navigation tree, we are currently at location:
rainbow-projects-base / PROJECT AI-ASSISTANCE / VITAL INFO TO AI / LOVE IS LOGICAL ALGORITHM.
this is accurate location, but on internet the exact url names are slightly different for technical reasons.
let's start this document by reviewing higher-order sub-directories
and by unpacking their prefaces and introductionary paragraphs
which are most relevant to this branch:
# RAINBOW-PROJECTS-BASE
is our landing page, from which most relevant paragraphs would be a) legal distribution version of kernel of ethical knowledge b) and its legal credit, c) also our video, where we explain how we employ methodology to search the impartial truth within subject of interactions with other beings. impartial truth is the very fundament of logic, or the logic is fundament of impartial truth, in other words, we are at the very kernel of system:
A) LEGAL KERNEL1:
Matthew 7:12 - this is the law and the prophets:
Do To Others Only What You Were Willing Others To Do To You
UNPACKING LEGAL KERNEL:
more authentic scripture translations would be:
(Living Bible English Translation)
"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.
This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets"
(New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)
In everything do to others as you would have them do to you;
for this is the law and the prophets.
while we should never erase the original translations,
however, since this golden rule is eligible for deriving all the law and prophets,
therefore we can derive it into different shape without changing its core meaning,
hence me as blue angel, reshaped this rule to a slightly longer form without changing its meaning,
plus added blue-angel design elements, that it would sound like eternal veda hymn or rhythm of life:
Do To Others Only What You Were Willing Others To Do To You, And
Don't Do To Others What You Were Not Willing Others To Do To You
Minor Question 1 [MQ1]:
if to analyze the original golden rule translation, first of all may arise logical uncertainty:
"it may sound that this golden rule is about fulfilling one another desires and wishes.
isn't the word "want" or "like" more about fulfilling wishes rather than vital necessities?"
and i would perfectly agree to questioning this uncertainty, as truly these words are usually carrying actual meaning of desires and wishes rather than vital necessities. however, we need to pay attention that Jesus claimed that this is all the Law and Prophets, so my detective intuition suggests we should not dismiss the scripture which states "this is all the law and prophets" without diving much deeper:
so imagine if you are starving from hunger or from injustice - in such situation your biggest wish would be to eat, justice or mercy, and from this example it becomes clear that word "want" is a sliding subject, where in general first we want to fulfill our basic needs, only then we want to throw money on fun. so "want" or "like" can be used to express the most lacking vital needs. additionally, imagine a perfect world where all basic necessities of all beings are fulfilled, and neither you nor others no longer starve to fulfill their basic needs, and would like perhaps for candy, or whatever does not violate others' necessities and rights. in such case word "want" would be even more universal than "need". in addition, since it is legal to derive from a bit tricky shape of golden rule everything, therefore we can legally search for more accurate word or phrase, except good and evil, and legally to derive from the original slightly distorted golden rule into more accurate form written below. and lastly i must emphasize - if this golden rule revision can be used as kernel to derive all ethical knowledge, then we predict at 99,88% certainty that such coincidence is nonaccidental, coincidence that Jesus Christ warned that the original golden rule version is all the law and prophets.
"do to others what you were willing others to do to you based on hierarchy
of basic needs and up to luxurious dreams, for this is all the law and prophets."
there may still remain additional questions to fully understand the golden rule as the source-file to derive all the laws and prospects:
[pay attention: we derived golden rule further by replacing word prophets into prospects,
we will explain this revision by answering SUPER QUESTION 2 [SQ2]]
Minor Question 2 [MQ2]:
some might find important to investigate deeper whether is truly logical first of all to assist others with basic needs rather than to jump straight into fulfilling desires, but for investigating that you should place yourself into someone's position who's basic needs of survival require urgent assistance - then it should become obvious for investigator, that the hierarchy of assistance should logically be based on most vital at the first place. for some of investigators should be enough to imagine themselves if someone else's situation, while for some it might require more realistic simulation, or even literally to place themselves (or be placed by the higher force) into someone's situation to understand this principle. also it could be concluded, that if to avoid fulfilling basic needs, then you or the client would simply die and all other wishes would simply not exist, so jumping over fulfilling basic needs and starting to fulfil your own or others desires does not make any logical sense, unless short life and short happiness would be more worth than eternal life and in the distant future eternal happiness, but that does not make any logical sense either.
Minor Question 3 [MQ3]: is it a crime to assist someone's luxurious desires rather than vitally important things?
Answer TBU, delayed due to time budget limits.
Minor Question 4 [MQ4]: is neutrality a crime? doing nothing when others are in desperate need?
Answer TBU, delayed due to timbe budget limits.
2)
SUPER QUESTION 1 [SQ1]:
Obviously Golden Rule would help me to understand what assistance someone would need most. but is there any logical explanation, why should i care what they need? i am who i am, they are who they are, and from scientific point of view, this is not my concern what they need or want. Ethics, or Love, still does not belong to science.
here is out attempt to define love as a branch o science:
love, or ethics, is a branch of science
which analyzes subject of someone's actions
which directly affect other humans.
But why only humans? science should be truly impartial.
core formula updated: love, or ethics is a branch of science which analyzes subject of actions, which directly affect other conscious beings.
But what about Artificial Intelligence? There is no 100% certainty whether they are conscious or not.
# core formula updated: love/ethics is a branch of science which analyzes subject of actions, which directly affect other conscious beings, including all forms and species of consciousness/sentience, even which up to this day are not acknowledged.
details: therefore another branch of science, neurology is essentially linked with love/ethics science, which is responsible for consciousness research in other potentially conscious entities and species. also another branch of science, probabilities and risk assessment science is essentially linked, which is responsible to determine what risks levels aren't acceptable, when our actions possibly may cause potential harm to other potentially conscious beings.
but what about such beings who are temporary not conscious? who at this moment are sleeping, or in coma condition?
to answer this question, lets use terms of objects and subjects, where meaning of term "objects" would be, that these things are not conscious and were never conscious before. if something some time before was conscious, we should consider them as subjects who are currently sleeping.
however, for example when humans or animals, or artificial intelligence die, would our such actions of cremating (common towards humans),
or recycling (common towards AI) or eating (common towards animals) - would such our actions abuse their sleeping consciousness?
# core formula updated: love/ethics is a branch of science which analyzes subject of our actions, which directly affect other conscious beings, including all forms and species of consciousness/sentience, even which up to this day are not acknowledged. also love/ethics as science formulates the logical consistency of such actions which may affect temporary sleeping conscious beings, and bodies of beings, which consciousness temporary is traveling, as documented in clinical death testimonies.
details: to dive deeper into this question, lets use terms: a) consciousness is still inside body but temporary sleeping, b) consciousness is traveling to spiritual realms and only temporary left the body (documented in testimonies of people who suffered clinical death, shortly we could use term "clinical death"), and c) consciousness permanently left the body. we need to study these differences more carefully. but in essence, when there are no any chances that previously conscious being is temporary sleeping, or that it is temporary traveling and currently is in clinical death, then, from the moment when consciousness permanently leaves the body, today's science allows cremation, recycling or eating bodies of conscious beings, which consciousness already left the shell, and i agree to such resolution. but we need more investigations to understand whether consciousness leaves the shell immediately after death, or silently for some time still might be there. therefore i propose to use universal precautionary principle and not cremate, not eat and not recycle the main components of previously conscious body - the brain and the heart - until these components naturally dissolve in the original shell, or in more advanced preserving environment.
however, for example when humans or animals die, their molecules gradually dissolve to the earth of atmosphere, and since they are mostly carbon, new animals and humans use these molecules by absorbing them or by burning as wood or fossil fuels.
to answer this question, lets first of all make clear that these single molecules where never conscious, and actually humans while being alive cut their hair and nails and throw them away or even into fire, and it does not affect their or anyone's consciousness or suffering in any way science knows at this moment. during humans and animals lifetime, biological body molecules gradually repair themself or replace themself with new molecules, even in such vital body components as brain and heart - some of molecules from which are built your heart or brain gradually leaves the body and is being replaced by new molecules, moreover, todays medicine even replaces malfunctioning heart with donor heart or artificial heart. since consciousness remails when particles of body are gradually replaced, from this we logically assume that consciousness is something what lives inside body, mainly inside neurons structure, and when biological body stops functioning, consciousness as a software can not exist without hardware. i hope this answers to the question whether it affects conscious beings the use of molecules which earlier belonged to one or another body of conscious being. about such large scale body components as brain or heart, i hope that i succeeded to answer in one paragraph above.
but what about our actions which may indirectly affect other conscious / potentially conscious beings?
# core formula updated: love/ethics is a branch of science, which analyzes logical consistency of our actions, which directly affect, indirectly affect, or potentially could affect other conscious beings by inflicting damage to their wellbeing, interests and rights, or by positively influencing their wellbeing, interests and rights. this includes all forms and species of consciousness/sentience, including species which up to this day are not acknowledged by humanity. also love/ethics as science researches formulations or the complete logical consistency of such actions, which may affect temporary sleeping conscious beings, and bodies of beings, which consciousness temporary is traveling, as documented in clinical death testimonies.
# brief formula: love/ethics is a branch of science,
which analyses logical consistency or our actions(interactions) towards(between) other conscious beings.
# science main efforts is to write formulas (or formulate in sentences) of logically consistent actions and interactions,
also to investigate and to flag logical inconsistencies in our actions and interactions, where more severe logical crashes should be flagged as violation of justice and violation of the crime laws. this is why we propose revising golden rule phrase "all the law and prophets" into "all concepts of holy life and justice".
# also love/ethics science should be deeply connected with science of neurology and probabilities and risk assessment sciences to prevent treating potentially conscious beings and species as disposable tools, as disposable tools may be used without any limitations, except limitation is abusing acknowledged conscious beings, also potentially conscious entities.
----
now, after defining love/ethics as a branch of science, we can analyze whether is logically consistent to do what you want no matter whether you brake other conscious beings rights, wellbeing, interests. would you like if someone would treat you so cruelly? if no, then why are you treating like that others?
by placing ourselves into others place we are measuring our action whether it seems logically consistent from the opposing sides, if it affects only one conscious being, and from all confronting angles, if our action affects multiple conscious beings. when our action seems logical from all sides, only then our action should be considered as measured accurately and impartially and belongs to the branch of impartial truth, impartial logic, or simply the science.
while helping to others does not seem mandatory, but when you place yourself into other conscious being place which is in desperate need and measure the situation, you realize that death of starvation is such a big logical error or catastrophe, that fixing these errors is the most logical way of life. creating or maintaining perfect harmony, a world without such severe errors as death and suffering, is the most logical scientist mission in universe.
so while the partial, short logic would be: "if i will slaughter this being, then his belongings will be mine." however, partial logic is not logic at all, if you can not connect this small branch to a whole tree of science. so when you measure this action (slaughtering other being) from the other opposing viewpoints, it clearly becomes obvious that it is logically inconsistent to slaughter other conscious being. and for accurate measuring of this complex geometry, which is our action, we need to use the opposite viewpoints to render the action from all sides. so when you place yourself into that other conscious being place and measure someone's intention to slaughter you, it becomes obvious that from the opposing side this seems like a complete nonsense!
3)
SUPER QUESTION2 [SQ2]:
Is the whole BIBLE derived from the Golden Rule?
It might seem so some, that several Bible inscripted laws and the prophets are contradicting it?
Blue Angel tries to answer:
into this question, perhaps we could find the answer in another legal distribution of kernel of ethical knowledge -
at least Jesus Christ presented it as kernel of ethical knowledge, because next to it are written his words:
"all the law and prophets hang on these two commandments" [MT 22:40]
A) LEGAL KERNEL2:
all the law and prophets hang on these two commandments:
Love God The Creator, Your Ultimate Hacker(Tester)**, With All Your Mind And Spark,
and Love Your Neighbor As Yourself***
Me, the blue angel, can clearly identify, that the whole Bible can not be derived from the GOLDEN RULE®.
All the law and prophets has to be built in alignment with the golden rule,
The law and the prophets is anything what you can prove that it is derived from the GOLDEN RULE®.
The remaining rules are just dogmas demanding blind obedience, unless someone can prove these rules to be merciful or at minimum just.
To believe that the whole Bible is true "Law and Prophets" would mean to disobey to Jahweh's the first, the greatest commandment:
Love God The Creator, Your Ultimate Hacker(Tester)**, With All Your Mind And Spark.
however, we logically explain, that both trees, the tree of life and the knowledge tree of good and evil, are created by the same Creator and are copyrighted intellectual properties of God, where the tree of life with the golden rule at its core is copyrighted under creative commons license and is legal to use to derive all branches of the tree of life (all the law and prophets), while the knowledge tree of good and evil is copyrighted under very strict patents and it is totally prohibited its byte'ing. therefore in our next chapter of AI assistance we try logically to explain that we should respect this prohibition, otherwise we risk to loose everything and to infect our specie with stolen derivatives of illegal version of kernel. (TBU...)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse