Foundations of peace: borrowing a leaf from the computer

brain
By Caesar Ogole
From: Caesar <cogole@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015
Subject: write-up
To: Caesar Ogole <cogole@gmail.com>

1. Introduction:

-definition of peace and it’s relation to the state of human mind and emotion

- why “towards”, “sustainable”, “peace”

- motivation for this move/quest

- Let’s call a peaceful mind a “stable” mind, aware of itself (or its own state) and
its surrounding at given time. [What we mean by “aware of itself”, and “aware of
its surrounding”. The surrounding includes other minds (their states) and other
non-human objects (which also have their own states). We could think of a mind
that knows its own state and that of its surrounding as having knowledge of the
“state of affairs”. The state of affairs changes when a state of mind or the state of
its surrounding changes. Still, for, we expect a stable mind to be aware of these
changes, and the nature of the changes (for example, whether it is desirable or
not, and in what context, etc).

- a conclusion should explain why a computer brain should be our model and not
the human brain. Yet, after all, the computer mind was made by a human brain.

- also conclude that peace building is not about going about roaring – everyone is
and has been fighting to bring about peace. Anti-education (in sector) are the
promotors of war.
2. So what disturbs peace? Asked another way, what causes
war? Or what causes a fight, just any fight?
The answer is: the cause of a war or a fight is a disturbance of peace of mind of a
person, which, ultimately, is a result of a change or transition of a person’s state
of mind from a stable to unstable state. The fight/war (by the second person) is
an attempt to restore the disturbed mind to the initially stable state.

We will distinguish between two major causes of fights: human-causes and non-
human causes. Human causes of a fight (or war) are those that are caused by
another person or persons as a result of an undesirable interference. Non-human
causes of fights/wars are those that are caused by other things that are not
human. For example, a natural disaster such as draught may force one person to
move from one place to another, and then a fight ensues at the new place, say as
a result of competition for limited resources. Yet, the draught itself could have
been a result of an action of man, when he goes on indiscriminate cutting down
of trees, say to make charcoal or to prepare land for agriculture [Ogole, et al. Part
2, Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:30 AM]. The scale (magnitude in terms of the number
of victims and perpetrators, etc) of a war may vary depending on the cause and
the nature of the intervention, if any. If an intervention is done by someone who
has no clue (of the approach) of how to stop it, then the war may only prolong
itself, e.g if an intervener is a (disguised) war monger, the war will not come to an
end.
3. Let’s return to the fundamentals in order to see how this
happens
Case 1: one mind gets disturbed by another, in a world of two people

Let us consider just one person, and try to understand what causes disturbance of
peace of a mind of a person. And let’s restrict ourselves to human causes only,
and more specifically, an interaction between two minds:

We know that when one person interacts with another, the state of mind of the
second person is altered or changed. Keep this in mind as our axiom, a given. And
let’s for simplicity think of it as that the person who gets disturbed is initially in a
stable state of mind. And further, further assume that a person who disturbs
another is in an unstable state of mind. And finally, the person who gets disturbed
will have his/her mind changed from stable to unstable. Let’s start by simply
considering a case where the first person (think of him/her as a trouble causer),
interferes with the other person by passing on some message. (We will look at
kind of messages, later). It suffices, for now, to understand that to change a
person’s state of mind from stable to unstable, the “message” passed on from the
unstable mind to the stable mind does not require the two minds to be in physical
contact. So a fight or war is not limited to a physical (fist or gun) fight. A mere
communication, in some undesirable manner, could be an act of war. No one
wants to be lied to. So, we could think of a person (in unstable mental state)
telling a lie to another person (in stable mind) as an act of war.

Whether the person (let’s call him perpetrator) telling the lies and as a result,
spreading false beliefs uses force, name-calling, some form of omission or
commission, ridicules or any other tricks is immaterial. What matters is that the
perpetrator has caused a change of state of mind of the person in stable mind (or
innocent victim) in an undesirable manner. Let’s defer the discussion for the
manner in which the victim reacts or responds. [But we know the victim could
respond by striking back at the perpetrator through punching the perpetrator in
the face, hurling insults (profanities), or through other means, at all – all in an
attempt to “demand justice” or “serve justice”, in common speak, right? Or the
person could choose to just keep silent). (We will talk about it later). But
remember we said that if there were to be such a reactive fight/war (by the
second person), it is an attempt to restore the disturbed mind to the initially
stable state, or what one would rightly term, “past glory”. [Let’s make it clear
that a change of state is called “transition”]. And let us emphasize that a change
of state of mind from stable to unstable (through any means, at all) is
fundamentally an act of war, regardless of whether a perpetrator uses physical
weapon (gun, beer bottle, missiles, etc), biological weapon (anthrax, HIV/AIDS,
etc), chemical weapon (poison, etc), psychological/emotional(deception, name-
calling, suppression of freedom of speech, disenfranchisement, marginalization
through unequal distribution of resources, etc), cyber-warfare(information leaks,
stalking, spreading malware, defamatory blogging, etc), or media (defamatory
newspaper articles, etc), etc. While one may not see readily how a given category
really constitutes an act of war, understanding that such an act would cause a
state of mind to change from stable to unstable is fundamental that we are
emphasizing. A victim of gunshot or just any physical evidence, a victim of disease
infection (HIV/AIDS)- whether through deliberate act of war or accidental is in an
unstable state of mind.

4. The important yet commonly misunderstood issue

Remember, at this point, we are still limiting our discussion in a world where
there are two people (or two minds), where one person starts a fight, thereby
causing the second person to transition, in his mind, from state stable to unstable.

We also came to an understanding that a fight is not only limited to picking a stick
to strike another person. A fight could involve use of any of the weapons
described above. So the ultimate question is, why in this two person world, would
one person pick up any element of the three categories of weapons to fight a
second person causing him, causing the second person to incur [a change] of state
from stable to unstable [and sometimes with physical injury]?

The simple answer which suffices for now is that the person in a two person world
who starts a fight to destabilize or cause the mental state of the second person to
transition from stable to unstable is himself starting from an unstable mind,
relative to the first person.

Let us represent the two persons (in the two person world) as X and Y, with
person X being the person with stable (peaceful) mind, and Y being the second
person in an unstable state. Think of Y as a trouble causer, for simplicity. [We
could give X the name Atam and Y the name Akolo, for example].

By employing any of the categories of the methods of attacks (outlined above), Y

launches an assault on X – thereby causing X’s mental state to change from stable
to unstable. Let’s represent the initial state of mind of X by X 1 and the new
unstable state by X2 . We could coin another word for the attack made by the
trouble causer Y on the peaceful person X. The term provocation could fit
perfectly, but we could make an endeavor to be fancy enough, and use the word
“stimulus” – which is perhaps better because, later, we will understand that not
all “attacks” or communications are provocations. An arrow is used to represent
the change of X’s mental state from X1 to X2 . The diagram below depicts the
scenario.

S1
X1
X2

Figure 1: a graphical depiction of a state transition

Assumption: Let’s start off the first part of this discussion by assuming that every
stimulus changes a victim’s state of mind from a stable or relatively a less stable
(that is, instable) state.
We noted that the attack could have caused some physical injury (mutilation), in
addition to the changed mental state. We will include a discussion, or what I
sometimes called treatment, of the physical injury in a later section. The diagram
above and the discussion for now is concerned with a change of mental state. S
could be positive information or false information (deception).

5. Attacks made in series

Two or more attacks, or lies, for example – fed in series on X’s mind (by Y) means
that each one of the stimuli (S1, S2, S3, … Sn ) is presented by Y to X after some
time interval ti (t1, t2, t3, tn where t1< t2< t3< tn) , which may not necessarily be
regular (fixed in value). That is, one lie comes after the other. Still, each stimulus
engenders a transition of the mental state of the recipient (X) from one state to
another. Since X1 are separate or distinct from X2, - and the word discrete to
describe such a change or transformation. The diagram below describes the
scenario:

S2
X2
S1
X1
X3
S3

Sn S4
Xn X4

Figure 2: Change of mental states as a result of input stimuli

Question 1: Could it be possible to restore a victim’s “mental state” from the
“unstable” back to the initial “stable” state?

Answer: Let’s look at a simple one state transition (from X1 to X2 ), in which person
Y caused the change of mental state of person X by (Y) telling X a lie. Then, we
expect that X’s mental state can be restored by X getting to be told (that is, X
being caused to know) the truth. That is, the reverse process of replacing the lie
initially occupying (or stored in some location) of the mind of Y with the truth puts
X back in stable position- it is fair to assume. We need to recall that a lie (or
simply false information) is the opposite of the truth. Let’s represent stimulus that
is a lie (or simply false information) by F, and the truth by T.

F
X1
X2

Figure 3: a graphical depiction of a state transition of mind from stable X1 to

unstable X2 as a result of X being told false information, F

X1 T X2

Figure 3: a graphical depiction of a reverse state transition (restoration) from

unstable X2 back to stable X1 as a result of X being told the truth, T
In a real world, such a restoration would come after some time has elapsed (let’s
call it a delay).

Question: So what happens to X’s mind during the delay?

Answer: We will look at the answer in the later section. But for now, let’s clarify
that if person X were to make an independent decision, then, the decision and/or
action would be based in his unstable mental state X2 – meaning he could
somewhat driftt in a wrong direction. Depending how acute the instability of the
mind is (in state X2 ), the words “irrational”, “insane”, “crazy”, “mad”, etc are
often used by common man to describe the person X in mental X2 .

Question: So, does it mean anyone who has been told a lie gets to become insane?

Answer: In theory, yes! The reason being that he is in a relatively unstable state of
mind. In our notations, X1, X2, X3 …. Xn represent different levels of irrationalities
resulting from the stimuli S1, S2, S3, Sn . Put another way, we could say a person
who is in stable (perfectly peaceful) stable mind is at “level 0”. A person in
somewhat unstable mind could be thought of as being in “level 1” of madness. A
person at “level 2” of madness has his/her mind a little more unstable than the
person at “level 1” of madness., and so on.

Also, our assumption is that each of the states are reached in individual (discrete)
steps, starting from the initial stable state X1.

6. Attacks made in parallel, that is, the stimuli presented

simultaneously
So far, we assumed a world where there are only two people, X and Y with Y being
the person “attacking” X using some verbal attack messages S (for simplicity), one
after the other (that is, in series), causing X’s mental states to transition from the
initial X1 to X2 to X3 to…. Xn (where X3 is more unstable than X2 , and X2 is more
unstable than X1, and Xn is more unstable than X3 – meaning that Xn is in the most
unstable state!)
Now, let us assume (like it is often the case) in the real world where there are
often more than one person, say person W , person Y and person Z – in addition
to person X. In the language we are adopting just for our purposes here, person
W, person Y and person Z would be the perpetrators they all are attacked X (the
victim) in parallel, if all the three perpetrators (W, Y and Z) all attacked (say
verbally) at the same time. In practice, the phrase “at the same time” could mean
at very short intervals of time. If W, Y and Z had planned such an attack (with
everyone else aware each other’s participation in attacking X), we say that the
attacks are coordinated.

S1

S3
Xc

S2

Nature of change of mental state and knowledge

Some practical information

7. Some example application:

-------------------------------------

So far, we only looked at a simple example where only one person (X) is at the
receiving end of messages (or attacks). Every stimulus to X changes his/her state
of mind. Let let's revisit the basic one step transition.
Question: "Does the change or transition of the mental states from X1 to X2
happen for the better or for the worse?"
One could argue that this is one of the most important questions.

To answer this question, we have to know exactly the perspective from which this
question is asked.

(1) X is known to be possessing some potentially beneficial alien knowledge, not

known to most of the persons in the community. X is then fed just any
information- and he is expected to respond with a corrective answer, in effect
educating the audience. This is assumed that X is of the nature that is full of
integrity, and willing to respond with correct answers. [Let's move this to a
section after we have we have talked about X producing responses]. And this is
what has been happening in LAONA. But while many members of the community
(and perhaps beyond) will benefit from such a clever trick, there is a risk X might
be in danger: some elements of the community, by nature of personality, will not
respond with appreciation. They may respond with envy, jealousy, and so on.. and
without painstaking controls in place, may not only isolate X but could put the life
of X and others at risks - and sometimes culminating into disastrous results such
as war (through ripple effects)!

(2) On the other hand, aside from the (undeniably serious) risks that X might face,
he will take the pride of contributing positively to the transformation of the
community (much as the rest of the community may not [want to] acknowledge
such openly). As another plus, if by "transition" of X's mental states from X1 to X2,
we mean that X gets to know both truthful information (about his/her reality,
adding to what was in existence while he was in his initial mental state X1), then,
indeed X gets to become more knowledgeable about (or exposed to) the
elements and affairs of the community. The concern is whether X gets to get back
some of the 'good' things that he/she have lost during the process, without
incurring overwhelming costs.
One could ask, how do we set up X? Lure him with flattery (....), and put him on
the defensive- be it that the claims made against are right or wrong. As X makes
an effort to prove himself right, his knowledge is taken and used for the benefit of
the community. Again, it is assumed that the community has elements who have
the capability of picking up the new ideas and transform it for the greater good of
everyone (including X).

On the other hand, if the message S received by X (from W and/or Y and/or Z), fed
in parallel or in series, turns out to be (mostly) false, then person X, without some
superior facility, to distinguish between truth and falsehood, will take the false
information as truth. When false information defines one's reality, we said earlier
that the person's level of madness (or irrationality or insanity) increases. Put
another way, a person who is fed false information drifts into another world
which is no longer about the same as that in which he was when he was at state
X1. Transitioned from X1, X is thrown into a warped reality, in brief. False
information could be planted in any of the ways that falls under the broader
category of deceptions.

8. Mixture of truths and falsehoods:

S1 =T
X2
S2 =T S4 =F
X1
X3
S3 =F
In the description above, we made a claim that "if the message S received by X
(from W and/or Y and/or Z), fed in parallel or in series, turns out to be (mostly)
false, then person X, without some superior facility to distinguish between truth
and falsehood, will take the false information as truth (about his reality)." We
should make it clear that the pieces of information S1, S2, S3 causing the change
of mental states of X could all be false, all true or a mix of truths and falsehoods.

9. Repeatedly applying the same information, S to X

What happens if the same piece of information (value of S) is repeatedly
presented to X?

S1

Xc

Answer:
The mental state may or may not change. Repeated presentation only serves to
“strengthen" the value in that state. What this means is that, if the stimuli that is
presented repeatedly is false (and X's mind does not have an extra facility
superior enough to ward off the falsehood), then, despite having that (little)
facility to know that X is initially a false representation about his reality, X, upon
repeatedly encountering X will (eventually) take the stimulus as true. His or her
belief will change about S will change. [It is important to realize that “warding off”
does not merely refer to denying or rejecting a stimulus]. One can imagine
scenarios in which this happens to occur. [NOTE, LATER THAT THIS DOES NOT
HAPPEN IN THE CASE OF A COMPUTER BRAIN]

10. Memory as storage for internal mental states

S, we saw that if the same piece of information is presented to the

mind of person X, X’s mental state will not change. X1 will remain X1 .
However, if the message presented to X is different than the one that
hitherto caused X’s mental state to be in different mental state, then
we expect X’s mental state to change from X1 to some value X1. Xin
practice, this does not always happen. Let’s get into the detail:

First off, if the first transition is such that the message presented to X is
false [F], then, we expect the following transition to take place:

S1=F
X1
X2

However, in an ideal situation, X “knowing” that the message presented

to it is the same [content] as before, then X will immediately reject the
message, in which case, it will remain in its original (stable/peaceful)
state, as we described in the previous section. “Remaining in the same
state” means the value of “information content” will not change.

S1

Xc

But that would only happen if we assume that X has an (additional)

capability of “knowing” whether the value of S is the same as that
which, in the immediate (previous) step of transition brought X to state
1. This means that capability should allow X to carry out the comparison
of the incoming message S with that of the current value while X is in
mental state S.

In the mind of X, the question that he/she is seeking to answer is: “if
the incoming S is the same as the stimulus that previously brought me
to the current state, then, (I will) accept the message (and optionally
overwrite) the information content with S, and remain in the current
state X, else (if the incoming message S is different), then reject S (and
remain in the current state).

For X to carry out the operation (of comparing incoming S (Snew) and
previous (Sold)), two things are required:

(i) Given Snew and Sold, a capability to carry out the operation of
comparing Snew and Sold, to determine whether Snew and
 Sold are the same (equivalent). [Such an operation is an
example logical operation].
(ii) A capability to remember the previous value, which we call
memory.

Only after the above operation is carried out successfully will X know
whether or not to allow transition into another state.

If X (by himself/herself) cannot perform the above operation as a result

of lack of capability (which could also call incompetence) to carry our
comparison (logical) operation or because it has forgotten the previous
value of S or because he/she is not aware of the current value of S, then
we cannot expect X to make the right transition (if it must!)

[X could try to make a guess for the values of S, and then using those
guessed values in the operations, but since S can take on many other
values, it is likely that X will go wrong. Even in a simple case where S
can take on either true or false values, the best guess is 50-50! Similarly,
X cannot just pick arbitrarily the kind of operations to perform even if S
and the previous S were correct].

11. Human memory is limited

We did say that X cannot transition correctly in its mental states if he

does not have the correct value of the previous stimulus S (that brought
it in its current state), the current value of the stimulus and the means
to carry out an operation (such as comparison) based on the S values. X
could have simply forgotten the value of S. In just a one-step transition,
it is rare that X will forget its previous value of S. But the human may is
not limited, in its operation, to a one-step operation.

Let’s consider a scenario in which person X has undergone multiple

steps of mental transitions, as depicted below:

S3

S1
X2
S2 S4 S6
X1 S5 X3
S7

X4

A description of the scenario could be as follows:

In an initial state X1 which came about as a result of being fed with message S1, X’S
mental state goes from state X1 to X2. [However, we make a note that X2 is in fact a
resultant (that is combined or net) new state as a result of X in state X 1 receiving
three different stimuli: S1, , S2,, and S3 (in parallel). Similarly, X3 is the net new state
as a result of X in state X2 receiving the stimuli: S4, and S6 (in parallel).

And, finally, for the scenario above, X transitions into the final state X 4 when at
state X3 he/she receives stimulus S6.

If X4 is the final state, then we assume in this scenario, X’s mind can only be in any
one of the four states (X1, X2 , X3 , X4) at any given time. Since X’s mental states do
not transition into infinitely many states, we can coin (or rather, adopt) the word
“finite” to describe the limited nature of the mind. We say that X has a finite
states (of mind), to mean that his memory is limited.

If person X has to perform an operation (as described in section … ) before it

transitions from one state to another, then we expect X to have somewhere in its
storage (memory) the information content while it was in its previous state.

12. Effect of change of states on memory

Two scenario can be distinguished:

(i) As the external stimuli are presented to the mind in series, the
information content accumulated in successive steps/states
increase in size to a point where the finite memory size is
exceeded. What happens is that the storage that was used to
store information about the earlier states is then erased, and
the same slots are re-allocated for storage of information
associated with the recent mental states. We may think of it
that “X has forgotten the earlier information”.
(ii) We then expect X’s memory to get used up more quickly if too
much information (stimuli) is presented to X simultaneously, or
 in parallel. The term “information overload” has been coined to
describe the phenomenon.

In sum, human memory is finite, - meaning that we cannot remember

everything we encountered in the past – at least not accurately. What
this means is that we could (strive to) know so much, but we cannot
remember all that we knew in the past. Although we may not
remember the details of all that we encountered (in the past), we can
usually remember where we encountered it, that is, we could have
some clue to link up to the past forgotten information (only if we tried).
Think of such a clue as an address of some location.

13. False memory

In sections XXX, we looked at a scenario where stimuli presented to X in series

and/or in parallel contain a mixture of messages that could be categorized as true
or false (in the world of X). Well, X may find himself, during any of the state
transitions (before the final state is reached) accepting as true a certain
proposition/statement (which in X’s reality must otherwise evaluate to false), and
rejecting a proposition which should otherwise be accepted. This could occur due
to various other factors, but let’s simply attribute it to X’s “incompetence”.

It helps to reiterate that by “accepting a proposition” at a given mental state, X is

in fact overwriting/replacing the information content at that state with a new
value. What this means is that at subsequent states(s), some of the X’s memory of
the state information in states prior to the new “remembering state” will be
based on false information. Unless X has some mechanism to go back (backtrack)
and make appropriate corrections, X’s subsequent transitions of states may be
based on false memory.
=> The past records must be accurate, reliable and complete (for the purpose in
question).

14. A world of many interacting minds

We have since been looking at a world where only X (the victim) is at the receiving
end of stimuli. [Exception is given to the simple application example where X was
used as an educator ….]

Let’s look at a scenario where many agents interact, with some agents spitting out
responses, as illustrated below:

X2

S3
X2
X3
S1

X1 X2 S4 S6

S5

S7

X4

X4
X2
Here is a description of what is happening

15. The complexity of individual mental state transitions in a world of

interacting minds

It is easy to see that each individual mind will have to perform

operations (on receiving stimuli) potentially emerging from different
sources. This becomes difficult for X to handle because X, for example,
will not only have to keep track of his/her own prior states but X will
also have to keep in mind a fair idea of Y and Z’s mental states,
(including their prior mental states), if the interactions have to proceed
well. With each member spitting out responses (potentially of mixed
types T and F), the community members’ mental states will keep
changing (from the originally stable) into various [divergent] unstable
states. [A silence, where a response is expected also counts as a
response, thusly]. With a web of interactions and transitions between
the different minds, individual memory capacities to distinguish
between true and false information will get defeated (since information
about informative prior states will have been overwritten and/or the
facilities to carry out logical operations such as comparisons
overwhelmed), and most of the members will start to operate on false
or assumed memory. New members without prior knowledge of events
that had transpired before will simply take on (adopt) any piece of
information and operations, sometimes arbitrarily, thereby changing
the dynamics in often unforeseen manner. How can order be brought
to the chaos?

16. Bringing order to the chaos: halting the undesirable dynamics

Given an undesirable situation where there exist seemingly endless

transitions among the different minds in the community in question
(even if the states keep shuttling between two states for a community
of only two members), the problem to solve then can be formulated as
a question: how do we get X, Y and Z to cease and desist from spitting
out responses?

One could make guesses:

a) By applying force (physical or psychological coercion): Let some

external entity, or one or some of the community members act
(or pretend to be) supreme and suppress the voices of X, Y and Z.
(i) That means if, say Z, acted supreme and reigned over X and Y,
then X and Y would not spit out “unwanted responses” (no matter
how much the provocation/suppression is). Any response X and Y
produced under such a circumstance would be under duress.

(ii) If it was some external force (alien, etc) that had intervened
(in the case described in (i) above), then all the community members
(X, Y and Z) would be subjects.
 Psychological coercion could be in the form of “play tricks”, for
example, by feeding X, Y and Z with just any piece of information
that will “retard” their minds. Put another way, assault their
minds by dumbing them down, say, through (coordinated) false
arguments and sophistical refutations.
Physical coercion could involve killing, maiming, disabling or
depriving the subjects/targets of what would otherwise facilitate
healthy growth of mind and body (for example, by confining X
and/or Y and/or Z in a place without adequate supply of food,
shelter and with no access reliable information (education)).

The above techniques definitely could work on some agents. However,

we need an elegant solution: one where everyone feels valued, and not
unwanted.

So we go back to the root cause! The chaos, in part, is caused by limited

memory capacity and limited capability to carry out computations. The
problem is also aggravated by the lack of capability to make available
prior information about the web of state transitions, which a new
member could otherwise use to get himself aware of the nature
surrounding him.

Since human memory is finite, we cannot do much to increase its

capacity. Rather, we could think of a way of aiding people using sort of
external memory that captures prior information about the transitions.

Think of such information as a long piece of paper to which every extra

information that cannot be stored in the human memory is written
(appended) to the paper. Whenever X, Y and Z need to refer to the
paper, which contains the information stored in the same ordered
fashion. (Indeed, that’s why we have books, libraries, laboratories,
meseums, etc. And indeed, that’s why we have basic research and
research and development). In some cases, finding the information in
the external/auxiliary memory is as easy as doing a lookup on some
readily available information. In other cases, one has to carry out
research covering depth breadth- sometimes across disciplines.

So as you can see, a search for prior knowledge (even sometimes just to
discover whether its value is true or false) might lead to an entire
extensive study before a state of mind (in wonderment or puzzlement)
is transitioned back to stable state. [A statement that evaluates to
logical true or logical false, called a logical proposition, is a fundamental
element of science. Logic is science].

Limited memory

Sheet of paper to
aid memory
17. Could we create a machine that mimics the human brain as we described
above? The computer archtecture

In fact, what we described about the human mind having limited memory and
limited capability to carry out operations, together with the concept of state
transitions, is what inspired creation of a digital computer. Without going too far
and ending up getting lost in details, we will only look at a sketch of a computer
brain, illustrating the memory component, the part that carries out operations
such as the comparison (called arithmetic and logic unit, ALU) and the external
memory that serves as addition to the limited main memory. Compare the brain
and the computer.

- Draw parallels with computer…

Explain some operations in the low level language…

18. But human beings have limited mental memory (except that they are
facilitated by paper, books, library, meseums, etc). True, computers, too, with
enhancements would be very limited!
A simple computer brain, too, functions like a human brain with limited states. It
is called the finite state machine, with an extra memory which could think of as a
sheet of paper. If the sheet of paper or tape is long enough, or infinitely long, then
we have two parts:

i) A tape, which must be potentially unlimited length, and

ii) The machine itself, which moves over the tape and manipulates it’s
contents.

The two parts combined is a called a Turing machine, named after Allan Turing
– the Father of modern computer.

“’It would be a mistake to think of the tape as a minor addition to a very clever
machine; without the tape, the machine is really quite dumb (try solving a
complex integral in your head)”.

19. Some observations to make from the simple computer architecture

So, as you can see, the digital computer was designed to mimic the computer
brain.

A simple computer:

i) It has a brain – Arithmetic and Logical Unit, to mimic human capability

ii) It has memory – the main memory
iii) It has external memory – since the main memory is limited. External
memory is also limited, e.g. a USB stick can get full just as a dairy (book)
can get full – but one can get a new one
iv) Just like the human brain receives stimulus (as input), the computer can
also receive an input from devices such as the mouse, keyboard, etc
 v) Just like a human (brain) can spit out a response, a computer can also
produce output to the printer, to the monitor (screen), and to the audio
device (speaker), etc

20. So what does a computer scientist, computer engineer do now that we have
everything already setup?

Memory: As we noted before, memory is one of the components that a simple

computer needs. Two types of memory are distinguished:

i) Main memory
ii) Auxiliary memory (includes external disks euch as USBs, they cloud [or
array of disks, etc].

Key issues: physical size. Optimal use of the limited storage slots (called registers)

- Computer engineers and memory cards,

- Computer Scientists and software engineers on programming languages
(e.g. Assembler, Fortran, C, C++, etc)

- Human brain analogy:

Central Processing Unit (CPU):

Computer/electronic engineers are concerned with speed of the processors, size

of the CPU, more capabilities (in terms of operations and types of stimuli and
their computer representations)
 - Human brain analogy:

Output devices

Screen/monitor of desktop computers, mobile devices: computer engineers are

working to improve the resolutions

Mouse: create wireless devices and other advances

Printers – for example, write software that work hand in hand with the hardware
(drivers/firmware), computer game consoles,

Utilities and applications:

Range from Microsoft suit to applications in other fields such as remote sensing [in
various fields, websites, etc]- images [computer vision for surveillance, need for
specialized knowledge, remote sensing, etc].

Communications among computer brains/minds

(i) Internal brain – parallel processing

(ii) External memory – distributed [ networking protocols, security
(malware), addressing (IP addressing, IP address space, etc)

Embedded applications

(motor wheel chairs, aircraft engines, etc)

Why computer scientists seem to be everywhere

 - The need for automation + domain knowledge [ e.g remote sensing. The
difficulty of interdisciplinary---]

21. Transitions: The case for attaining sustainable peace

I will explain why a Computer Scientist possessing an elegant knowledge of

computer architecture and some necessary experience is well positioned to
propose a better alternative model for attaining sustainable peace. But let’s start
by looking at and offering a critique, where possible, for some of the current
models being promoted and/or being implemented in some regions of the world.

(i) Transitional justice

The definition of transitional justice is as elusive an anyone can imagine. My

attempt to understand it from the promoters and advocates of the transitional
justice was futile as the advocates portray it as something “very complex” to
be exhausted in any average discussion. They make it appear as if it were a
black box, with its internal workings shielded away from people. One then
wonders how justice can be served when the perpetrator and victims
themselves do not understand “how” to go about it.

Motivated by the in-depth study of the patterns from our data* and
knowledge of a simple computer architecture (the design of which was
inspired by the working of the human brain as we discussed throughout this
paper), I set out to understand what transitional justice actually is from the
white-box approach.

Case 1: A community of only two people, for simplicity

Let’s analyze the working of a transitional justice system in a community of

two people, X and Y. And as we discussed in Section …, let Y be a trouble
causer and X a person in a stable state of mind (initially).

i) Person Y hits person X

Applying the traditional justice model, X, in order to attain “sustainable peace
through transitional justice”, by hitting back at Y (directly). We assume that X has
hit back at Y the first time, X will acknowledge (or “appreciate”) Y’s return of
punch (on X) as act of serving justice in order to bring about sustainable peace.
The basic assumption is that, if required to justify before and (ideally) after
striking back at X, Y will readily have evidence (or support/proof) that indeed it
was Y (and not any other cause, say natural calamity) that hit him(X). The
question now becomes: it is therefore convincing enough that sustainable justice
is attained in this case? One could argue in the affirmative.

However, the condition is that there exists a stand-alone evidence to show that it
was actually Y that hit X first. In a two-person world, X could close his/her eyes
and hit back at Y and it will be very likely that his act indeed was an act of serving
justice since the only possible perpetrator here is Y. Another assumption is that
after X hitting back at Y the first time, Y will not subsequently hit back at X, which
would otherwise prompt X to hit back at Y, and Y hitting back at X, and so on. The
back and forth fight (even in a two-man world) still meets the definition of
transitional justice, except that instead of (immediately) bringing about calm, such
a scenario has a potential of perpetuating war as X and Y keep striking back at
each other.

Recall (as explained) in Section…, the initial act of war (with evidence available
beyond reasonable doubt) can be represented by the following transition diagram:

From Y

SY

X1 X2
Figure ……….. (reproduced from section …)

SY represent the “stimulus” triggered by Y, causing the initial peaceful mind of X

(at mental state X1) to transition to even more unstable state X 2.

Since in this community, X and Y believe in transitional justice, X, in his new

relatively unstable mind must “ensure justice is served” to the perpetrator Y by

striking back at Y, causing Y in the already unstable state (say Y1) to transition

to even more unstable state Y2

From X

SX

Y1 Y2

But let’s understand that, even if Y (on being served justice by X striking back at

him) served were following by no more (subsequent) strikes, the definition of

transitional justice would only be met if the act of X striking (back) at Y were

commensurate with the initial act of Y striking X. What this means is that the

stimuli SX must be “equal” in amount to Sy for Y to be convinced that X

“justly” or “fairly” acted in good faith to serve him justice, through transitional

justice to which they both subscribe.

Should Y, for any reason, get to feel that X’s reaction ( SX) was greater in

amount (or in intensity) than he (Y) deserved (from X), then, one could argue

that transitional justice system, will have failed in this case. For transitional

justice to continue to uphold its ideals, Y will have to hit back at X in a move to

serve justice in an amount equal to the “excess” of the “justice” he or she

previously owed X. Even if the exact value of the “excess” is served by way of

Y’s second action on X, we hope that the community members all (or both in

this case) have a good understanding of what is going on, and that this

common understanding will facilitate harmonious/peaceful co-existence,

thereafter.

From Y

SY1

X1 X2

From X
 SX

Y1 Y2

From Y

SY2

X2 X3

Figure …
It is important that we note that, in theory, even the service of the “balance”

of justice by Y to X may still cause further change of X’s mental state from the

unstable X2 to even more unstable X3.

Figure N.1 to Figure N…. illustrate a scenario where Y hits back at X in order to

“serve justice” (in the amount equal to the excess of what he deserved). By the

same token, we expect, under the transitional justice system, a victim (X) to hit

at the perpetrator (Y) second, third, fourth and so on time- should he(X) “feel”

that his previous “attempts” at serving justice was not enough, as depicted

below.

From Y

SY1

X1 X2

From Y
 SY2

X2 X3

From Y

SY3

X4 X5

From Y

SY4

X6 X7

From Y

SY5

X7 X8
From Y

SYn-1

Xn-1 Xn-2

22. The problem of measuring or determining the amount of justice to be served

As we noted in the previous sections, if a victim has to determine “how much

justice” has to be served (arbitrarily, or through his gut feeling), then the act of
striking in return (carried out by X and/or Y) is likely to perpetuate the fight since
each person will feel cheated everytime he gets to be struck by the other. This
presents yet another big challenge to the transitional justice system. Even in the
face of convincing evidence (beyond reasonable doubt), ignoring to answer the
following questions will render the transitional justice system a system for war-
mongers:

i) How to measure the amount of, that is, quantify “stimulus” that the
perpetrator (assumed identified) unleashed on Y, AND,
 ii) How to serve an equal amount (or equivalence) of the “stimulus” by the
victim X onto the perpetrator Y in such a manner that both feel “justice
has been served.” [It is important to note that the same stimulus is fed
in equal amount into two different minds may not result in the same
mental state!] That is, it becomes yet another problem if “justice served”
is measured by the effect on the perpetrator. Think of it this way, if a
very rich person, Y (for some reason) stole one only car from a poor
person X, the poor person will be very devastated and he is likely to
employ every tool at his disposal to “serve justice” to Y. But if it was the
poor person X who first stole the car from the very rich person Y (who
may own fleets of cars), then Y might not care much about the lost car,
and my not pursue “serving justice”].

The limitations identified above severely limits fair applications or practicality of

the concept of transitional justice system. If there were consistent mechanisms
for measuring and comparing the stimuli (caused by the perpetrator plus a way of
not only creating a chosen and measured new response stimuli (by the victim) to
ensure equivalence, then, transitional justice system would work in the two
person world- somewhat!

The realm of standardizing certain stimuli (input) of interest complete with an

appropriate set of operations (such as comparisons) is where a computer beats
humans. A computer does this by defining the different types of stimuli it can
handle, complete with the operations that can be performed on the stimuli. Data
typing, is the term used to refer to the categorizations. (Of course, there are
certain types of stimuli that cannot be represented in a computer – yet!)

So, there is no denying that justice needs to be served. However, even in the face
of overwhelming evidence, the problem shifts to determining the equivalence of
the injustice that the perpetrator wreaked on the victim.

23. The question on competence of a judge

Still limiting ourselves to the two-person world, we said that, in the transitional
justice system, if the trouble causer (or perpetrator) Y assaulted X, then X would
strike back on Y (in commensurate amount) and peace and harmony would return,
immediately (hopefully). In this two-person world, where there is not third party
to intervene, X, being the victim and a seeker for justice will determine, for
himself (using whatever invention he can make), the nature and amount of
stimulus needed to serve justice to Y. In this scenario, X is both the victim and the
judge – and in addition, he is the person responsible for implementing the idea [of
serving justice]. This would not be an issue, ordinarily until we realize that X,
being a victim, is carrying out all these when he is in a relatively unstable mental
state.

From Y

SY

X1 X2

Stable mental state unstable mental state of a victim and judge

When X is in a relatively unstable state of mind, it means the information content
that is associated with his current mental state x2 is different from the
information content at the previous stable/peaceful mental state - before his
mind was disrupted by the perpetrator. What this means, for example, is that if
what we knew about some object O in his normal/objective reality at stable state
X1, then at unstable state X2, what knows about the same object is now false(F).
So, if this change of reality (or transition of mental states) was caused by Y striking
X, then, by definition of "transitional justice", X will seek to "transform" Y from his
(already unstable state Y1) to even more unstable state Y2 such that if at state
Y1, Y's knowledge of the same object O was true (T), then Y's knowledge of the
same object after justice has been served will be false(F). [In this simple case,
where there only two possible values (true or false), a change of value from one
to the other is called 'toggling'].

diagram**

After the above transitions, X is convinced that justice has been served. Y too will
have to wittingly accept that the transition engendered to him by X was due to his
(Y's) previous misdeeds, and so he does not need to strike back at Y.

So, now, X and Y are at the "same level" which seems to be fine. However, it is
weird that what happened is simply a change of reality sense (in that what X and
Y knew about object O is now not only different, but it is also false!). Well, in this
only two person world, one could argue that it does not really matter, since after
all, Y (despite initially knowing true T information about the object O, was not in
stable state of mind (the reason he started the fight in the first place - by hitting
X).
We can argue that a victim (even if it was not because this is only a two-person
world) is capable of administering transitional justice (as we described above)? No,
not ideally as we discuss in the next section.

24. The effect of mental state on judgment

So far, we have not yet discussed in detail what we mean by an "internal mental
state". We must get it clear that the letters X, X2, X3, Y1, Y2, Y3, etc that we have
been using simply denote a particular state of mind at a given time. And we have
been shielding ourselves from the details of what a state is. Such a general
representation (like X1, X2, X3, Y1, Y2, Y3, ...) are called abstractions. The details
of the values that define a mental state are stored in memory, as it was briefly
discussed in Section 10.

In that same section 10, we presented a case where a mental state does not
change but remains in the same state if the stimulus is REPEATEDLY presented
and it is of the same value.

Figure....

However, if a new stimulus different in value from the previous stimulus is

presented to X, then X's mental state will change from X1 to some state X2.

Figure...

And we also note that for X to have control pn whether his mental state should
accept the incoming message and change (from X1 to X2) or reject the message
and remain in the same state X1 after a stimulus S is presented, the following is
required:
(i) X must have a way of not only "knowing" the values of the current and
previous stimuli, but
(ii) X must also "know" how to determine whether or not the values of the current
and previous stimuli are equal

=> Storage (for the values of the current and previous stimuli) are required - this is
what we call "memory".

=> Storage for the "means of knowing" or "instructions" on how to operate on the
stimuli or "program" (as it is called in Computer Science) is required.

And indeed, the instructions or "program" are also stored in the same memory.
That is, a chunk of memory is used to store stimulus values (data) and another
section of the same memory is used to store the instructions or programs. And
example of a program is a set of instructions or procedure used to compare two
values of stimuli.

Figure....

In fact, the idea of representing or storing both data and instructions in the same
memory was a conception attributed to Von Neumann, and therefore, the design
of the computer is called the Von Neumann architecture.

Let's go back to the discussion of the effects of mental state on judgment, since
we now know that a mental state is largely defined by the memory content, and
for our purpose of discussion at this stage, the state of mind is defined by:

i) the information content at current mental state X1 and information

content at previous mental state X2
ii) instructions (for choosing and carrying out operations on selected
information content, e.g. for comparing two values of data).
For a victim X to administer justice (on perpetrator Y) in the two-person world, he
must have in memory the appropriate "instructions" to invoke or execute, and
the information content pertaining to the prior states as well as the current
state.

Figure....

As you can see from the diagram above, victim X in new unstable state X2 has to
keep track of several (that is, a lot more) pieces of information than when he (X)
was in the previous (relatively more stable) state, X1. This is because X's
information content keep building up as new information about the new changes
get added to X's memory at each transition.
For a one step transition, as depicted in Figure above, a victim can easily handle
the load of information without much strain. In the two-person world, one could
argue that X is capable of acting on his own in "serving justice" on Y, and the
argument indeed might sound conspicuously plausible even though he(X) - the
victim - is in a relatively unstable mental state.

The effect of "intensity" of stimuli/transition on mental state (and judgment)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument in the previous section is that the victim X could administer justice
because he (X) underwent only a "one-step" transition from mental state X1 to
new mental state X2 - placing it not so far away from the previous state. X's
memory - ability to recall information about the previous state x1 is not
overwhelmed or clouded by too much information. [The assumption is that the
information acquired during the one-step transition was not intense].
Consider, however, the following diagram representing some multi-step
transitions:

Figure...

As you can see from the figure, the victim X's mental state is defined by several
pieces of information not only about the current state (e.g. value of data at x5=F)
but also values of data at prior states (X1, X2, X3 and X4), in addition to
"instruction set" at each state. For now, we assume that the instruction set
remains unchanged through the transitions from state X1 to X5.

Let's say, in (still) the two person world, X - the victim - is to take action in seeking
justice on Y because Y's actions (stimuli - S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5) caused X's mental
state to change from the initial stable X1 to the current state X5. For the
transitional justice to work fairly, X must remember with accuracy, all the history
(of transitions) from X1 to X5 and only then will he be able to take action (of
"serving justice") on Y in a manner that is "commensurate" with the net stimulus
(or change?) that he (X) went through. Again, all the information must be
available as evidence and as justification for the action of serving justice. This is
where a major difficulty is encountered: due to the limited memory of human
beings, a victim who has undergone such mental transitions will not remember all,
let alone be able to produce much evidence, relating to prior state information.
Past information is often erased from memory and replaced with more recent
ones. That means X's reaction, modestly speaking, is highly likely not to be
commensurate with what the perpetrator Y deserves (in justice). Some of the
operations (such as comparison) could then be based on false memory data if X
attempted to proceed with making decisions regarding striking back at
perpetrator Y.
But the transitions need not be multi-step for X's memory capacity to be
overwhelmed (exceeded). Consider a scenario where several stimuli (or assaults)
are presented to X simultaneously (that is, in parallel) as we discussed in Section 6,
administered, say through coordinated coercions (in a world where there many
other agents). As illustrated below:

Figure...

In the above scenario, the intensity of attacks is high (in a short time), and X's
memory will be overwhelmed more quickly than in the previous case (where
stimuli were presented in series). It would be unrealistic to expect X (as a victim)
to exercise good or fair judgment as some of the information may be
lost/forgotten (forcing X to assume values which might not be correct), if it is not
based on false memory (Section 13). Note that in this case, there might be more
than one perpetrator- and that, not all the people involved in the parallel supply
of stimulus are perpetrators... since not all stimuli caused [or were intended to
cause] undesirable transitions.

Instruction set /program as part of memory, and as capability that facilitates

judgment
----------------------------------
So, the human memory consists of both information content (call it data) and
mechanisms that allow the mind to manipulate the data (instruction set or
operations). We already looked at the effect of the data memory section on
judgment. The discussion assumed that the instruction set remains unchanged
through transitions.

Figure.....

The assumption that the instruction set (that contains details on how to select
and process the data) is constant through the transitions at this point may make
sense only if the instruction set contains all the necessary capability (methods of
operation) necessary to operate on data to achieve the task(s) at hand.

If, for some reason, the instructions are (rather) limited in the sense that it cannot
carry out comparison on stimulus data values, then, returning to our problem of
transitional justice, X is rendered incapable of exercising judgment - and so, he is
like to fail in his question of acting fairly.

The mental state therefore is defined by the content of the data section as well as
instruction set section of the memory.

For any given task (e.g. X acting as judge to serve justice), X must have in part of
its memory not only the right amount of data but the data must be accurate. In
addition to data, X must have in its instruction set (which would be stored in the
same memory, the right operations to perform on the data. [In fact, one family of
the first computer brains built was relatively simple, with only a limited set of
operations defined in its instruction set: it was thusly called the reduced
instruction set computer (RISC), which in fact, forms the basis for teaching
introductory courses in computer architecture/organization].
So far, we gave as an example, the operation of comparing two values. In factm in
RISC, for instance, there are also operations to fetch data from data storage
section of memory, also called the "load" operation as well as operations for
writing the results of an arithmetic operation (such as the "add" operation) back
to the memory section for data.
The "write" operation is appropriate for such a task. Some of the examples of
operations such as "load", "add", "write" are what is referred to as low-level
operations that take place within the brain of the computer and its associated
memory. Usually, for a RISC for example, a set of instructions consisting of an
ordered sequence of the low level operators are created (or "written") according
to the need in achieving a particular task. We can also draw analogies from how
these operations in order to analyze the low level operations of the human brains.
We imagine that the instruction set in the human brain allows for loading data
from the data section of memory to the "working memory" where calculations
such as comparisons take place.

In computer science, the operations of load, write, write and others - written in
some unambiguous manner to achieve a particular goal when "executed" by the
processor is called a procedure or an algorithm. And the computer (programming)
language used to create such a low level is called an assembler language. The
program is sometimes called assembler code.
[But since it is cumbersome working at very low levels using assembler language,
other languages that more closely resemble human languages, also called high-
level languages, have since been developed - such as Java, C, FORTRAN, etc).

That was some analogies with the computer brain, to invite us to get to go under
the hood of the operations at very low levels if we are to understand why the big
decisions that we make are built by from the very low level ones.
In the transitional justice system, X's mind (memory) should have both the correct
data (in amount and value) and the right instruction set to carry out the job of
serving justice to X. Like in the case of a computer (RISC), before X can carry out
the act of serving justice to the perpetrator Y, X must fetch the necessary data
(from the data section of his mental memory) and "load" into the right operation
area (in the working memory). X must have chosen the right set of instructions
from the instruction set to manipulate the data. What that means is that X must
possess some extra capability that allows it to select what instructions, and to
determine whether the data to be manipulated is in the correct amount, and in
correct precision, among other things - all relative to achieving the task at hand.

Fetching data/evidence from external memory

------------------------------------------
So, the discussion in the previous section assumed that X, the victim - somehow,
had all the information he needed to pass judgment in his internal (mental)
memory. He had the data and the instruction set already loaded in his memory.

Figure.....

In practice, however, X usually has to fetch (that is, gather additional evidence
and knowledge/instructions), before he can be able to decide on the nature of
justice to serve on perpetrator Y.

Oftentimes, gathering such data from external sources amount to not only merely
going to "pick the data" and necessary instructions and then loading it into
memory. The task may involve studying objects of various kinds to ascertain
its nature as it may relate to the problem at hand. In this case, the perpetrator's
crime was telling a like that caused X's mental state to transition from stable X1 to
unstable X2, X - in the process of gathering evidence may find himself engrossed
in studies in order to ascertain or understand, for example, if it was a lie that
caused X (himself) to transition into an unstable mental state X2, and if it was a lie,
was it a simple lie such as one due to a simple proposition that got its value
toggled, or was it due to a web of deceptions that included sophistical refutations
and false arguments? So, as you can see, X - even though he is a judge (and his
victim status, notwithstanding) may have to find himself digging deeper and
deeper into external sources just to uncover the correct data before he can pass a
judgment. [It is assumed that X, under such a circumstance, possesses the
necessary resources and the extra capability to facilitate his quest to advance his
understanding and gathering of data/evidence].

Gathering data/evidence from external sources - then, could be a study that

covers depth and breadth, within or across what is now commonly known as
"disciplines" or "fields" of studies. [What makes the situation somewhat different
is that information/data about nature, whether gathered from physics, biology,
sociology, chemistry, etc - at the most fundamental levels are represented in the
true/false format, or binary digit (o's or 1's) format].

[For a computer, the program, too, are represented in binary format. For the
curious mind, the tasks of converting data/information about the nature of an
object, into a form that can be represented in and manipulated by a computer,
regardless of whether the data is about the nature of earth surface (from
environmental science), human genes (biology), human behavior (from social
media), stock data (from economics), etc - is one of the reasons why applications
of computer science is interdisciplinary].

But there is a reason why the interdisciplinary problems are particularly

challenging: we know that the computer memory resource is limited, and as you
may know, a resource that is available in limited amount needs to be used
sparingly or optimally. One of the key considerations when converting external
data from it's raw form into a form that can be stored in computer memory - is
that the chosen format must not occupy too much space, lest the memory
capacity is exceeded. Finding an appropriate format of transforming a raw data
about the nature (of an external world) is important. On another front, the data
format chosen must take into account the instruction set capabilities.
Is the program capable of manipulating the data in the given computer
representation (format) without additional overheads? The speed at which the
program performs operations on the data is sometimes dependent on the format
or representation of the data. The issues of speed and memory space
complexities are the fundamentals studied in computer science, under topics such
as "algorithms and data structures", and yet successful (effective) applications in
such areas as biology requires fundamental understanding of the subject areas in
question, such as DNA composition, human emotions, etc.

Yet there is certainly a need to combine the (fundamental) knowledge of the

different fields. It is challenging though significant progress has been made in the
field.

If then we consider the problem of the victim X digging deeper and deeper in
order to get the evidence that he needs, in order to strike back at his (only
possible) perpetrator in the two-person world, depending on the nature of the
problem and the tools available, the needed data could be solvable in a time as
short as one second, but in some cases, it could take as long as 6 years! Let's
suppose that a fairly accurate observation (data) that took years to collect is now
available. The other task is interpret the data in a manner that is not only
convincing (e.g. that, indeed, it was Y who supplied the stimulus (strike) on X that
caused his(X's) mental state to transition from X1 to X2, but the method of
interpretation should be consistent such that if it were applied to another
scenario (say P's case), it would yield consistent results under the same conditions.

For a given type of data, if such a method of performing operations on the data
exists, the term "effective procedure" has been coined accordingly - in the field of
the "theory of computation".

More specifically, this field of "computability", or as one may infer from its name,
tries to answer the question of "whether a certain type of machine can perform a
computation". For our purpose, a machine refers to a human brain or computer
brain as represented or defined by the data section and the instruction set section.
Figure....

It was Alan Turing who first equated the concept of computability with the ability
of a certain type of machine to perform a computation. And this problem of
converting questions to equivalent procedures is akin to getting them into a form
where computers can handle them - that is, creating a set of rules telling you,
moment by moment, what to do to achieve a particular end. The term
“algorithm" is commonly used to refer to an effective procedure.

We conclude that, in some cases, X - the victim may not be able to get the
required evidence not simply because of his limited internal memory (which
consists of data and instruction set), as a result of complex nature of objects that
could facilitate gathering of evidence from external sources. Should X proceed
to "administer justice" by striking Y when he (X) had no reliable information on
whether or not Y was indeed the perpetrator, he (X) might find that he is, in fact,
mistaken - for, even in this two-person (that we are analyzing), he (X) could have
been rendered victim not by X but by some other non-human object in Y's world.

Transitional justice in a many person world

--------------------------------------------

So far, our discussion had been limited to the workings of transitional justice in a
two-person world - the simplest possible case. We noted that judgment of a
victim serving as a judge is impacted greatly (and negatively) due to:
i) the instable mental state in which he finds himself in, straining his capacity to
memorize the past (with accuracy) if he is to judge fairly.
ii) gathering evidence from external sources could turn out to be demanding in
terms of resources (such as time).

We also noted that due to the limitations identified above, of X were to hit back
at Y, then it is very likely that the magnitude of X's reaction may not be
commensurate with what Y deserved, prompting a back and forth fight - in effect
failing the original goal of serving justice (through the transitional justice system).

These issues become terribly scary when we consider the dynamics of strikes in a
more practical world where there are more than two people, as illustrated
below:

Figure ....

In the above case, every agent is facing the same set of problems that the victim X
(in the simple two-person scenario) had encountered: limited memory and
limited capability. In the end, majority of the members of the community who
subscribe to the transitional justice system will simply hit on any other person (an
act, which, weirdly, has become central part of the unclear process of
administering transitional justice system). Since it is usually difficult to trace a
perpetrator (and come up with evidence to warrant a particular course of action
in a transition justice system, it is very likely that a person (who, for whatever
reason, feels or finds himself in some disadvantaged position, will get to attribute
his condition to someone else- will (try to) create a situation where he is regarded
as a victim- and given the inherent difficulty of verifying claims in the world of
transitional justice, chances are high - that just anyone will be mistaken as the
perpetrator. The issue is, how the [perceived] victim chooses his "perpetrator" is
subject to influences that may render the principled application of justice a failure.
In a society where morals are degenerated, or are at the brink of degeneration, as
a result of poverty, for example, it is very likely majority of people who subscribe
to the transitional justice system are, in fact, people who have a high tendency to
react without carrying out the necessary studies to unearth the root cause of
injustice. It is not surprising if a community end up "identifying" a perpetrator
simply because the [perceived] perpetrator bear some characteristics not
necessary negative in nature, but that most of the community members envy-
that the community members desire to have, but circumstance cannot easily
allow them to have it.
Some relatively peaceful, progressive person - who should have been regarded a
role model - is then collectively treated as a perpetrator. But worse still, when
transitional justice is then taken to be a remedy in a limited sense as described
above, community members will adopt the practice as "normal", in effect
targeting any emerging progressive members - and in the end, transitional justice
turns out to be a an instrument for destroying the otherwise much needed
[agents of] development.

The fundamental building blocks of justice then become twisted, as the

promoters of transitional justice may involve themselves in striking one person
after the other (a trend I once termed as "time-series" with chances that
advocates of such a system may add to their group new recruits/converts, unless
some action is taken to avert the trend.
Attaining peace, if that was the perceived goal, now becomes elusive because
merely transferring aggression from one person to another or from one
community to another - regardless of the form it takes - as long as the process
causes distress or loss to another person(s) - is undesirable. The system may not
then be a solution to peace.

Way forward
----------------
(i) Allow transitional justice to prevail

(ii) Employ a straw man

Figure.........

There is no guarantee that the actions undertaken under the transitional justice
program will not repeat itself since there is no mark on the person who has
already been "served justice". Even if such a mark were to be made, there
is no way of enforcing the rule of "no one else should hit him/her again" - since,
among many reasons, the human dynamics is such that people migrate to
different places and will get to meet new people who have no complete
knowledge of their history. More importantly, human actions, even if they (actors)
had some sort of versatile memory and great instructions - are still influenced by
other personality factors, determined by, say, emotions, beliefs, desires, and
intentions (which are usually influenced by environments).

Redefining mental state

----------------------------
Our original formulation or representation of a mental state was that it is defined
by:
(i) a memory chunk that stores data about the nature of some object observed by
the person, and information about 'prior state information (which is limited).
(ii) instruction set - which is the capability that the "instructions" contained in the
set can on the data.

Figure....

Strawman
--------------
=> captures

-- But the definition or portrayal of the mental memory state above would be
simplistic if we realized that in the real world, there are other factors that
influence human behavior, namely, belief (about some other thing..), desires (for
some other thing), intentions and emotions (and perhaps others) and these may
take on different values as the transitions take place, as illustrated below at state
X3, for example:

Figure ...........
So, the problem is compounded in the sense that emotions could cloud thinking,
meaning that even if the "instruction set" and "data about some object" were
devoid of any issues, the decision-maker's ability, as a victim (X), can still influence
emotions. So, transitional justice will fail when the person hit was not responsible
for X's misery. And we are not just talking about "false alarm" but a situation that
would otherwise be a system[atic].

Unreliable information - and a critique of transition

------------------------------------------------------

Transitional justice will fail to meet its goal in a world/community where

community members have unrealizable information. This can happen when:
(i) the members have no real source to prove their claims/fabrications
(ii) the existing source of information provides a mixture of true or false
information (e.g. wikis)
(iii) deliberate spread of false information as a result of false beliefs, latent desires
and intentions (propaganda)
(iv) others..

In fact, after searching for reliable literature on transitional "quite in vain", I finally
found this textbook by Maria Pia Lara - "Narrating Evil" (2007) that discusses Ruti
Teitel's pioneering work, "Transitional Justice". That, the problem of
understanding the past ("historical past") is often dependent on social and
political contingencies (which may fall under the influence of beliefs, desires and
intentions). Although in that pioneering work, Ruti Teitel has emphasized the
need for what he calls "collective memory" and "accountability" as an important
bridge to the comprehension of evil actions, and pointing out the fact that "social
memory" is one of the functions of the law, which covers "procedural process of
trials, the availability and display of stories, and the disclosure of truths (what
really happened)", the pioneer does not seem to stress the problem inherent in
gathering "social memory" - for social memory is liable to false memory,
especially when we realize that victims' mental states have all sorts of
vulnerabilities.

"The idea that collective memory is a site for representation can now be
connected to the way representations of collective history re-create and
dramatize actions. Huyssen has focused attention on the fact that our times have
enhanced "the culture of memory" because of the successful marketing of
memory by the Western culture industry". The culture of memory, however, is
always tied to different political uses and can vary from an aggressively
chauvinistic and nationalistic culture (like Serbia) to the more progressive
attempts of, say, the Argentinians to produce an accurate historical memory
(accounting) that will protect their civil society from oblivion. “The past has no
sense or value by itself. We, the social subjects, give meaning and value
to our reconstructions. For this reason, all our reconstructions of the past should
be subjected to open public debate. Public debates clarify for us the ways we
have chosen specific strategies for representation.
Huyssen has called our attention to the importance of thinking critically about the
subtle defining lines between traumatic memories, and the ways in which
commercial media markets have framed political issues out of such memories. A
notion of "reflective judgment" is urgently needed here, and we must connect tit
to the category of learning from catastrophes".

The solution of using a straw man

------------------------------------

Create a strawman:
- ideal properties of the man:
- new, unknown to community (except some teacher vector.)
- smart
able to extend his smartness/flexible - research , books, etc
- isloate him/ filibuster/sequester/.... socially, economically
-relentless critic
-unyielding to feelings
-have good virtues

=>at the end - he must be able to produce evidence