Will computers ever solve chess?

No. Most people cannot observe, as most brains are not still. The problem is that the agitated brain cannot see its agitation: who me? Nooo, my brain is not agitated!

 That is because it has never experienced true silence, where a huge chunk of images disappear, thus creating a space that can be infinitely explored. True religion starts there.

And so, what can one do?

That is, if one understands they are not separate from the bias they’re trying to end.

So, ignoring the trolls, what is one to do to get rid of the bias? One”s whole persona is created by this bias. The judge is the bias itself. Then what can one do? Can they do anything?

I was reading in the paper today about a planned demonstration of a far-right group. In the last minute they canceled but a group of protesters showed up anyway because the other group was ‘coming to our community with an agenda that is different from our interests’.

And this clash of agendas takes place at all levels of society: between schools, organizations, countries, families as well as within families, between groups of people or between individuals  More importantly, it takes place in oneself, which is the source.

So if one tracks down this agenda—which is the very bias we talked about just above— in themselves, it will be discovered that it is sustained by an illusion. This fact only becomes visible when the brain is quiet, hence the question about how it can happen, which, in the spirit of a true inquiry, includes the possibility of it not happening a pt all.

Unless we can see the same thing—facts, not opinions, ideas or ideologies—there will always be friction, animosities, conflict. And we can only see the same facts when the above-mentioned agendas cease to exist.

Did someone say mental masturbation?

Pass the lube... no not that, the @elubas 

Yeah, fact based societies would be a good start.

First to go would be religion though... good luck with that. IMO it will be impossible for humans.

You are also human. So see for yourself if it’s possible or not to get rid of that agenda—which is universal.

There are different levels of idiocy, but yes, I'm human too.

It's hard to predict far future technology's influence on society.

For example 50 years ago who would have predicted all the social media nonsense that dominates today?

Thanks  I thought you  might be old enough to remember, even though both of our accounts are very new.

Oh wow, this account isn't even a month old

  This classification of levels gives one comfort and is a deterrent to change. One must have the passion to go to the very bottom of this, otherwise there is no meaning in being on a perceived higher level than others.

It would be easy to reduce chess to six pieces by taking away a knight and bishop. Then it would be on 36 squares.  It would reduce the number of moves, making it easier to solve. 

  It’s not computers that will rule the world, but still the humans behind them. Advertisers are praying on humans’whimsucak desires to posses more, on human greed—through the new channels of media frenzy.

  But still you couldn’t extrapolate those findings to 64 squares...

Regardless of the psychological effects of such an evaluation, or the practical intentions of some individuals e.g. making a change, it is what it is: some people are morons, most are close to average, some are above average.

  In the field of life, there is almost no one ‘above the average’.   

 As long as facts don’t change, one must be ‘stuck’ in talking about them.