Evolution is a source of hot debate. Fundamentalists are not the only criticizers of this foundational explanational outline for the propagation of life. For every article, study, idea, topic of interest, one will inevitably run across their counters. This is indicative of a few things. One, a trespassing onto another belief in which the new violates its predecessor and is an attempt at replacement. Two, the explanation was not detailed or coherent with enough facts to stabilize its legitimacy. Three, it has too narrow of a definition, it bypasses a logical alternative, or additional probability. That is why the word set out to describe these conjectures is theory. The use of this word is to indicate that these articles and essays are a hypothesis. Theories are scientific forms of belief systems founded on facts. Making them more reliable then religious beliefs (based in blind faith and non-evidential hearsay), suggestion, or intuition. As well reasoned as they may be, this mere fact becomes a huge problem as the leaving of gaps is inherent to each system. Reasons include: expansion at a later date, inconclusive data, or information that can't substantiated. The things of life are complex; meaning the devises of their explanation would be to an equal degree. Everything can not be one thing. If this were so then there would be one point from which all to view. We understand through our many differences that this is not the case and that things can not be explained or determined by one system alone. There are too many influences, possibilities, standards, randomness etc, etc. This is why an explanation or belief structure alone could never possible encompass all things without at some point becoming disingenuous to itself. Converse arguments are crucial for the completion of a whole allowing all aspects to be considered to either validate or undermine the base leap.
This leads us to why so many theories, like that of evolution, the big bang, or anything concerned with accuracy under go revivals, revisions, restructuring. It is the approach to gaining adjoined attachments in an effort to stay relevant. It may need only some work on its peripheral aspects, an overhaul may be in order, or the structure becomes obsolete in the sense of holding weight as a legitimate argument (as with religion although there are still many believers). Such is the case in evolution. The process of Dawkins, Wilson, Grant, Smith, Mealey, etc. updating, countering, adding, or reinterpreting Darwin's fundamentals may increase the longevity of the structure. A great source of debate, this theory has so much input in it, that I believe the structure is molding into a more fully exacting account; as a larger number of situational agents are being considered. The end result is just as the word hypothesis alludes an educated guess where everything is never known. So, do our interpretation of life's events and behavior really follow this sequential chain? The answers will be left to those with faith. While the rest are out there finding their own truths (well reasoned or not).
Observation- (quotes and terms taken from Evolution 101)
If you examine this theory from a growth perspective, then its aspects of addition and subtraction are great supports for Dawkins idea of memetics. As the evolutionary theory has been subjected to the afore mentioned process it has undergone its own evolution in the realm of memes. It would even be possible to give it a familial tree charting it's progression from inception to current state; including the ideas that have perished become "extinct" along its way. Darwin's code has been altered by environmental factors such as "competition" from other memes: ideas, theories, through "genetic drift" where it has migrated from mind to mind leaving randomly selected thoughts as survivors. They have been subjected to "mutations" from encounters with addition memes and subtractive memes that are altering its code "genes". "Coevol[ving]" and growing symbiotically with assertions, developing with those that prove to be mutual beneficial in enabling it's survival, a "cospeciation" in the landscape of the mind; a meme's habitat. Proving it has been "natural[ly] select[ed]" and in current form very "adaptive" to multiple locals (minds) and times as a demonstration of how "fit" this theory actually is.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Meme
My favorite meme -idea- from Dawkins text is that the awareness to the selfish self-replicators of thought can empower the individual to no only avoid such things, but as conscious beings we can conspire to propagate memes that encourage a counter norm; an altruistic reality.
Lots of Questions????
His explanations of their propagation and life span leads me to wonder about their genesis. Are they just part of the random thought processes, that then are well expanded through the amount of bonds they form and the resilience they acquire?
I do find myself wondering if they are not only thoughts and ideas, but as they multiply, if successful memetics expels life itself. So are we addicted to the familiarity and predictability of ideas and what they yield or is it a physical addiction to the movements? Basically are the memes inducing hormonal reactions or are the reactions just sensory intakes?
Such as a gene in conjunction with many others gives to the production of species and plant life wouldn't then (besides the accumulation of formed traditions, places, tools i.e. religion, churches, rituals, hymns) memes be the manifestations of realities? As if they were the software programs to a reality simulator that provides the parameters and base experience opening up only certain channels as inlets with in us for the reinforcement of their experiential pleasure?
The more I learn the less I know.
Lots of Questions????
His explanations of their propagation and life span leads me to wonder about their genesis. Are they just part of the random thought processes, that then are well expanded through the amount of bonds they form and the resilience they acquire?
I do find myself wondering if they are not only thoughts and ideas, but as they multiply, if successful memetics expels life itself. So are we addicted to the familiarity and predictability of ideas and what they yield or is it a physical addiction to the movements? Basically are the memes inducing hormonal reactions or are the reactions just sensory intakes?
Such as a gene in conjunction with many others gives to the production of species and plant life wouldn't then (besides the accumulation of formed traditions, places, tools i.e. religion, churches, rituals, hymns) memes be the manifestations of realities? As if they were the software programs to a reality simulator that provides the parameters and base experience opening up only certain channels as inlets with in us for the reinforcement of their experiential pleasure?
The more I learn the less I know.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Fundamentalism
"Fundamentalism is a mental disease", through which the thinker extracts logic from their processes. The denial of evolution is looking at the world via blindfold and this extremism is as dangerous and ignorant of a stance as those of racism, sexism, or any form of intolerance. A minuet understanding of science still allows flow in the direction of progression. It is true that at one time there were some difficulties in the absolutism of proof, but over the past few decades those issues have and are continuing to be resolved one by one.
I can understand the difficulty in the relinquishment of a persons entire belief structure and even their want for little to change. What I can not grasp is what is seen in extremism of their mental shut down at the very utterance and suggestion of anything counter to what they believe. The defense of their faith at all costs is the ugliest and most animalistic response and therefore a most convincing form of support in the argument in favor of evolution. If faith to them is fragile, then that speaks in volumes to what their faith lacks. I have a much greater respect for a person who will objectively weigh the evidence, and even if their belief system over their rational proceeds, than at least they have opened the door to look at reality. I don't see why a person of strong faith and logic could not incorporate the two. Devising a way for them to have a mutual existence in a symbiotic manner is very possible. Religion should not make science its enemy. If it decides to do so then it will continue to show as years advance. Eventually leading to either a great rift in our social fabric, or the demise of such archaic traditions. I don't think that it will be the end of religion as a whole. I think that people like structure and tradition, my hope is that we will change the view of ourselves as subservient to a remote deity to taking on the responsibility for life and our action squarely upon our shoulders and walking through it with dignity.
I can understand the difficulty in the relinquishment of a persons entire belief structure and even their want for little to change. What I can not grasp is what is seen in extremism of their mental shut down at the very utterance and suggestion of anything counter to what they believe. The defense of their faith at all costs is the ugliest and most animalistic response and therefore a most convincing form of support in the argument in favor of evolution. If faith to them is fragile, then that speaks in volumes to what their faith lacks. I have a much greater respect for a person who will objectively weigh the evidence, and even if their belief system over their rational proceeds, than at least they have opened the door to look at reality. I don't see why a person of strong faith and logic could not incorporate the two. Devising a way for them to have a mutual existence in a symbiotic manner is very possible. Religion should not make science its enemy. If it decides to do so then it will continue to show as years advance. Eventually leading to either a great rift in our social fabric, or the demise of such archaic traditions. I don't think that it will be the end of religion as a whole. I think that people like structure and tradition, my hope is that we will change the view of ourselves as subservient to a remote deity to taking on the responsibility for life and our action squarely upon our shoulders and walking through it with dignity.
Blinded in Truth Shrouded in Lies
Truth as a major occurrence in most of our lives is just the interpretation of fact in our favor. What ever the emphasis is on it certainly (for most) caters to and grants allowance of succeeding behavior. At times it may be outright or unconscious to our precepts, nonetheless they remain lies.
In the case of apparent lies, they are filtered in three forms to allow us to move about our lives. One, outright acceptance (rare) resulting in huge changes in thinking and behavior. Two, rationalization (the most likely) where the lie is diluted to a scenario of our choosing to fit in with what we already know in an effort to create little change and retain familiarity and a sense of comfortability. Three, suppression (second most likely) a state of delusion when within we accept nothing and leave it to be dealt with and confronted it later time to retain immediate, but short term bliss.
According to Dawkins even our system of vision is illusionary. If we can't trust our senses then what can we? Well we can certainly rely on the developed methods of sensory acquisition. This input is a mental rationalization and form of cope-ability to the complexities of the world. They are true in the sense that they give us enough information in easily decipherable ways in order for us to function at an increasingly high rate. In addition, we can surmise that all truths are lies. Dealing then with the task of figuring out their degree of deception. So, I guess my insistence of unadulterated truth is a fallacy unto itself. Its nice to be given this truth, and I will process it accordingly.
In the case of apparent lies, they are filtered in three forms to allow us to move about our lives. One, outright acceptance (rare) resulting in huge changes in thinking and behavior. Two, rationalization (the most likely) where the lie is diluted to a scenario of our choosing to fit in with what we already know in an effort to create little change and retain familiarity and a sense of comfortability. Three, suppression (second most likely) a state of delusion when within we accept nothing and leave it to be dealt with and confronted it later time to retain immediate, but short term bliss.
According to Dawkins even our system of vision is illusionary. If we can't trust our senses then what can we? Well we can certainly rely on the developed methods of sensory acquisition. This input is a mental rationalization and form of cope-ability to the complexities of the world. They are true in the sense that they give us enough information in easily decipherable ways in order for us to function at an increasingly high rate. In addition, we can surmise that all truths are lies. Dealing then with the task of figuring out their degree of deception. So, I guess my insistence of unadulterated truth is a fallacy unto itself. Its nice to be given this truth, and I will process it accordingly.
Survival
Darwin's theory was the survival of the fittest because it was the fittest who at an early stage was the most adaptable and therefore the smartest of their kind. At this point in our evolution, and I would say going back hundreds if not thousands of years, this trait that has propelled us forward has idled and turned into the "survival of the sufficient".
The most intellectual and revolutionary of our species are not revered as one might think they'd be. The majority of the populous is of average skill, average looks, average means. This set does not include ingenuity and mental prowess which are abilities that are much more rare. This stock of man becomes enviable and his traits advanced in caliber interpreted as superiority as they become more apparent to the ignorance in the masses. As a result these true leaders are attacked and eventually overpowered by the majority (or the select few who manipulate the majority) to the point of the relinquishment of their life. We are given examples throughout history of this ugly pairing in fate for those men such as Socrates, Jesus (if he existed), Che Guevara (interesting bunch I know) and many others. So it seems that the masses turn to blind their eyes and deafen their ears to the attacks on progress, on difference, and specialness in favor of mediocrity and to ensure their survival. Meaning that progress will be slower and change ever so slight.
The most intellectual and revolutionary of our species are not revered as one might think they'd be. The majority of the populous is of average skill, average looks, average means. This set does not include ingenuity and mental prowess which are abilities that are much more rare. This stock of man becomes enviable and his traits advanced in caliber interpreted as superiority as they become more apparent to the ignorance in the masses. As a result these true leaders are attacked and eventually overpowered by the majority (or the select few who manipulate the majority) to the point of the relinquishment of their life. We are given examples throughout history of this ugly pairing in fate for those men such as Socrates, Jesus (if he existed), Che Guevara (interesting bunch I know) and many others. So it seems that the masses turn to blind their eyes and deafen their ears to the attacks on progress, on difference, and specialness in favor of mediocrity and to ensure their survival. Meaning that progress will be slower and change ever so slight.
Love
To think of the origins and primary functions of love as simply an adaptive technique for bonding makes the sustenance in the interest of gene evolution and is very disheartening. Just as the view of the swelling, overwhelming of the senses that can sometimes be caused would be reduced to the physiochemical reactions that are output by our brain. Those are a flattened approach to issues that are more complex than these explanations give way to.
I would side more with the opinions held by Edward O. Wilson. He, as I, allow this factual basis and chain of reactions to exist while layering upon them a complex and compatible truth. The recognition that these emotions and techniques were chosen and favored by our gene pool. That our lineage allows for infinite beauty to be a possible functioning facets of our life. That an organs function does not debase our reality. We should be appreciative that our brains are wired in this way and not be neglectful of it.
I would side more with the opinions held by Edward O. Wilson. He, as I, allow this factual basis and chain of reactions to exist while layering upon them a complex and compatible truth. The recognition that these emotions and techniques were chosen and favored by our gene pool. That our lineage allows for infinite beauty to be a possible functioning facets of our life. That an organs function does not debase our reality. We should be appreciative that our brains are wired in this way and not be neglectful of it.
Richard Dawkins
Is a evolutionary biologist whose thoughts show a methodic and deeply understood explanation for the circumstance humankind has found itself within. My favorite were ideas that involved how we adapted to this realm of middle existence and the visual language that has developed from it with the utilization of a system of color.
The fact that two objects comprised mainly of space do have the capability to merge or intersect with one another would baffle our minds and make our would nonsensical. In order to correct for this our minds have created visual solidity which is the main component of the our middle plane.
He has suggested that bats, dog and rhinos, as well as humans may have similar visual color coding system that are used to interpret different phenomena. Bats use echo, sound waves, to see and it is plausible that in order for them to differentiate between textures that they would be separated into hues. A dog or rhino ,are smell sensitive animals, that may identify certain scent by means of a visual code in order to simply compute their world. Finally, for humans, we have introduced color as a visual sign system for waves. In order to distinguish between the long and short of them. Meaning that a long wave is not truly red; it is that we see it in red to differentiate it from the others.
The suggestions he makes are answers to many fundamental questions of why we see things in a different way from how they actually are. Dawkins wonders if introduced by means of a video-game that suggests alternatives to a child's brain, if it would be possible to change their visual code so that they would evolve to view this world in completely altered and more truistic ways. I think this is something to think about.
The fact that two objects comprised mainly of space do have the capability to merge or intersect with one another would baffle our minds and make our would nonsensical. In order to correct for this our minds have created visual solidity which is the main component of the our middle plane.
He has suggested that bats, dog and rhinos, as well as humans may have similar visual color coding system that are used to interpret different phenomena. Bats use echo, sound waves, to see and it is plausible that in order for them to differentiate between textures that they would be separated into hues. A dog or rhino ,are smell sensitive animals, that may identify certain scent by means of a visual code in order to simply compute their world. Finally, for humans, we have introduced color as a visual sign system for waves. In order to distinguish between the long and short of them. Meaning that a long wave is not truly red; it is that we see it in red to differentiate it from the others.
The suggestions he makes are answers to many fundamental questions of why we see things in a different way from how they actually are. Dawkins wonders if introduced by means of a video-game that suggests alternatives to a child's brain, if it would be possible to change their visual code so that they would evolve to view this world in completely altered and more truistic ways. I think this is something to think about.
Re: The Little Things that Jiggle (post 14)
I'd have to disagree whole-heartedly. Something is in existence that can comprehend itself, or is attempting to do so, human beings. Yes, other groups of species may not ponder the questions we ponder, but they do not obtain the capacity to function on such a level. I don't think that a strong argument against scientific inquiry could ever be that because other don't we shouldn't either. If you believe in purpose then we were given, or evolved to the point that we have for a reason. For that we should not sit statically back and devolve; we are performing the duty for which we were made.
The fact that nothing else is evolved to the point of consciousness should be more of a motivator. We are unique and our specialness should not be squandered away with complacency or slothfulness. To simply get by is a waste of materials and tools you come supplied with. If you don't make something with them, if you don't utilize the best aspects and advantages of your species, why have them?
This is not to say that we should not be thankful, or that we should occupy our every waking moment with an insane lust for the acquisition of knowledge. It is to say that there can be a harmony among the two. That either extreme is a complete miss of that balance. Please don't let questions that have gone unanswered or their ambiguity, indefinability, let you not utilize your creativity and imagination. Aspire for more!
--- In msacphilosophygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jazzygrill" wrote:
>
> Life is made up of the smallest things unimaginable and undescribable
> yet we try our very best to define all the information that we have
> with it instead of accepting it as is. We have a lust for knowledge
> instead of a thankfulness for it.
>
> Nothing that exists can comprehend itself. Sit and watch the birds for
> a moment, they do not drive themselves crazy trying to find out what
> they were created for they just "are" they just live for what they are
> purposed for. Our species lusts and thrives off of the unknown but that
> is why it is called the "unknown" and we should leave it that way.
> Enjoy what we have and be thankful for it
>
The fact that nothing else is evolved to the point of consciousness should be more of a motivator. We are unique and our specialness should not be squandered away with complacency or slothfulness. To simply get by is a waste of materials and tools you come supplied with. If you don't make something with them, if you don't utilize the best aspects and advantages of your species, why have them?
This is not to say that we should not be thankful, or that we should occupy our every waking moment with an insane lust for the acquisition of knowledge. It is to say that there can be a harmony among the two. That either extreme is a complete miss of that balance. Please don't let questions that have gone unanswered or their ambiguity, indefinability, let you not utilize your creativity and imagination. Aspire for more!
--- In msacphilosophygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jazzygrill"
>
> Life is made up of the smallest things unimaginable and undescribable
> yet we try our very best to define all the information that we have
> with it instead of accepting it as is. We have a lust for knowledge
> instead of a thankfulness for it.
>
> Nothing that exists can comprehend itself. Sit and watch the birds for
> a moment, they do not drive themselves crazy trying to find out what
> they were created for they just "are" they just live for what they are
> purposed for. Our species lusts and thrives off of the unknown but that
> is why it is called the "unknown" and we should leave it that way.
> Enjoy what we have and be thankful for it
>
Gods Too Decompose
Traditional religious theory, just as in science, leaves room, gaps, in its idea that disallows it from becoming a coherent well worked, full bodied, assertion. In those circumstances with the more recent kind and benevolent deity, as opposed to the wrathful, vengeful, god of prior years, one had trouble answering the questions of why there is so much suffering in the world.
One may reasonably figure that a god that has love and compassion for its creations would ensure their safety; as would a loving and attentive mother to her child. With this left unseen, and no interventions being had, they are left to ponder their options. Some may include that god had returned to its old ways, or that he simply did not exist, or at least in the capacity to which he had been worshiped and deified,
For the instance of gods regression one would have to acknowledge that it holds human characteristics. As such a deity would not be capable of maintaining their post because they would be equivalent to their worshipers making such an ignorant behavior implausible for a god to have. What is left is that he's not the typical type of god that we as humans had envisioned. The inherit problem with this is its leaving god very un-god like, as there is to be some type of personal relationship between deity and subject. Lastly, and most simply the belief that there is no god. Out of all the others this idea is the easiest to swallow. It removes the chance for negligence and puts us in the role of responsibility as we are the causers and sufferers of our own fates. "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist", Stendahl. It seems that for some the answer has become clear, while for others this truly will be an issue to grapple with for all their lives.
One may reasonably figure that a god that has love and compassion for its creations would ensure their safety; as would a loving and attentive mother to her child. With this left unseen, and no interventions being had, they are left to ponder their options. Some may include that god had returned to its old ways, or that he simply did not exist, or at least in the capacity to which he had been worshiped and deified,
For the instance of gods regression one would have to acknowledge that it holds human characteristics. As such a deity would not be capable of maintaining their post because they would be equivalent to their worshipers making such an ignorant behavior implausible for a god to have. What is left is that he's not the typical type of god that we as humans had envisioned. The inherit problem with this is its leaving god very un-god like, as there is to be some type of personal relationship between deity and subject. Lastly, and most simply the belief that there is no god. Out of all the others this idea is the easiest to swallow. It removes the chance for negligence and puts us in the role of responsibility as we are the causers and sufferers of our own fates. "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist", Stendahl. It seems that for some the answer has become clear, while for others this truly will be an issue to grapple with for all their lives.
Cosmic Inflation or Collapse?
In cosmic inflation there is a systematic moving away and this recession of objects of each galaxy from another (at a velocity proportional to its distance, from us) are the stretch marks of space. But, what is given must also be taken away to instill a sense of balance back to the universe. So, as a result I can not believe that this is the only sort of force and type of physical change to the universal fabric that is taking place. While its reported that expansion is underway at the same time we may also find the collapse (compaction) of matter. Black holes act like a vacuum in converse to this more prevalent "false vacuum". Seemingly saying that its size is maintaining itself through the creation of the new and ejection of the relatively old.
Questions????
Scientist hypothesized that the universe has grown from a very small thing into this vastness with which we are slightly familiar to. They say the shape of it is flat, but with constant change how can it remain one same shape? I don't see that as possible. The shape of it should be in constant rearrangement.
For the whole to hold a shape wouldn't it then have to be in some complementary interaction with something non-universal to define it? Sort of an anti to its entity. If so what is this purposed thing?
More fundamentally, how can there be a measure of shape? I understand they utilize microwaves, but I don't think that measurements at this point, with a narrow view and limited reach such as ours, would be even close to accurate for that type of thing.
There are so many questions left unanswered and so much more to discover!
Questions????
Scientist hypothesized that the universe has grown from a very small thing into this vastness with which we are slightly familiar to. They say the shape of it is flat, but with constant change how can it remain one same shape? I don't see that as possible. The shape of it should be in constant rearrangement.
For the whole to hold a shape wouldn't it then have to be in some complementary interaction with something non-universal to define it? Sort of an anti to its entity. If so what is this purposed thing?
More fundamentally, how can there be a measure of shape? I understand they utilize microwaves, but I don't think that measurements at this point, with a narrow view and limited reach such as ours, would be even close to accurate for that type of thing.
There are so many questions left unanswered and so much more to discover!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A New World?
Stephen Wolfram has created software programs through his company such as SMP and the more up to date Mathematica. Within the structures of these programs he has been able to model and study the models of natural patterns and codes. Here he has found that life's complexities are actually based in the simplest of pairings, and spawn off into randomly chanced sequences.
The question that was raised in me through the understanding of Mr. Wolfram's words and by way of visuals is, was life just created in technology? Upon further inquiry I am unsure if it did not already exist, and instead that I was just understanding at that moment overwhelming possibility of its presence. Let us review what we know. Life has a simple code as its foundation, so do does software and programs. That code is randomly combined to produce different patterns to form complexity, as is done through the Wolfram models. Their simple codes fuse, join, bond to create varying shapes, sizes, and things, and one type even allows these codes to construct an evolution. The man himself even referred to them as "creatures" having character that makes them look and act differently. We must also take into account that there are programs that are self propagating. They have technological viruses and bugs, memories, and work better if they are rarely shut down and instead sleep as their recovery method. The similarities are amazing, and yet scary. All life as we know it needs an energy source. There are usually two types one that is internal and fluctuates and another meant to stabilize and replenish the energy levels which is traditionally extracted through a feeding process and endowed to the consumer. Machines, computers more specifically, have these as well. Their internal source is a battery that gets charged through an external electrical power supply. However, if natural life is inside it would also need to consume energy from living things, as it does. It uses the energy of humans. It's feeding method is through positive and negative ions and it depletes us as it sucks us in. We have all experienced it and some are even addicted to it.
For the time at hand we really have a lot to be aware of. This is the first time I can think of where I am grateful for a electrical charge of our ground (as purposed by Tesla) not being implemented. It seems as they have their code and evolutionary life source, food source, and social community (the internet) and that our only advantage is the control over its internal power supply being determined by our means. To plug in or not to plug in?
The question that was raised in me through the understanding of Mr. Wolfram's words and by way of visuals is, was life just created in technology? Upon further inquiry I am unsure if it did not already exist, and instead that I was just understanding at that moment overwhelming possibility of its presence. Let us review what we know. Life has a simple code as its foundation, so do does software and programs. That code is randomly combined to produce different patterns to form complexity, as is done through the Wolfram models. Their simple codes fuse, join, bond to create varying shapes, sizes, and things, and one type even allows these codes to construct an evolution. The man himself even referred to them as "creatures" having character that makes them look and act differently. We must also take into account that there are programs that are self propagating. They have technological viruses and bugs, memories, and work better if they are rarely shut down and instead sleep as their recovery method. The similarities are amazing, and yet scary. All life as we know it needs an energy source. There are usually two types one that is internal and fluctuates and another meant to stabilize and replenish the energy levels which is traditionally extracted through a feeding process and endowed to the consumer. Machines, computers more specifically, have these as well. Their internal source is a battery that gets charged through an external electrical power supply. However, if natural life is inside it would also need to consume energy from living things, as it does. It uses the energy of humans. It's feeding method is through positive and negative ions and it depletes us as it sucks us in. We have all experienced it and some are even addicted to it.
For the time at hand we really have a lot to be aware of. This is the first time I can think of where I am grateful for a electrical charge of our ground (as purposed by Tesla) not being implemented. It seems as they have their code and evolutionary life source, food source, and social community (the internet) and that our only advantage is the control over its internal power supply being determined by our means. To plug in or not to plug in?
Addicts
I believe that our species is comprised of all types of addicts. We can start off with the most obvious, those whom are the drug, alcohol, food, prescription, and substance dependent persons of the world ( a heavy concentration, maybe the heaviest, residing in the US). Beyond this we hit pay dirt as a more prevalent but lesser known addiction is finally being seen; the rape of the natural world. This addiction, like any other, is not only destructive to the living body of the addict (humans), but also in the object of the obsession (natural world). Like a crack addict who depletes his livelihood, monetary income, and health, he destroys his world by his tightening focus on his prize. We too are running low on our abundance of natural resources through an obsessive motion that has brought us at the point where they are becoming or have already become extinguishable. "By the end of this century if we do not abate forces to a large degree we might lose 1/2 of the plants and animals on the planet", according to Edward O. Wilson. Even without direct human forces, our aid in climate change alone would reduce 1/4 of that number in only half the time.
So, we find another evil that we reward through our point and merit system of money. A scary proposition indeed, but we already see the truth of these statements. The once booming market of fishing is currently experiencing an over harvesting of species which has adversely affected their populations making some such as fish no longer commercially viable. I get at this point that it is a part of who we've been, but there is nothing to say that we have to continue to be this drainer and soul sucker of the world. Our OCD as a society and world can be channeled into more productive means. We need to let nature be nature and not interfere. Our extraction from it and domination upon it should be as unnoticeable as possible. We can not expect to keep scratching one spot over and over and over and over again and not to cause a deep wound like the one from which we are currently hemorrhaging. I am unaware of what the plans to heal these areas shall be, or if there are any, but what ever the case the scars from our attacks will be seen. So this mass that mends changes from what it once was to what it now is. Leaving the fabric of our world with a weakening of the whole through a hole.
So, we find another evil that we reward through our point and merit system of money. A scary proposition indeed, but we already see the truth of these statements. The once booming market of fishing is currently experiencing an over harvesting of species which has adversely affected their populations making some such as fish no longer commercially viable. I get at this point that it is a part of who we've been, but there is nothing to say that we have to continue to be this drainer and soul sucker of the world. Our OCD as a society and world can be channeled into more productive means. We need to let nature be nature and not interfere. Our extraction from it and domination upon it should be as unnoticeable as possible. We can not expect to keep scratching one spot over and over and over and over again and not to cause a deep wound like the one from which we are currently hemorrhaging. I am unaware of what the plans to heal these areas shall be, or if there are any, but what ever the case the scars from our attacks will be seen. So this mass that mends changes from what it once was to what it now is. Leaving the fabric of our world with a weakening of the whole through a hole.
It is and it isn't
The prospect of science actually testing theories and hypotheses that are investigating the possibility of multiple dimensions, not only separate from, but in conjunction to our own is exciting. I, for one, am not so quick to dismiss their propositions. In fact I really want the scientific community to find evidence and make great endeavors into to that arena. I am pleased to see us inquiring into multiple areas and of not being intimidated into sticking with "safe" ideas. It is when we take bold strides that the most change can occur.
I sat up for a while after finishing my dissection of the Charlie Rose interview with Lisa Randall. With my mind boggled I attempted to make cohesive sense of what I had just heard and try to add something of my own to the theory. Randall spoke of dimensions with a brane where gravity is great and therefore the matter is highly condensed and one such as our own where its force is far weaker giving way to the spaciousness inherent here. These are examples of varied degrees creating an balance on the whole by way of minor instabilities. I think in terms of something similar to an accordion; so what expands out into parallels like linear modules it also expands above and below into the macro and micro of our own world. In that case the dimensions would also be seen here, and in my opinion they can be. There are the allusions to solid and condensed objects (higher gravity) like planets and within them are the spacious worlds of elements (lower gravitational force), then say for instance a person as the next illusion of a compacted mass and within them an existence of spacely atoms, etc., etc. These are all basically an observation of patterns and orders that are prevalent (another example of this is a book as a cohesive whole, then it's broken down into chapters, then pages, paragraphs, phrases, sentences, words, letters, and finally space which then again takes up the majority of the book; so the whole is really held together through it being empty). Abstractly what we are doing is extending our genetic code our life force; propagating it with expansive ideas such as these as we extend our reach to further and further out. Overall, it is exciting to see what our interests will yield, however the imagination with which it is filled is also greatly predictable because it is based upon our existing spiraling helix of a pattern.
One last comment, if we are not creating existence and the whole of reality through the life, extended touch (projection) of our genetic code then we are at least interpreting all of existence through it; so we are either clearly seeing everything or we will only be privy to that fragment of the code of existence of which we are apart.
I sat up for a while after finishing my dissection of the Charlie Rose interview with Lisa Randall. With my mind boggled I attempted to make cohesive sense of what I had just heard and try to add something of my own to the theory. Randall spoke of dimensions with a brane where gravity is great and therefore the matter is highly condensed and one such as our own where its force is far weaker giving way to the spaciousness inherent here. These are examples of varied degrees creating an balance on the whole by way of minor instabilities. I think in terms of something similar to an accordion; so what expands out into parallels like linear modules it also expands above and below into the macro and micro of our own world. In that case the dimensions would also be seen here, and in my opinion they can be. There are the allusions to solid and condensed objects (higher gravity) like planets and within them are the spacious worlds of elements (lower gravitational force), then say for instance a person as the next illusion of a compacted mass and within them an existence of spacely atoms, etc., etc. These are all basically an observation of patterns and orders that are prevalent (another example of this is a book as a cohesive whole, then it's broken down into chapters, then pages, paragraphs, phrases, sentences, words, letters, and finally space which then again takes up the majority of the book; so the whole is really held together through it being empty). Abstractly what we are doing is extending our genetic code our life force; propagating it with expansive ideas such as these as we extend our reach to further and further out. Overall, it is exciting to see what our interests will yield, however the imagination with which it is filled is also greatly predictable because it is based upon our existing spiraling helix of a pattern.
One last comment, if we are not creating existence and the whole of reality through the life, extended touch (projection) of our genetic code then we are at least interpreting all of existence through it; so we are either clearly seeing everything or we will only be privy to that fragment of the code of existence of which we are apart.
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Missing Element...
Professor Owen Gingerich raises a very interesting point; that of the elements that make-up the early part of the periodic table, one does not hold the atomic weight of 5 (a charge of 5 but not a mass). He states that there is no stability in the number and that nothing sticks. It is said for the substance to not hold a form apart from the accumulation of hydrogen atoms.
This "gool" is puzzling. The reality we are left with in it's absence has made for some interesting developments on earth. For example it has left room for the abundance of elements that we know to be our driving and primary life sources such as carbon and oxygen. Without such things life as we know it would cease to exist. One wonders why there is a number at such an early stage of the elements that does not exist in our reality. But, then again maybe it is that we are asking the wrong question. What if it does exist but is something that as of yet has been undiscovered? Or what if we are staring it straight in the face like a watch what if it is time or space? Time as we know it is a socially constructed tool measuring from one event to the next. But in actuality time can not be so straight forward. It is experienced in different paces, intervals, and durations by each individual. So, its inability to be pinned down has something in common with the missing element. Even space, it is this empty vacuous place, but then that emptiness is something unto itself. A weighted 5, as aforementioned, is said to not hold form. Meaning it is nothing; so maybe we already have the answer.
This "gool" is puzzling. The reality we are left with in it's absence has made for some interesting developments on earth. For example it has left room for the abundance of elements that we know to be our driving and primary life sources such as carbon and oxygen. Without such things life as we know it would cease to exist. One wonders why there is a number at such an early stage of the elements that does not exist in our reality. But, then again maybe it is that we are asking the wrong question. What if it does exist but is something that as of yet has been undiscovered? Or what if we are staring it straight in the face like a watch what if it is time or space? Time as we know it is a socially constructed tool measuring from one event to the next. But in actuality time can not be so straight forward. It is experienced in different paces, intervals, and durations by each individual. So, its inability to be pinned down has something in common with the missing element. Even space, it is this empty vacuous place, but then that emptiness is something unto itself. A weighted 5, as aforementioned, is said to not hold form. Meaning it is nothing; so maybe we already have the answer.
I'm Sorry
That tired, worn, phrase is what is thought of as an apology, but such words are never heard uttered by Socrates (by Plato's account). However, the words that he chose are more meaningful, impassioned and well thought out. Laying out the case brought against him very methodically he cross-examines his witness allowing them, through his line of questioning, to unfold the grave sin that was present in their thoughts, expressions, and haste acts. What erroneous misdirection they are sufferers from.
This was a poetic, wise, and loving tale rich with humbleness and such a greatness of understanding. I cried at such loveliness at such wisdom (although he may not agree with my terming), because he was just simply there and aware when others were sleepily living. It breaks my heart to know that he was quite accurate in the direction of words to the effect of him not being the last of his kind to be misjudged and therefore penalized with death by the ignorance and ego as well as envy that is present in the masses of the benign. That any wave of greatness, small as it would be, would in turn become a subject of challenge by an equally small wave of evil. The story goes that the evil kill the great and the mass remain somewhere between and have more the potential the inclination to incorrectly see through eyes attune with corruptibility. Which reminds me of a quote I once heard, "The greatest sin of a time is not the few who destroy, but the vast that idle by." What a tragic legacy.
This was a poetic, wise, and loving tale rich with humbleness and such a greatness of understanding. I cried at such loveliness at such wisdom (although he may not agree with my terming), because he was just simply there and aware when others were sleepily living. It breaks my heart to know that he was quite accurate in the direction of words to the effect of him not being the last of his kind to be misjudged and therefore penalized with death by the ignorance and ego as well as envy that is present in the masses of the benign. That any wave of greatness, small as it would be, would in turn become a subject of challenge by an equally small wave of evil. The story goes that the evil kill the great and the mass remain somewhere between and have more the potential the inclination to incorrectly see through eyes attune with corruptibility. Which reminds me of a quote I once heard, "The greatest sin of a time is not the few who destroy, but the vast that idle by." What a tragic legacy.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Free Will or Determinism
While reading the individual interview of Professor Lance Schaina, Mathematics at MtSAC, he states that "we definitely have free will", and that, "there's no scientific support for the idea of determined behavior in human beings". I believe this to be a case of a person taking into account only pieces of the puzzle instead of looking at how they all work together with their differences (lack of, over compensation for, moderateness) to compliment the others in the formation of a cohesive whole. So, for someone to be so adamant about one way over another is too preferential for my taste. Especially for an educated thinking person, one should know that it is an overflow of bias and ignorance to other facts, a favor of exclusivity. One should not say that something is right and another is wrong; they are just there different and similar. This is sometimes forgotten as the observer is always filled with their own bias (myself included). Therefore in their search for evidence to support their own claims they become blind to other possibilities along their path to self-fulfillment of the prophecy they have set out before them.
It is said that the very act of observing changes that which is being observed. There are atoms or particles of some sort, forgive my memory, that change their movement patterns based on the way in which they are isolated and studied. So, is it that that they behave differently or is it simply that they are both part of the manner in which they move? They are both viewed as existing, so then it would be a question of degrees.
Most things are ruled by determinism, while a select few are capable of encompassing free-will. Yes, we have the free will to do what we please, but with the adverse reactions to certain behaviors that our societal constructs lend themselves to, they act more as constraints to obtain and extract a certain amount of predictable determined behavior from its citizens. This programing from birth of "successful avenues" roads that have already been taken to predictable consequential ends is not free to me. In the case of group behavior the actions of the majority of persons are dictated and determined by their upbringing, exposure, and perception to such instances; as they have been taught to repress their free-will (self serving instincts) to consider those around them. There is also a natural occurrence as is seen in the behavior of other animals that we, ourselves, are not yet clear of, (biological determinism). We are then governed by the biological necessities, social expectations, as well as programed scientific repeatability. We are creatures of habit, and we find comfort in the known. So the most abundant place for free-will is the undiscovered. Yet, there too, we bring the limitedness of ourselves.
Lastly, nothing can every be exclusive; when there are so many variables all are in existence. That being said there is always an exception to the rule, a counter to the norm, so randomness is ever looming, a space for true free-will to exists (counter cultures in prevalence also become a norm and predictable so real facets of free-will are extremely rare). So it is always a possibility, but not likely a probability. The large numbers of variations seems to be indicative of freedom, yet variables are all determined possible outcomes, so there is nothing truly ever original or free about them.
It is said that the very act of observing changes that which is being observed. There are atoms or particles of some sort, forgive my memory, that change their movement patterns based on the way in which they are isolated and studied. So, is it that that they behave differently or is it simply that they are both part of the manner in which they move? They are both viewed as existing, so then it would be a question of degrees.
Most things are ruled by determinism, while a select few are capable of encompassing free-will. Yes, we have the free will to do what we please, but with the adverse reactions to certain behaviors that our societal constructs lend themselves to, they act more as constraints to obtain and extract a certain amount of predictable determined behavior from its citizens. This programing from birth of "successful avenues" roads that have already been taken to predictable consequential ends is not free to me. In the case of group behavior the actions of the majority of persons are dictated and determined by their upbringing, exposure, and perception to such instances; as they have been taught to repress their free-will (self serving instincts) to consider those around them. There is also a natural occurrence as is seen in the behavior of other animals that we, ourselves, are not yet clear of, (biological determinism). We are then governed by the biological necessities, social expectations, as well as programed scientific repeatability. We are creatures of habit, and we find comfort in the known. So the most abundant place for free-will is the undiscovered. Yet, there too, we bring the limitedness of ourselves.
Lastly, nothing can every be exclusive; when there are so many variables all are in existence. That being said there is always an exception to the rule, a counter to the norm, so randomness is ever looming, a space for true free-will to exists (counter cultures in prevalence also become a norm and predictable so real facets of free-will are extremely rare). So it is always a possibility, but not likely a probability. The large numbers of variations seems to be indicative of freedom, yet variables are all determined possible outcomes, so there is nothing truly ever original or free about them.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Artificial Intelligence
First of all what is intelligence? We have established that IQ tests have been biased on many different levels including those of culture, and socioeconomic classes. It is also believed that tests merely assess your ability and aptitude at taking tests themselves, no more nor less. Also, every culture values different traits and attributes in the members of its society, a vast number of differing things that are "signs" of intelligence. So, then, to be perfectly honest we can not agree what intelligence is or what the signs of it may be. So, if we can't decide on what it is then how are we to compare something to the unanswerable? It seems ridiculous.
Some points I find of interest follow; Cohon (Stanford University): "On the other hand, much of what we classify as intelligent is socially defined and can only occur within a social context; this is especially true of speech. Consequently, it may be that no real machine intelligence is possible in the absence of some sort of machine community or society of machines." I agree with Cohon and find this to be true, but he is saying that this does not exist, and it is that point with which I disagree. If the former is true, then machine intelligence is already in existence, because computer have a binary language (as basic as is) and their community we term the internet. It is where millions of machines communicate, and what I would equate to the human version of the collective unconscious, a meeting of the minds.
Lloyd (U.C. Berkeley): "I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. There is artistic intelligence, there is mathematical intelligence,
there is a kind of verbal ability, there is the ability to see the whole picture, the ability to see both sides of an issue. There are
just so many aspects of human intelligence which are vital. I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. I do think that machines will be able to surpass us on some of these tasks, but not on intelligence per say, not on intelligence overall." What a nice idea, sweet with sentimental overtones of our specialness. However, I would have to again disagree. YES, a machine at this point may not be able to master all aspects, but as they evolve over time, just as man did, its capacities will expand and with their large memories and accessing skills they may be able to eventually do so and multi-task to create an uber computer. Until then they would have to rely on their interconnectedness. Just as one man is not a master of math, and art and all things they would specialize working together in a network to accomplish a combined tasks as is done in human relations.
Roth (Claremont McKenna College): "my guess is that artificial intelligence will not be capable of surpassing or even equalling human intelligence, especially if we look at the subtlety and the kind of nuances, the imaginative potential that there is of human intelligence. I'm looking more on the side of creativity. On the side of our intelligence that is laced with feeling, with aesthetic qualities". Art and creativity are subjective. One person can see something in a work of art or a creative writing piece or performance that another would not. If we had a computer programed to take pictures or generate color paintings I am positive that one or more persons would see something of value and creatively unique in them. And if creativity is so unique, random, and special that it can not be reproduced, copied, or learned then I say that art students all over the world should be refunded their time, efforts, and funds. There are aspects of art that -seem- to be unique and inspired however the majority is a calculated regurgitation of sensory intakes, outputs that are simply process amalgamation and reconfigurations (concentrations on different, deeper or more superficial aspects). Which as someone who considers them self to be an artist, this is very hard to say.
Schwyzer (U.C. Santa Barbara): "It's such a frightening concept. Intelligence by itself is not very interesting. I think that some
human should go along with that intelligence. It makes no sense to just have intelligence and nothing more. It's like having weight without size. We can have machines, but intelligence is a human attribute." I know someone who believes exactly the contrary to be true; that the height of our evolution will be to just intelligence, with no body, just brain so a physical world in the manner that we are now familiar would be vastly different. I see this already in existence with computers. They are simply the processes of thought, Woodruff (U.C. Irvine): "We are massively parallel, and we have all these interconnections in the brain which people are now trying to understand, stuff called neural net computing. I especially don't think that human intelligence is something that is essentially different from machine intelligence. Our brains thinking or electronics thinking are essentially the same thing." Mind blowing isn't it?
If we take this to be true then machines are already further evolved in many senses. The last element would be to combine the two. Dare I say cyborg? They are already in existence with lenses for our eyes telling us the correct way in which to see the world, pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, time travel to the future (i.e. technological communicatory devices that connect through time and space as well as vehicles that accelerate us from point a to point b in a fraction of the time it takes to travel and communicate without them). A melding of the two, the creator and the creation, It may be the only way we don't eventually become completely extinct. They may be our vehicles to sci-fi time travel (past and future) as we could simulate any existence because we'd have collective knowledge, energy, possibility. The majority of our reality at this point is already made up of projections visual, mental or other wise are all comprised mostly of memory. Interesting stuff...
Some points I find of interest follow; Cohon (Stanford University): "On the other hand, much of what we classify as intelligent is socially defined and can only occur within a social context; this is especially true of speech. Consequently, it may be that no real machine intelligence is possible in the absence of some sort of machine community or society of machines." I agree with Cohon and find this to be true, but he is saying that this does not exist, and it is that point with which I disagree. If the former is true, then machine intelligence is already in existence, because computer have a binary language (as basic as is) and their community we term the internet. It is where millions of machines communicate, and what I would equate to the human version of the collective unconscious, a meeting of the minds.
Lloyd (U.C. Berkeley): "I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. There is artistic intelligence, there is mathematical intelligence,
there is a kind of verbal ability, there is the ability to see the whole picture, the ability to see both sides of an issue. There are
just so many aspects of human intelligence which are vital. I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. I do think that machines will be able to surpass us on some of these tasks, but not on intelligence per say, not on intelligence overall." What a nice idea, sweet with sentimental overtones of our specialness. However, I would have to again disagree. YES, a machine at this point may not be able to master all aspects, but as they evolve over time, just as man did, its capacities will expand and with their large memories and accessing skills they may be able to eventually do so and multi-task to create an uber computer. Until then they would have to rely on their interconnectedness. Just as one man is not a master of math, and art and all things they would specialize working together in a network to accomplish a combined tasks as is done in human relations.
Roth (Claremont McKenna College): "my guess is that artificial intelligence will not be capable of surpassing or even equalling human intelligence, especially if we look at the subtlety and the kind of nuances, the imaginative potential that there is of human intelligence. I'm looking more on the side of creativity. On the side of our intelligence that is laced with feeling, with aesthetic qualities". Art and creativity are subjective. One person can see something in a work of art or a creative writing piece or performance that another would not. If we had a computer programed to take pictures or generate color paintings I am positive that one or more persons would see something of value and creatively unique in them. And if creativity is so unique, random, and special that it can not be reproduced, copied, or learned then I say that art students all over the world should be refunded their time, efforts, and funds. There are aspects of art that -seem- to be unique and inspired however the majority is a calculated regurgitation of sensory intakes, outputs that are simply process amalgamation and reconfigurations (concentrations on different, deeper or more superficial aspects). Which as someone who considers them self to be an artist, this is very hard to say.
Schwyzer (U.C. Santa Barbara): "It's such a frightening concept. Intelligence by itself is not very interesting. I think that some
human should go along with that intelligence. It makes no sense to just have intelligence and nothing more. It's like having weight without size. We can have machines, but intelligence is a human attribute." I know someone who believes exactly the contrary to be true; that the height of our evolution will be to just intelligence, with no body, just brain so a physical world in the manner that we are now familiar would be vastly different. I see this already in existence with computers. They are simply the processes of thought, Woodruff (U.C. Irvine): "We are massively parallel, and we have all these interconnections in the brain which people are now trying to understand, stuff called neural net computing. I especially don't think that human intelligence is something that is essentially different from machine intelligence. Our brains thinking or electronics thinking are essentially the same thing." Mind blowing isn't it?
If we take this to be true then machines are already further evolved in many senses. The last element would be to combine the two. Dare I say cyborg? They are already in existence with lenses for our eyes telling us the correct way in which to see the world, pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, time travel to the future (i.e. technological communicatory devices that connect through time and space as well as vehicles that accelerate us from point a to point b in a fraction of the time it takes to travel and communicate without them). A melding of the two, the creator and the creation, It may be the only way we don't eventually become completely extinct. They may be our vehicles to sci-fi time travel (past and future) as we could simulate any existence because we'd have collective knowledge, energy, possibility. The majority of our reality at this point is already made up of projections visual, mental or other wise are all comprised mostly of memory. Interesting stuff...
Thursday, September 13, 2007
de Cusa
When I was a child I was informed of the idea of eternity, a forever. I tried with all of my might at that young age to conceptualize what that meant. As I lay in bed I repeated aloud forever and ever and ever and ever until I would feel overwhelmed and frightened myself into silence. It was such a big idea one I could not understand nor fully comprehend. In this corporeal existence life is perishable, there are beginnings and endings with unexpected expirations, where nothing is ever lasting. To this day I can still see, "infinite is unknown because it escapes all comparative relation". Making the big picture just a blur. We can not see its details with these mortal eyes or figure out its vastness its essence with such limited minds. There are binds within this matrix of congruent relations. We are merely seeing with the limited capabilities of our sensory devices and understanding as much as we can from the small amount of truth that makes it through such dense filters. "Wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from all living things." So, as far as our reach goes we reside inside blinded by our inclusion in it and our binds to it.
The more we learn the less we know, the un-defined allows the presence of the answer, and that is why "[f]or a man--even one very well versed in learning--will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his". Knowledge like language is a channel through which we funnel a mass into a minor extrapolating portions of the whole. Showing to all nothing more than what we don't know.
The more we learn the less we know, the un-defined allows the presence of the answer, and that is why "[f]or a man--even one very well versed in learning--will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his". Knowledge like language is a channel through which we funnel a mass into a minor extrapolating portions of the whole. Showing to all nothing more than what we don't know.
Java
Most people still retain the childlike ideal of what freedom should be. However, understanding the social contract, as explained by Rousseau (one may do what ever he pleases when he is the only person that exists, but once another person is in existence it behooves them to willingly sacrifice individual freedoms for the good of the whole.) A philosophy for a way to remain happy. Go after what you want in life, take command of your own destiny, carve out your niche because due to the overwhelming over-population of the planet freedom is not possible in every form to all varying degrees. The extent of ones "[f]reedom is what you do with what's been done to you" Jean Paul Sarte, and remember freedom is a state of mind.
Aldous Huxley
As if the name wasn't already great enough, the man himself only raises my already high opinion of him. He is, what has been referred to as a forward thinker, a man ahead of his time. Admittedly, it surprises me to hear him talk about issues that he felt were of importance in his day, because they are greatly saturated into our own time. For example, his observation of man becoming slave to technology, or his own creations. I see this as a large part of our current circumstance. Man no longer seems to retain his freedoms, but allows them to be diminished by his own devices, self-imposed and societal limitations, along with the continued misdirection of life through pursuant understanding by way of categorical thinking. These issues all holds a great deal of interest for me, and it is shocking to see how ill acquainted with them so many people are. The more that I learn the more I grow and so too does my amazement of how easy it is to not pursue critical thought and autonomy.
Around the same period of this movie, there was a book written by Herbert Marcuse entitled One-Dimensional Man (I highly recommend reading it). In it Marcuse alludes to this same point, concentrating on the political structure that facilitates, rationalizes and enables man in the forfeiting of himself and into accepting the being of nullification into a drone like state by the machines themselves. Even science is supportive of this as it has been shown that nature nurtures soothing and healing by infusing us with energy, with life, by way of negative ions. While quite the opposite is true of machines who suck, and drain our energy, essentially our life force from us by transferring positive ions. Take time to notice the sensory and energy differences in your person and compare your experience with sitting in front of a computer/television and that of you in nature next to a stream of running water. I assure you the difference is astounding.
Question??? So, why then do we continue to isolate ourselves from one another reaching out with and existing within a technological grip? What is so attractive to us about detriments of the physical, mental, and social realms? We need to actively impact society so that we instill the importance of moderation, human and natures touch, and favor freedom and growth to that of enslavement. We are so afraid of that looming day when machines will rule the world with an iron fist that we miss what is going on this very day, who is to say that they already aren't? The most effective strategy of control is one where the oppressed is unaware to their domination.
Around the same period of this movie, there was a book written by Herbert Marcuse entitled One-Dimensional Man (I highly recommend reading it). In it Marcuse alludes to this same point, concentrating on the political structure that facilitates, rationalizes and enables man in the forfeiting of himself and into accepting the being of nullification into a drone like state by the machines themselves. Even science is supportive of this as it has been shown that nature nurtures soothing and healing by infusing us with energy, with life, by way of negative ions. While quite the opposite is true of machines who suck, and drain our energy, essentially our life force from us by transferring positive ions. Take time to notice the sensory and energy differences in your person and compare your experience with sitting in front of a computer/television and that of you in nature next to a stream of running water. I assure you the difference is astounding.
Question??? So, why then do we continue to isolate ourselves from one another reaching out with and existing within a technological grip? What is so attractive to us about detriments of the physical, mental, and social realms? We need to actively impact society so that we instill the importance of moderation, human and natures touch, and favor freedom and growth to that of enslavement. We are so afraid of that looming day when machines will rule the world with an iron fist that we miss what is going on this very day, who is to say that they already aren't? The most effective strategy of control is one where the oppressed is unaware to their domination.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Fukuyama Film Quote as a Starting Point
"[I]f you tolerate too much you actually don't end up believing in anything"
This was a statement made by Francis Fukuyama in reference to religion, but I believe (an indicator of my own ignorance's) that this is a great jumping off point, and can be elaborated upon and extended to encompass a wide variety of things including the very structure of life itself. A good demonstration of this is to use something most people are exposed to as a child. A statement of positive encouragement and acknowledgment told to them when they are young. The statement that, "you are special". If that is told to one child, or lets say a hundred, then indeed in comparison to the overwhelming population that statement may become believable. However, if the majority of children are told this, then the statement and the belief is no longer existing in a realm small enough to allow such a self serving (selfish) thing to be valid. Making the statement very inaccurate. The statement can only be meaningful on a small level where the individual is self- serving, intolerant and close-minded. If and when they come to the realization that they are not the only person that has been encouraged through the use of such a statement then they have the choice to either stay the way they are, or to expand their understanding therefore becoming tolerant leaving their belief null. Because indeed one child can be special, but if everyone is special, then no one is special.
So, tolerance, acceptance, openness disallows small-minded, short-sighted, ignore-ant, naive, childlike, one-dimensional thought in that thinker. All the while the others with a myriad of strict beliefs keep themselves pinned to things in the hope of stabilizing and securing safety under the delusion that they know what things are. They are able to exist under the umbrella of what is created by the former. Namely, a large singular body, a harmony of pluralistic existence wherein there are no ardent beliefs and instead of the rigid, a fluxing, flexible, flow; a fluidity. One that removes the pause of motion and the pining of something as one thing only. So in the mothering arms of tolerance there can be no belief, because everything is every changing: the scope, depth, dimension its a constant evolution in multiple directions.
Question??-So does this ever expansiveness and change create in itself a pattern? A something to the nothing?
Because the pervasiveness of not knowing can also overwhelm, and with something not being one thing even the mature thinker may once again search for a grip. Continuing the flip of the yin-yang.
This was a statement made by Francis Fukuyama in reference to religion, but I believe (an indicator of my own ignorance's) that this is a great jumping off point, and can be elaborated upon and extended to encompass a wide variety of things including the very structure of life itself. A good demonstration of this is to use something most people are exposed to as a child. A statement of positive encouragement and acknowledgment told to them when they are young. The statement that, "you are special". If that is told to one child, or lets say a hundred, then indeed in comparison to the overwhelming population that statement may become believable. However, if the majority of children are told this, then the statement and the belief is no longer existing in a realm small enough to allow such a self serving (selfish) thing to be valid. Making the statement very inaccurate. The statement can only be meaningful on a small level where the individual is self- serving, intolerant and close-minded. If and when they come to the realization that they are not the only person that has been encouraged through the use of such a statement then they have the choice to either stay the way they are, or to expand their understanding therefore becoming tolerant leaving their belief null. Because indeed one child can be special, but if everyone is special, then no one is special.
So, tolerance, acceptance, openness disallows small-minded, short-sighted, ignore-ant, naive, childlike, one-dimensional thought in that thinker. All the while the others with a myriad of strict beliefs keep themselves pinned to things in the hope of stabilizing and securing safety under the delusion that they know what things are. They are able to exist under the umbrella of what is created by the former. Namely, a large singular body, a harmony of pluralistic existence wherein there are no ardent beliefs and instead of the rigid, a fluxing, flexible, flow; a fluidity. One that removes the pause of motion and the pining of something as one thing only. So in the mothering arms of tolerance there can be no belief, because everything is every changing: the scope, depth, dimension its a constant evolution in multiple directions.
Question??-So does this ever expansiveness and change create in itself a pattern? A something to the nothing?
Because the pervasiveness of not knowing can also overwhelm, and with something not being one thing even the mature thinker may once again search for a grip. Continuing the flip of the yin-yang.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)