Be one of the first...
Start a discussion or two and make a Huge Entity very happy.]]>
Dear friends,
I want to share my article with you. This is about the link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues. The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Thank you,
Sushil Yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
Since the article is too long I was unable to post the full article here. To read the complete article please follow any of these links :
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
StrategyTalk
sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment]]>
On the other hand, computers are stumped by faces, which people recognize instantly. Machines lack the creativity for novel ideas and have no feelings and no fond memories of their youth. But recent technological advances are narrowing the gap between human brains and circuitry. At Stanford University, bioengineers are replicating the complicated parallel processing of neural networks on microchips. Another development--a robot named Darwin VII--has a camera and a set of metal jaws so that it can interact with its environment and learn, the way juvenile animals do. Researchers at the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla, Calif., modeled Darwin's brain on rat and ape brains. The developments raise a natural question: If computer processing eventually apes nature's neural networks, will cold silicon ever be truly able to think? And how will we judge whether it does? More than 50 years ago British mathematician and philosopher Alan Turing invented an ingenious strategy to address this question, and the pursuit of this strategy has taught science a great deal about designing artificial intelligence, a field now known as AI. At the same time, it has shed some light on human cognition...
- link to full article
- link to some info on robot, Darwin VIISo, where do you stand on this?
- Is it possible to 'replicate' consciousness in silicon systems?
- Which human capacity will be the last to be copied?
- Do you think Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are a good enough safeguard?
I'm into my avantgarde, jazz-funk and indian influenced world music at the moment... You guys got any recommendations?]]>
http://borce.tigros.net/occultism/Chaos/raw-prometheus.pdf
I can e-mail the book for anyone interested, just let me know: felipevenancio@gmail.com
Peace!]]>
i'm bubbles. just found this site, it's quite fun. i like it. anyway, i think i'll visit often. my personal page is www.bubblesun.com, if i figure out how to build it, maybe i'll get beyond the first page... :)
have a beautiful day.
bubbles]]>
'If we wish to understand the nature of reality, we have an inner hidden advantage: we are ourselves a little portion of the universe and so carry the answer within us.' - Jacques Boivin
I have come across to this concept for a while now, but not seen any explicit comparison. Since my recent TAR, I have been thinking about this a bit more. Previously I posted '7 Senses' but the fields were not right.
TAR suggests that there are ten senses;
{{measure,touch,balance},
{taste,touch,smell},
{see,touch,hear}}
Together with the all inclusive nothingness {}, they are ten. Each triplet is mediated by it's own type of touch sense. In a sense, they differentiate or evolve from this root sense. They touch each other by this sense in the brain. The three touch senses are mediated by the touch sense mediating the {taste,smell} duality. The feeding related touch sense is the origin of all senses.
There are 5 known fields;
{{strong,weak},{higgs},{light,gravity}}
Higgs is not observed yet and theorized to be a scalar field. Each field has it's own charges. Light has (+,-) charges, Gravity has mass, Strong has the color charges, and Weak has the (W+,W-) charges.
Similarly senses have their own organs. Vision has eyes, hearing has ears, taste has mouth, and smell has nose. They are all mediated by the root senses in the brain. Clearly the brain mediates all senses. I propose that there is a root sense doing all this mediation. Consider the following mapping;
{see,hear} ---> {light,gravity} ---> {star,universe}
{taste,smell} ---> {strong,weak} ---> {cell,species}
{measure,balance} ---> {?,?} ---> {time,space}
The last column is from TAR.
The first line groups {see,light,star} and {hear,gravity,universe}. The fist triplet is reasonable. In the second, {gravity,universe} correspondence is also fine since gravity is the force shaping the outer aspect of the universe. Interesting that hearing gets mapped to gravity. Gravity makes the geometry for light to operate in, and hearing sets the context for vision to operate in. Bats use the this context setting property of sound to navigate. In movies, audio sets the mood, while video coveys information.
The second line groups {taste,strong,cell} and {smell,weak,species}. {taste,strong} relationship is reasonable, since both are short range. It is interesting that {cell} falls in this triplet. It seems cell is all about taste. They have to touch each other to do things. {smell,weak} correspondence also seems reasonable. Weak has a longer range than Strong, like Smell and Taste. Why does Species fall into this triplet?
The third line groups {measure,?,time} and {balance,?,space}. {measure,time} and {balance,space} correspondences are reasonable. The organs of the balance sense are the three liquid filled hairy rings for each inner ear. What is the organ of the measure sense? It is known that the brain is run by clocks. Maybe there is a central clock. What are the fields standing for the question marks? There must be two unknown fields. Thus ATON predicts two new fields and their corresponding charges. Maybe space-time are the charges of these fields. Maybe space-time is a field of the black holes. This seems quite credible since they are the boundaries. Also rings a bell with Hawking's holographic principle.
Moreover, there must be ten fields to reflect the ten senses proposed by TAR. Higgs is like touch; it is a scalar or generic field. Maybe Higgs divides into three.]]>
Email: bsouthard@cityhs.net
641 Malvern Avenue
www.youtube.com/v/EH6AYVn2yw4
Support is appreciated.---> link=www.youtube.com/v/EH6AYVn2yw4
How is this possible? you dont see cops running into churches and telling people that its wrong to pray. Its shocking to see a cop think he can arrest a 13 year old, and that it is acceptable to STRANGLE him.]]>
{{time,matter,space},
{cell,organism,species},
{star,galaxy,universe}}
With the all inclusive bracket {} nothingness, they are ten.
Recently it occurred to me that the new cosmological models predict ten dimensions. Anyway, this is not the main point here, I just wanted to mention it.
Hawking's entropy formula for a black hole is proportional to the area of the event horizon. This means that nothing gets lost in a black hole and there is a maximum entropy density, which happens to be on a surface. I suppose the area of a black hole is calculated according to the flat space-time much further away from the horizon, since space-time does not exist at the surface itself.
Encouraged by the TAR, I wanted to compare the brain to the black hole. Neurons are distributed on the surface of the brain and all the inner bits are wiring. Whatever happens in the brain, actually happens on the surface. Like a black hole. The difference is that black holes are connected to it's body from the outside, and brains from the inside. Black hole is like the brain of a galaxy. It's body consists of stars, nebula, gas, dust and other stuff. Latest research suggest that the earliest galaxies also had black holes. Brains also form very early in organisms.
Galaxies seem to form a huge collective meta brain, like humans and other organisms form a huge meta brain. Now we are building the internet to take this meta brain to a new level. I think the internet is the first step of humanity in the merging of our minds to the hardware of the universe. This has been suggested before. I think there are types of black holes, as there are types of galaxies. There are two main types; elliptical and spiral. Like organisms; male and female. Galactic society seems to be a reflection of the organic society, but maybe inside out.
Nucleons are made of 3 quarks and 3 gluons. There are two types; proton and neutron. Proton is stable by itself; neutron decays to proton, electron, and neutrino. Proton seems to have infinite life-time. Maybe it has the life-time of the universe. There are also 3 primary and 3 secondary senses of an organism; {{measure,see,taste},{balance,hear,smell}}. Touch is a generic sense and mediates all senses. All senses are types of touch. Brain is made around the senses. Proton seems to be the smallest possible black hole. Well, maybe not a black hole but something closely related. It's constituents are confined. As if it reflects the outer world; space-time. It is also connected to it's body (electrons, photons, and other stuff} from the outside.
It seems the organic brain mediates two types of 'material' brains; {nucleon,brain,black hole}. It exists by sandwiching itself between two reverse brains. And it's form obeys the quantity triplet; {0,1,infinity}. The question is; what is the nothingness that includes the lot?]]>
I've made a search in google with the words "quantum" "interactions" and "consciousness" and spotted this work, that's how I reached the Journal:
Quantum Consciousness is Cybernetic by Gordon Globus
PSYCHE, 2(12), August 1995
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-12-curran.html
ABSTRACT: Classical mechanics cannot naturally accommodate consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can, but the Heisenberg/Stapp (H/S) approach, in which consciousness randomly collapses the neural wave function, leaves the conscious function unrestricted by known physical principles. The Umezawa/Yasue (U/Y) approach, in which consciousness offers superposed possibilities to the match with sensory input, is based in the first physical principles of quantum field theory. Stapp thinks of the brain as a measuring device, like a Geiger counter, and overlooks that the brain upholds second-order quantum fields that are symmetry-conserving with respect to reality. Consciousness is cybernetic rather than having a random function.
Deep huh?
Hope you enjoy!]]>
JOHN wrote:
Terrorism is Not a war to be fought, won or lost. Anyone can become a terrorist for any reason. There are no uniforms and there are no identified targets. All must be suspected. The world is the battlefield, and we are all soldiers in our own way. When terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre, the Western World needed a point to focus on. Afghanistan was the logical target. Iraq was then invaded, as many were duped in to believing that this too was linked. I do not think it was, but at the same time, I would like to take a moderate stance. There has been talk on this forum of a certain Austrian dictator. He killed many Jews as we all know and was in general a big douche (most sane individuals agree). Let us forget about our supposed biases against or for President Bush and evaluate what Was happening in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, and he murdered many innocent people. Some of these people were probably funny, smart, gorgeous and thrill-seeking. Some of them I am sure liked chocolate and while they may not have had baseball and bubblegum, I am sure some of them knew and loved some good old fashioned clean non-violent fun. I pose the question: What is the difference between one wrong death and one million wrong deaths. Hitler killed more, with vigour, but why is it seen as so much worse?! Were these 'Muslims' not human? *A better question would be were these humans not considered human* They were, and yet many of us humans can't find it in our hearts to give them that. They don't even exist to us in that way, because we cannot identify with them. It is quite simple though. What's the Muslim word for Pamela Anderson? *She's Canadian, but bear with me* Surely it must be Hoda El Merthi! Surely the latter seems foreign, but if you had not seen the word 'elephant' (or seen a real elephant) in your whole entire life you would be quite surprised and scared and curious and doubtful when you visited the circus. We are led to believe that there is something that the American soldiers are fighting and dying for. Well, there is. It is simply a matter of how you evaluate it. There is something that they are dying for; they die for our ignorance, they die for our mistakes: but they also die fighting injustice, and however wrong one may think the context may be, one cannot deny them that. The victims of 9/11 died for the terrorist's ignorance and mistakes. My heart goes out to all those who die have died and will die for their own or someone else's mistakes.
We are all human. I love everyone. Choose Christ; choose Allah; choose Yahweh; choose Buddha; choose fucking Tom Cruise if you really want to. If you would prefer, choose nothing, or don't even be really all that sure. Don't worry, it's cool... I understand. Choose to be politically incorrect just for kicks. The main thing you must choose is the ability to forgive, to be empathetic, to possess positive regard for the known and unknown alike, and to come together in the name of not God, but in the name of Human Unity. In the name of Fraternity, Kinship and an Optimist's Love.
The solution is not simple, and I am not against a real war if required. What is happening? A whole new generation of terrorists is being born. Either nuke the whole place or find another perhaps more sane way of solving the problem.
The reason why I say that Terrorism is not a War to be Fought is because there is no clear end. There is no parade and there is no victory. There can only be defeat. Someone will always harbour ill will to those who have wronged them, their family, their country, their religion in the past. For the sake of the planet, I pray that the general consensus will change. I do not ask for people to re-program themselves, but please, please think. Think of all and nothing and make your decision. For all the misanthropists out there, Fuck You. I believe that we can overcome Terror. It goes beyond odds of winning and bullshit. I have faith that the Human Race will win and have one jolly old parade. I have to. It's what keeps me going. Nothing anyone can say will deter that faith.
Since there is no clear and present danger, the only palpable targets are ideals. We must teach our children to love those who do us wrong. We can hate their guts on the surface, but we must possess an inner love for humanity. There must be something that is sacred; if not, all must be profane. We must first teach ourselves of this grand old idea that texts and texts and texts have written about at great length. We must fight hate. When hate is truly embodied, then so be it, let us strike, but only as a last resort. Only when we have exhausted our relentless skirmishes upon the values that our misguided neighbours hold dear shall we re-visit that war-torn alley. Embrace Peace, Love and Understanding. If that doesn't work, then pick up your guns and defend your sacred justice.
I do not know whether it was Right or Wrong for President Bush to have gone to war, so I hope I have not led you in any false direction. I do know that there is always a point of return, and that however bad a situation is, it isn't a total loss. Find time to laugh and not worry.
Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.
Mark Twain
I have learned to care, and I try not to be sick about it all. I just wanted to share my sometimes-moderate stance on this situation and I thank those who took the time to read this mountain from the top.
I know that we are living in a real world, and some or a lot or all of what I just said might be heavily or only applicable to some distant or never-existent Utopia.
Alas,
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -Mohandas Gandhi.
Sincerely,
John.
KAYMAN wrote:
I find it discomforting that people love life so much they'll kill each other for it, both sides believing that their lives and values are better than the others' lives and values. For in the end, whichever side was the 'most' right and rational will always prevail, because prevalence is the basis for rightness and rationality. That must be the ultimate optimistic standpoint: that whatever happens, things will turn out right, because most people will believe they were right. And it's true, because as soon as everything seems wrong, the system is overthrown, and a new one is created. The 'just' and 'unjust' are largely things that can only apply in retrospect, through the bias of history books. If Hitler won the war, we would all think the allies were bad. Terrorists are merely revolutionaries, and throughout history there have been many 'good' ones. Jesus, Guy Fawkes, Che Guevara,
Martin Luther King, Gandhi--they were all terrorists during their times; now they're heroes.
So who knows who to cheer for? In the end, whoever wins will be right. Maybe we should be cheering both sides on.
JOHN wrote:
heh. I beg to differ: what is seen and believed as rational and good is shaped by far more than simply who has prevailed historically. I personally am for gay marriage, but the majority of Americans are not. To say that history has been written and spun by the winners is one thing, but present and future choice is never solely determined externally. Obviously there are grey areas, but it's foolish to say that killing someone because of the colour of their skin is deemed as wrong because of a few white men with funny white wigs decided that they'd fight over it. Of course there are some good things in the world, and they need to be fought for if they are cherished. I don't believe in utter subjectivity. I don't think any sane person Would think that the Allies were bad, unless they were forced to believe so.
Of course, if Hitler had won, we all would be brainwashed *it's funny, cause he wasn't blonde haired or blue eyed... I guess the rules didn't apply*. But why do you think people wanted to overthrow hitler in the first place?? They opted for sanity and they decided to do what was right in their eyes, and let's face it, in reality's eyes. It is foolish to say that nothing can be measured and that black is white if you want it to be. Things are what they are and although rightness and rationality are by nature more subjective, I am far from believing that hitler had any sort of "morals" whatsoever. There is quite a difference between lunacy and morality.
But who decides what is right? I guess that's the real question... but really, it isn't quite a question as much as it is a general curiosity. No one Decides what is right or wrong, things are right or wrong according to society as a whole. I am glad that most people are not psychotic monsters who wish ill will to those who are different. I think most people are good because that's the only way they really can live. Chaos and injustice is easy, yes, but very scary and far more unknown nowadays. It is impractical to give in to tyrants like Hitler, because people enjoy and need and want comfort. When true tyrants like him come along who threaten people’s comfort, they will die for the comfort of the future and present alike. Comfort can also be translated in to love and/or decency.
KAYMAN wrote:
Lunacy, for one, is just a convenient general legal term to describe a mental condition of a minority. If everyone were schizophrenic, then the non-schizo minority would be the lunatics. If Hitler was a lunatic, and the German not necessarily agreed with him, but created the same effect by obeying him, then anyone in Germany who didn’t was crazy--and they were, because they got killed for disobeying. This idea that whatever prevails will be considered rational (if it isn’t, it will be overthrown until people decide, at least for a while, that it’s rational) is simply a rephrasing of the democratic ideal that you uphold, and more importantly, the underlying principle for human survival. Indeed, if humans could not be empathetic to other subjectivities, and decide on some general reality through which to communicate, then we would never have survived.
But no matter what that general reality [koinos kosmos] is, no matter what that unifying idea of the universe is, whether be it religion, social values, or general interests, and whether the religion be Muslim radicalism or Bush’s Catholicism-injected politics, whether the social values be Canadian gay rights or Nazi anti-Semitism, whether the general interests be playing guitar or shooting ducks, all of these “ideas” work to do the same thing: bring people together, unify them with the same purposes and beliefs. These social groups promote individual survival, but you are hardly able to choose which one you become a part of.
Obviously these groups frequently conflict, and indeed, unless we were globalized, unified as one consciousness, under one purpose (‘peace on earth’), then there will always be conflict. And conflict is good: we like diversity--but with it, we must accept the price. Is everyone equal, or is everyone unique? Surely it is the latter, but in that case, if you believe in free individualistic belief, you must also believe in endless conflict. Conflict is the driving force, and it seems to me that the “right” and “wrong”, “justice” and “injustice” of it are arbitrary terms--terms simply necessary for reassuring oneself that one is right. And since everyone believes they’re right--that’s one of those self-proving logical assurances--they will fight each other: but they can’t all be right, can they?
Yet they will all judge themselves right and the others wrong because their survival demands it, that is what is at hand. They are fighting each other for their right to live they way they want to. Seemingly paradoxically, they are KILLING each other for life. And they mourn death because their survival-driven-programmed brain demands that a human corpse disgusts them, so as to avert them from killing their own kind, and to warn them that predators are nearby. Yet at the same time, they will kill if their own survival, or the survival of their society demands it.
JOHN wrote:
I’m not talking linguistic semantics here; they don’t quite apply. Even if everyone decided to rename the colour Red to Turto, that colour would still be the Red that we know. One can hardly affirm that lunacy does not exist as a general construct as opposed to some point of view perspective. We label Megalomaniacs who use prejudice and injustice as lunatics because that is what they Are. Even if everyone in the world were schizophrenic or had some other sort of mental illness, the one person who didn’t have schizophrenia would still of course be mentally stable (perhaps not ‘normal’).
“Bringing people together” is what people need to stop forcing upon the world in a negative way. I agree that religion, etc, is designed to unify, but often this is used negatively. A more positive (perhaps-passive) approach must be used (unless of course there is a metaphorical gun in your face). My thinking is that there might as well not be religion if it’s going to be crammed down your throat.
Your humans as animals analogy is interesting, but far from what is true. The analogy itself is just as simplistic as the subject it seeks to criticize. Of course survival demands disgust, but my human decency is Not based on survival. War is not a very nice occurrence, but it is a necessary price when freedom is at stake. These are not just words I am using; freedom exists, and it’s a great thing when used properly (for improper use of freedom, see the current Iraq War).
Conflict is inevitable, but injustice doesn’t have to be. There are negative and positive forms of conflict. I’m all for the positive conflicts (diversity, etc.), but I do not think that negative conflict (war, prejudice) is a Necessary price. Of course, it always has been, so I can’t really use solid examples to prove that point, but that’s where my faith comes in. Of course everyone thinks that they are right, but it surely does not mean that everyone is, since that would be impossible if one were to believe in a universal set of laws.]]>
{measure,{see,{taste,{touch},smell},hear},balance}
Measure and balance are not normally regarded in the senses. Balance is achieved in the inner ear's hardware in the form of three liquid filled hairy rings for each ear. Balance seems to qualify to be a sense. Measure is more difficult to judge as a sense. If sciences are also listed in the same manner, measure becomes clearer when it is mapped to mathematics;
{mathematics,{physics,{chemistry,{biology},psychology},intelligence},aesthetics}
Psychology is usually regarded to be a pseudo science. Intelligence is gaining more acceptance amongst cognitive sciences as computing advances. I think psychology will also acquire a respectable place amongst cognitive sciences in due time. Aesthetics includes things like philosophy, art, music, poetry, and not regarded as science. It studies beauty and sometimes uses mathematics as a tool.
This particular ordering of sciences has two aspects that relates to senses. All sciences are based on mathematics and they form a complexity ladder. Biology seems to mediate all sciences in dualities. Psychology couples to -or based on- chemistry, in that it operates in a field of chemicals like hormones. Intelligence couples to physics, in that it uses electricity -or light- in the neuronal circuitry provided by brain. As suggested before, aesthetics somewhat couples to mathematics.
Aesthetics is used by most animals, if not by all animals and maybe all life. Aren't the flowers' smell and looks selected by insects? Similarly most plants are selected and shaped by animals. Animals also select and shape themselves. Isn't the sexual selection largely responsible for humanity's success? I think the universe shapes itself through a common sense of aesthetics. Don't many animals have a similar sense of music? My cat likes Bach. I was amazed with a camel's love of music when I saw the film Weeping Camel.
Similarly touch mediates all senses in three mediated dualities, as it is essential for sensing;
{{measure,touch,balance},
{taste,touch,smell},
{see,touch,hear}}
Smell evolves (or diverges) from taste as breathing separates from eating. {see,hear} coupling is not that obvious, but the symmetry involved is the same. It is like the {audio,video} duality in signal processing. The mathematics involved in video is a more complex version of audio. In both cases, dual sensing gives depth of field. {measure,balance} coupling is the hairiest. I think the core of a brain evolves around these two and their mediating touch sense. Measure is the root of all evolution. In quantum mechanics it corresponds to quantization of a field.
It seems the touch sense involved in each case is different, as there are many different types of touch. Touch is a generic sense. It senses temperature, pressure, hardness and so on. Thus we end up with nine senses, to match the nine aspects of reality;
{{time,matter,space},
{cell,organism,species},
{star,galaxy,universe}}
As life {cell,organism,species} mediates the universe, eating {taste,touch,smell} mediates life. We also get a clue to the nature of the three kinds of touches mediating senses. Consuming or fusing kind of touch mediates the other two; one soft, the other hard. The quantity triplet {0,1,infinity} determines all four mediated dualities. Three dualities themselves form a mediated duality through their mediators.
With the predicted 'zero' to include the lot, we have the ten aspects of reality. The tenth aspect is the aspectlessness, or rather nothingness. If the Higgs field corresponds to 'zero', what is the corresponding sense?]]>
{{time,matter,space},
{cell,organism,species},
{star,galaxy,universe}}
Each triplet has the form of the quantity triplet {0,1,infinity}, when
0 and infinity are replaced by finite entities. The transcendental
quantities {0,infinity} are not achievable in reality. Nature relates
the smallest to the largest through renormalization and quantization.
In each triplet, the first entry determines time. This classification
is also supported by the locality of time and it also predicts the
quantization of time and space. Note that 'organism' sits in the middle,
and life is sandwiched between two layers of material reality. It
seems, life is an integral part of reality. A 'zero' is also predicted
to contain the lot.]]>
Behaviour]]>
{{time,matter,space},
{cell,organism,species},
{star,galaxy,universe}}
as proposed recently in the Nine Aspects of Reality blog.
{time,matter,space} mapping is not that obvious. Locality of time, as established by the relativity theory, points to separateness of it. Quantum gravity theory proposes quantum space-time and thus also points to the locality of time. Space seems to be made of time quanta.
{cell,organism,species} triplet can be used to get some clues about the nature of {time,matter,space}. Cell is the object that determines organism's life-time. Species is the space in which the genetic information move from node to node. Each node is an organism. For sexual reproduction, two nodes get together to spawn another, thus enlarging the gene space. Hermaphrodite nodes spawn two nodes by themselves. Maybe time is more like hermaphrodites, since it is fundamental. The mechanics of the genetic space-time of a species must reflect that of space-time.
The life triplet also points to other invisible universes, since there are many species of life.
Stern-Brocot Tree is based on {0,1,infinity}. Cut-the-knot.org says 'A remarkable thing about Stern-Brocot tree is that it contains all possible non-negative fractions expressed in lowest terms and each exactly once.' The space between {0,1,infinity} is filled by a simple method of mediants.
Can SBT be mapped to fundamental categories?
0. {0/1,1/0} ... Higgs (U(0)?)
1. {1/1} ... Light (U(1))
2. {1/2,2/1} ... Weak (SU(2))
3. {1/3,2/3,3/2,3/1} ... Strong (SU(3))
4. {1/4,2/5,3/5,3/4...} ... Gravity (SU(4)?)
0. Higgs seems to have locality and universality combined. It seems when you reach the zero, you also reach the infinite.
1. 1/1 ... electric / magnetic. For life, stem cell.
2. 1/2 ... Z0 / {W+,W-}. For life, blood/{muscle,nerve}.
3. 1/3 and 2/3 make sense since they are used in the make-up of nucleons by quarks, and there are 3 color charges.
4. Gravity comes out of a 3+1 dimensional space-time and mass. The 5th item must refer to 'mass'. 1/4 seems to map to mass/space-time. 3/4 seems to map to space/space-time. I don't know much gravity so I can not interpret the rationals 2/5,3/5.
Note the 5ness of the classification list, {0,1,2,3,4}. 5 is related to 9 in a funny way that relates to the 3 triplets;
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9 = 45
45/9=5
If the numbers are grouped into 3 triplets;
{{1,2,3},{4,5,6},{7,8,9}}
{{time,matter,space},{cell,organism,species},{star,galaxy,universe}}
Giving 5 at the position of 'organism', which has 5 senses. Also time gets 1, and space gets 3. Star gets 7; 7 layers of the periodic table? Matter gets 2; electric/magnetic, and since matter is made of light, E=mcc.]]>
]]>
I've been locked in a Box. I pray to the al dente one for relief.]]>
Ok well hoping for some support here, or are all members of The Huge Entity supposed to be too intelligent to need any help...]]>
So what was my topic?
50's movies and cutup.
Is not cutup now mashup?
Go search and find the mashup using the scene where the Doctor first confronts Dalek in that museum... in the mash, the Dalek responds, in character, with Cleese's French Castle guard's speech from Holy Grail'.
Again I surrender, I am cutup/mashup...bliss to all]]>
All writing is in fact cut-ups. A collage of words read, heard, overheard. What else? Use of scissors renders the process explicit and subject to extension and variation. Clear classical prose can be composed entirely of rearranged cut-ups. Cutting and rearranging a page of written words introduces a new dimension into writing enabling the writer to turn images in cinematic variation. Images shift sense under the scissors smell images to sound sight to sound to kinesthetic. - link to more Burroughs quotes on Cut-upToday I found myself gripped by the urge to do cut-up myself and so, using a couple of automatic cut-up generators I found on the internet (Non-Linear Adding Machine & The Lazarus Text-Mixing Desk), I began to experiment.
Taking a chunk of text I have been working on (for a young-adult novel) and editing the disjointed cut-up into a more manageable form I acheived these results.
[...See full post here...]
Try it yourself at the links above and please feel free to come and share the results here or on the main site...
And remember Language is a Virus...]]>
“Aliens have already sent us their artwork, and it is to be exhibited in a museum”
Thank artist Jonathon Keats for this. He was the first to consider that aliens will not send us Pythagoras's theorem or mathematical symbols. "If I were [ET] trying to communicate with beings elsewhere in the universe...I'd try to express something about myself in the most universal language I could imagine: I'd send art," he writes.
And aliens, it seems, have done just that. Keats says he "decoded" the artwork from a radio signal that came from somewhere between the constellations Aries and Pisces. The signal, detected by the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, was previously dismissed as meaningless (New Scientist, 4 September 2004, p 6).
Keats says the display rights a historic wrong: "Our culture has ignored extraterrestrial artistic expression. This is the ultimate outsider art." - New Scientist
Though promising as an example of an extraterrestrial transmission due to its repetition, frequency and increasing strength, the signal was discarded as an anomaly and the hype surrounding it was dismissed by many experts in the field, including SETI@home chief scientist Dan Wertheimer.]]>
"There are a lot of people that got interested in this signal when we first reported it," says Wertheimer. "We ourselves were not that interested in it."
In 2005, conceptual artist Jonathon Keats revisited the signal as part of research for a nascent project on extraterrestrial life. Keats' previous projects include copyrighting his brain, attempting to genetically engineer God, and taking a hundred-year-long exposure of a San Francisco hotel room... - Wired(via Posthuman Blues)
Dr. Harold Medford, THEM!
They understood...
a half century ago.
Even pop scifi movie makers appeared to understand...
That a threshold had been crossed, a new world found, a new reason to both hope and fear the future, that unmapped country.
When you look at those pop sicfi films from a half century ago - from the best to the worst - there is a common theme: we are not what we were, we have become something new, even as most of the old stays with us, even as our everyday appears mostly unchanged. We have become something new and we're not ready.
But there's no choice, they say, no choice at all. There's no going back.
Fundamentally, this is, I think, what sets the pop scifi of the 1950s - the source material for many of our machine dreams - apart from what we see currently: the mixture of hope and fear, warning and celebration, seems to have disappeared, like morning mist. Perhaps Blade Runner, that extended meditation on loneliness, was the last great filmed example.
What has taken the place of the old nightmares which once walked hand-in-hand with the old dreams?]]>
Watch it here and spot the short-sighted mistakes...
The idea that all humans will be vanquished from pain by technology is not a new one: utopian visions never live up to their breadth of scope.The way things are going either Western economies collapse, bringing down the global system or war will ravage the planet, probably caused by a fight for resources. In out attempts to project our current situation into the future we are forgetting that the majority of humans on this planet still live in poverty, at the whim of disease and corrupt governments.
The abolition of slavery in the West did not see it abolished everywhere else. In fact, some say slavery is more rampant than ever before. Some things only change in our perceptions: reality is a different thing altogether.
We Westerners need to take our tech-heads from up our utopian asses before we end up blocking out another generation of the 'developing world' in our shadow.
Perhaps Transhumanism, and the nonsense which revolves around it, is the world's most dangerous idea...
(Originally found at Posthuman Blues)]]>
Everyone has said at some point - "I'm not good with names." or "I have a terrible sense of direction." But we rarely sit and examine why this is the case. After reading books on Evolutionary Psychology (such as The Blank Slate by Pinker) it's hard to deny the severe importance that genetics has on the construction of the individual, and yet when I come to examine how my life was 'developed' genes don't come in to the equation.
I find that I am terrible with people's names, place names and learning foreign languages. Was it a case of my genetics that lead me towards a brain not capable of remembering names? or is it simply that at some point in my life my brain specialised in other areas? I find that when I am reading a magazine I very often just skip the names of people and places - and indeed kick myself for it later. Neither my father or mother seem to be as bad at these feats of memory as I am.
Did I not get the genes they have or did I simply not train my brain in the right areas?
So firstly, what would you say are your weakest capacities of mind? Can you trace them back to a particular way you run your life, or perceive your environment? or more realistically can you see the same traits inherent in your parents and siblings?
I'd be fascinated to know...]]>
Are you up to taking the challenge?
P.S. How do you like my Yorkshire charms on video? I'm about as photogenic as a tumour]]>
Don't talk to me about Jehovah.
Before that pan dimensional piker appeared on the scene, stealing my worshipers, claiming my territory, I lived an exceptionally beautiful life; really, I can't begin to describe, not in this clumsy mortal language, the eye searingly radiant splendidness of the life which was - gone now because of that monotheistically obsessed bastard.
Mind you, I brought it on myself. "Zeus, why don't you leave off the shape shifting and raping for a bit?" Hera nagged. But when you're a god, you do as you please, yes? Listen, don't try to bullshit me, you would've done the same you self-righteous jackass. In days gone by, I might have assumed the form of a kangaroo and buggered your mom, or yawned and lovingly inserted a lightning bolt at light speed up your left nostril, just because it was a lazy Sunday and left nostrils temporarily annoyed me.
That's just how it was.
Well of course, Yahweh, Jehovah, whateva comes along - with the help of his masochist of a son (and what the hell was that little show? Executed on a cross by the graceless Roman Empire? You know what Herakles would've done if they'd tried to shove him up on one of those things? Try to picture hearts and entrails and severed heads...everywhere...bloody well right) - anyway, Mr. "I Love You" comes along and says, "come unto me, all who are weary and burdened and I shall give you rest."
Of course the monkeys soaked it up, ran to their little meetings and huddled together for warmth. And really, who could blame them? After a long stretch of my bullshit (and you can't be fooled about yourself: I admit it, I was a shit head much of the time what with the trans-species sexcapades, the cosmic chess games with mortals as pawns, hurling lightning up asses, killing Cronus and Rhea to pump up the Olympians...and so much more - long rap sheet children), they were done, over and out with the old ways.
And the thing is, for the longest time Yahweh was right up there with the rest of us - thundering from the sky, sending heralds to mete out punishment, making bizarrely arbitrary decisions just because. He was a small time war and harvest god for a minor tribe of goatherds who smelled so bad the fucking goats couldn't take it; we all knew him of course, he'd show up to meetings, drink ambrosia and get fucked up like the rest of us. But he had plans. Hera and Aphrodite saw it, Athena and Ares too. "Watch that one", they said. Even Shiva, who scared the shit out of everyone (and let me tell you, he's a true bad ass, you don't play with Shiva..total nutter) whispered, in that rough way of his, about "keeping an eye out."
But none of us saw his master stroke, the move that slid in under the god-radar: the slimy operator sent his son to become one of them, to eat and sleep with them, even die right in front of them, at their grubby hands (and it was a messy death too, not quietly in bed surrounded by grandchildren and a weeping widow). Not only that, but he sold the whole thing, which really was a carnival side show for immortals, as a sacrifice for mortal benefit. Brilliant. Not one of the old gods could match that move's deftness. One of the greatest marketing maneuvers ever. But there was more: not only was it a sacrifice but a sacrifice to restore a lost harmony between humanity and Yahweh!
A lost order that had no room for the rest of us.
Oh, it took a few centuries but soon enough we were pushed to the margins like a bunch of punks. Look out everybody, the new kid's in charge! Only he wasn't all that new and it was all a slick act.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the fucker gloats, holds his perceptual conquest of practically one half of the world over our heads (still doesn't mess with Shiva though...he's not crazy and the Indian team possesses some serious worshiper mojo even today).
But all that's going to change...and soon.]]>
Atheist: Islam has spread by the sword.
Muslim: This is not true. Islam has spread in many countries in Asia and Africa without any military action. The Islamic civilization is a fact that cannot be denied. Ask Europe about the Islamic civilization in Spain and the darkness of Europe. Islam is not a barbaric religion. But Islam is the true religion. The Islamic civilization used the military actions for defence and for attacking some enemies. But the muslims did not enforce anyone to convert to Islam. The muslims treated non-muslims justly. They wanted to convince them not to enforce them to convert to Islam.
Atheist: I do not need any religion.
Muslim: Who has created the universe? Who has created you? What is the aim of your life? What will happen to you after death? All these are questions that you cannot find answers to without Islam. Besides, you enjoy materialistic pleasures, but you neglect your soul. Islam achieves the balance and harmony between the soul and the body. Islam does not forbid materialistic pleasures, but Islam is a unit of enjoying our lives and more important obeying our God and Creator.
Atheist: There is no soul.
Muslim: You deny the presence of the soul because you cannot see and cannot touch the soul. We cannot see electricity, but we are sure that there is some thing called electricity because we can see its effects -the light and the heat for example-. Equally, we cannot see the soul, but we can see its effects. What is the difference between two young men: one of them can talk and move while the other is dead without any reason? He did not suffer from any disease. He was not the victim of any accident. The difference is that the soul of the first one is inside his body while the soul of the second one had left his body.
Atheist: What is the difference between Islam and Christianity?
Muslim: The true Christianity invited people to worship One Deity, but some of its followers changed it. The unchanged Bible said that there will be a prophet called Muhammad or Ahmed and invited christians to follow him. The untrue christianity says that there is a God and his son. This is untrue. If the God decided something and his son decided another thing, what will happen? There will be a conflict between the God and his son. In Islam, there is only One God and He has no sons.
Atheist: There is no God.
Muslim: The universe is changable, so it cannot be eternal. The God created the universe. The God is eternal. I invite you to rethink about the presence of the God and to read the Holy Quran. I invite you to read about Islam from the Islamic point of view.]]>
The fox wanted the grapes but couldn't reach them so he convinced himself that they were sour
You know that something is important when you really don't want to hear it.
The Enlightened are always laughing...bastards.]]>
Anyway, it's a video.
KILLING DOLPHINS
In reply, I sent her this link: an article about military dolphins:
RECRUITING DOLPHINS
So -- if you are a moralist -- which is worse or better? Both are presumably to serve our own predatory purposes.]]>
I watched this televisual feast the other night thinking 'here we go again'.
My first question is, if prosperity is so easy, why are you charging money?
I think that Jesus fella said something like...give freely of that which is given to you...one good test of a guru is to ask 'how much?', I'll accept 'donate if you can'.
This so called secret has never been a secret. Aldous Huxley's 'The Perennial Wisdom' comes to mind. To dust off the Emerald Tablet and jam it into a snake oil bottle and then sell it is not best spiritual practice. And anyone who tells me money is 'green energy' can jump in a black hole.
Well, it's been quiet, I've been bored-boring. My nephew has a nice digital video camera so I may be presumptuous and try to start the documentary I've been talking about for thirty years, who knows? suggestions welcome. First thought...'It's No Secret'.]]>
CUBE: Coming to your neighbourhood dimension SOON...]]>
Human beings evolved to perceive a distinction between 'ourselves' and our 'technology'. Increasingly though, our technological achievements are becoming extensions of our bodies, our identities and our minds, forcing the realm of the human out and into the world of synthetic form. The less obvious technological achievement of language has become synonymous with our development, laying down in its linguistic dimensions the paths which our species was to traverse over the millenia. Yet language's original emergence has long been forgotten, as we all take for granted the extraordinary ability it gives us to project our inner mental states out and into cultural form. Language may be our most treasured technology, but its power is not ours alone to celebrate.It may aid us in our humility to remember that we ourselves are technological devices:
"...invented by ancient bacterial communities as means of genetic survival - we are part of an intricate network that comes from the original takeover of the Earth. Our power and intelligence do not belong specifically to us, but to all life..."
~ John Gray, Straw Dogs
The human body, therefore, is a multifarious device intended for the procreation of bacterium, or more precisely, the genes which they employ in their survival. Evolution proceeded, over many millions of years, to shield these genetic terranauts in ever greater layers of complexity. The human body can be better understood as an enormous self-contained ecosystem providing a medium between pure genetic information and the harsh forces of an entire universe. Every machine needs an engine, and we are lucky enough to have several, the pinnacle of which must be the human brain: "...a three-pound mass you can hold in your hand that can conceive of a universe a hundred-billion light-years across."This shift of perspective allows our achievements to suddenly be those of the genes within us. Language itself exponentially extended the ways in which minds could interact, forcing human culture into the limelight of evolution and, for the first time in the history of life on Earth, placing the treasure of a species not in its genes, but in its memes. (I will not argue here for the validity or non-validity of 'memes'. I find it difficult to believe that culture did not evolve in some sense, and it is this idea in particular I wish to convey.)
~ Marian Diamond
The chimpanzee cracking open nuts with a specific smoothness of stone has a cultural advantage over his brethren. It is not hard to imagine how this knowledge could become a source of power within his social group. Those chimps in the social order for whom intelligent adaptability does not come so easily may find the nut cracking trick impossible to understand, let alone master, and so come under the will of the master nut cracker (i.e. if they want nuts they'll have to be nice to chimps that possess the cultural meme for nut cracking). The technological achievement here can be seen on two levels. Firstly, the obvious wielding of the stone tool, and secondly, the mental form taken by the meme of nut cracking. In lacking a complex language, chimpanzees must rely on their traditionally evolved constitutions - i.e. their eyes, ears and actions - to pass on such information. Humans, on the other hand, have a wealth of technologically evolved communications, something which chimps, were they to understand, would no doubt be enormously jealous of. Our technology is an extension of our ears, our eyes, our language: it allows us to spread our consciousnesses out and into the universe at large. The power of the gene, through the human, is omnipresent: a feature which our idea of God shares. Yet funnily enough, the idea of God appears incompatible with the technology which created it.
Are there memes which technology has no advantage is procreating? One which came to my mind originally was religion, or more precisely the meme of God. One could argue that The Bible, Evangelical Television, the hymn, the chant even The Pope-Mobile are all technologies which mediate the meme of God, but I would have to disagree. One of the fundamental tenets of religious enlightenment is that faith in God transcends the power of will. To truly understand God is so subjective, according to religious teaching, that its manifestation cannot be passed on. Most religions extend the idea that God alone can instill the faith within the human soul. Technology, therefore, appears capable of lubricating the passage of religion (excuse that image), but not in actually translating religious memes from 'soul to soul'. The technology of the gene - for instance the human brain - manifested the idea of God for the benefit of human culture, yet synthetic technology, and in some cases even the technology of language, appears incapable of expressing the meme of God. Something is amiss here. Perhaps, once again, it is our perspective which is in need of shifting: If one thinks of a particular object, it is easy to distinguish matter from form, and an analogous distinction can be made with regard to organic beings, with form taking on the value of the unity of being and of its individual existence. But if things as a whole are taken into account, transposed distinctions of this kind become arbitrary and even unintelligible. Two verbal entities are thus formed, explicable only through their constructive value in the social order: an abstract God (or simply the idea), and abstract matter; the chief guard and the prison walls. The variants of this metaphysical scaffolding are of no more interest than are the different styles of architecture. People become excited trying to know if the prison came from the guard or if the guard came from the prison; even though this agitation has had a primordial historical importance, today it risks provoking a delayed astonishment, if only because of the disproportion between the consequences of the debate and its radical insignificance.The very Western tenet that spirit and matter are distinct causes a multitude of perceptual errors, not least in the religious domain. The ascription of a unique identity to ideas and another to the universe at large forces us to separate our minds from reality; our God from our bodies and our selves from our technologies. If the human mind, itself a technological entity, can mediate between the world of form and the world of ideas, then why not our synthetic technologies? Who says a self perceptual device must be organic? Could humans build a machine which manifested The Gods through its remote interface?
~ Georges Bataille, Base Materialism and Gnosticism
Once neuroscience has pinned down the physical constraints of consciousness, humans will have the ability to treat the human brain as a technology for the first time in our history. By eliminating those aspects of consciousness which mediate the physical world - i.e. sight, sound, fear, identity - science will finally pinpoint the areas of our brains which evolved to manifest religious sensation. Much research has already been done in this area, showing that to enter the spiritual realm one must only be in the process of a particular brain state. What if this state were transplanted into machine form? Artificial Intelligence researchers are already on the road to producing a conscious machine, how much further are they from creating a spiritually aware machine? Would such 'technological' spirituality be indistinguishable from our own? Could such machines be used to offer less spiritually aware humans (such as myself) a glimpse of 'God'? How far away is the pocket iGod? Where is the soul of the machine?As usual with my meanderings there is a huge amount more I would like to talk about, save for the time and effort it would take me. Scattered amongst the text are various links to articles, research and ideas elsewhere and below are some related meanderings previously expurged on The Huge Entity. Read as much as your technologically evolved brain can manage, but please don't forget to report back here to share your ideas. The memes in your head need a medium to express themselves through. Consider The Huge Entity comments section or The Forum to be that very medium.
(Mirrored on The Huge Entity Blog)]]>
Packet Garden captures information about how you use the internet and uses this stored information to grow a private world you can later explore.
To do this, Packet Garden takes note of all the servers you visit, their geographical location and the kinds of data you access. Uploads make hills and downloads valleys, their location determined by numbers taken from internet address itself. The size of each hill or valley is based on how much data is sent or received. Plants are also grown for each protocol detected by the software; if you visit a website, an 'HTTP plant' is grown. If you share some files via eMule, a 'Peer to Peer plant' is grown, and so on.
[...]
]]>
I'm a Samuel R. Delany...cool.]]>
So I ask you....
- What blogs have you been reading lately?
- How do they all slot together?
- How do you arrange your reading?
- How do you discover new reading?
Neeeeeed input.]]>
In my short story entitled 'The Book' I have tried to bring this disbelief back into question, to represent the relationship we have with fiction, in fictional form. This meta-analysis is intended to give the reader tools by which to better question objective reality (or a lack of such). The Fourth Wall has been broken down. In the words of Jean Baudrillard:...transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith.
~ 'Biograhic Literaria' - 1817
...to bring a real world into being is in itself to produce that world, and the real has only ever been a form of simulation. We may, admittedly, cause a reality-effect, a truth-effect or an objectivity-effect to exist, but, in itself, the real does not exist.Here is an extract from 'The Book', a tale of gothic horror in which a young man trangresses the taboos of his world only to lose all sense of the semiotic order through a state of torture:
~ 'Passwords' - 2003
I conceived of the night engulfing my innards. It became the only way to drown out the searing pain of the sun on my flesh, but its deep calm stole away more than my torture. In the absence of my mind grew visions, ever more vivid than the stars of the milky way, which subsumed the matters of my physical body. Each of my senses took leave of themselves, allowing in their place to evolve a sense of nothingness. Without my senses I was no more. A world I had previously resolved in the chatter of my mind was made silent. All language; all referents fell beyond an invisible horizon, from which no escape was possible. The forms I had relied on from my very earliest of memories began to dissolve in the blackness. An infinity welled up inside me; at its heart, I became God.
~ Daniel Rourke, 'The Book' - 2007
(Issued in Word format, under a Creative Commons Licence.)
I hope you enjoy my meta-fictional attempt to bring question upon the world; touring innumerable paths of your perceptions; drawing a labyrinth of possible worlds; sketching a vision of your own self, as God:
It is clear that the world is purely parodic, in other words, that each thing seen is the parody of another, or is the same thing in a deceptive form… all things would be visibly connected if one could discover at a single glance and in its totality the tracings of an Ariadne’s thread leading thought into its own labyrinth.
~ Georges Bataille, 'The Solar Anus'
• Navigating The Logos Labyrinth
• The Realm of The New Fictions
• Breaching the Fourth-Wall of Consensus Reality
• This Pantheistic Meta-Hallucination: How Fiction Supersedes Simulacra