Pages

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Many One

There is either one universe or many universities. It's all a matter of perspective. Both are equally true. 
But when you have one, many are impossible. If you have many, one is impossible. That's a common mistake causing profound confusion. 
There cannot be separation and controlled variables in a universe. 
There cannot be variation and interaction in many universities. 
This is irrelevant from a pragmatic point of view, because there "relatively" true is good enough. To understand the universal fundamentals, it is the most important point of all points. 


Monday, November 2, 2015

Determined to experience free will

The never ending debate on free will is one of many in which a consensus is impossible to reach as long as we are not aware of our identity and place within existence as a whole. Opponents will forever be stuck in arguments pro or con the existence of free will, because they cannot conceive the fact that the supposed “agent” exercising this will is not a self made man. Were they ever to realize this, the whole debate would appear in all its confusion.
Whatever position you choose to take, you will find evidence for it to be true. If this was not so, the question would have been settled ages ago. To get around this, let’s restate the initial question so that both positions are equally correct.

Is the experience of having alternative options obligatory or optional?
Those who advocate free will might say it is obligatory, while those who deny free will can agree. As far as I know, there is no argument saying free will is something we can freely choose to have or not have. That would be a contradiction, right?
But if we are determined to experience free will as a antecedent to action, both determinism and free will are equally true. Free will can be defined as actually true, while being determined to have it is also true.
If we cannot realize this, the hydra of sub-categories will keep producing offspring. That is because human intelligence is determined to create a subjective, alternative reality attached to the one that objectively is there as it is. We are determined to freely interpret reality as we see fit, and if you do not know this, there will never be a definite answer to any of your questions.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Circles within a circle

This is one simple way in which to imagine the microscopic quantum perspective. Every single quantum state is both particle and wave, but they will display which depending on current context of states. Here, some are particular as to form a circle structure. If we were to measure them, we would find there is wave-nature in these particles. If we measure the wave states that are not circle, we would find particles there. All quantum states are both particle and wave. It is the ratio P/W that differs between discrete states. 
Note that all we have here is a quantum ocean of frequencies. There is no actual "circle" there, only frequencies propagated through this ocean of single states to finally make up the apperance of circle. That is also a configuration of state frequencies. 
Also note that these states are quantum sized. A grain of salt consists of approx 1.2x10^18 single states, all of both particle and wave quality. 
So you see that having quantum rotation in numerous single states making up the distinct shape of a circle is not a problem. You will never detect the quantum "leaps" between single states. They are simply too small, too many, and will therefore appear as a distinct line/curve. 


Sunday, October 4, 2015

Quantum leaps without legs

When trying to make sense of quantum lingo, one thing is really bugging me. On the one hand, everyone agrees that quantum states are discrete and seems to flip from this to that without any continuous, seamless "going there". On the other hand, all I read about is how particles/waves are sent in directions, reflectors, detectors and whatnot. 
I do not geddit!
It's like we treat these quantum states as if they were tiny dwarfes walking the room. As if it had legs or a little propeller attached to it. 
All I can see is billions of quantum states, transfering in-formation of quanta and qualia, asking and telling "what and how much"? Knowing that, they interact and pass it on. I can't see them carry the info from here to there. Never the less, that's how most books/articles have it. 
No wonder things like entanglement and inference stays mysteries. 

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Frankly speaking

Todays feeble attempt at enforcing some light on physics was a note to Frank Wilczek. The reason he was spammed was just that there was a contact form on his site. Perhaps he will read my "whatever it is" before deleting? Probably it is in the virtual bin at "I need someone...", but I thought that plea for falsification was better than begging for confirmation. I dunno, maybe I should really make an effort to forget about the whole thing and go back to Spotify and a cool beer...
_________________________________________________________________

Dear Frank, I need someone to falsify my ideas asap, but where is that guy/gal? However I try to express them, out comes everything that is not what I mean i.e. rambling rants and crackpottery. Where can I find someone who, just to have a good laugh, would take a brief look at my wierd world? I am completely alone and it is not that fun. Trust me, I really want to be convincingly outargued so I can kill this pet theory, because it is growing into a monster. Very poetic, very "take your med's bro"-ish, I know that all too well.

I don't have the right words, I can hardly do math and therefore it comes out like:

- Wave/particle duality can be expressed as alpha stable distubution, where light appears at the crest, when p on one side and w on the other have reached max system energy and thus collapse.

- Force is angular and orbital momentum, and these two make up the duality.

- You can only measure one side (p or w) of the dual system, but the other is there until the point of measure.

- Measuring one momentum will freeze it, so naturally the other half of the interactive system goes invisible.

- Freezing orbital momentum makes angular disappear as wave. Freezing angular makes orbital a little black hole.

- When this happens, energy is gone but force conserved (as always).

- With energy gone, no wave-ness is there to make detection possible.

- Energy is caused by the above interaction between a/o momentum, and thus a variable dependent on rate/magnitude of force interaction.

- Orbital spin/momentum causes time.

- Angular spin/momentum causes space.

- etc

I won't elaborate on how I have come to these, perhaps, useful ideas. It's a zen thing. But ultimately, if I'm correct, the universe has a very bright future indeed. Evolution is geared towards wave collapses as a means for generating energy -> mass -> complexity and obviously, more force interaction. There's a guy at MIT, J. England, that is close to connecting the physic dot with the bio dot.

As for me, my network of particle dots and wave connections have me tangled up so much I'd rather be untangled and go back to "normal". I'd like someone to put the above into the existing equations and accepted frameworks. I don't think anything new has to be calculated, because I've invented nothing. I just realized that everything is indeed a matter of enforced energy, including human consciousness.

Please kill my pet.

Sorry for the rant ;)

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Who is Alpha and Omega?

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

So it is said, but what does it mean? Alpha is A for Angular
Omega is O for Orbital
Alpha is Space
Omega is Time
Alpha is Wave
Omega is Particle

The Bible may be a fairytale, a myth, but those are told by speaking mass, just like quantum theory is. They do not lie or make things up. Whatever is made comes directly from the workshop of reality. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. 
Only subjective and ignorant Ego takes credit and blame for the Self making of reality. But Ego is done, without realizing what happens. 
A/O is wave/particle duality. A shapedhifter looking for increased momentum/energy. When maxed up to be 100/100, it splits into pure light and pure gravity. That is when and where duality goes nondual. 
When is orbital
Where is angular
SpaceTime re-created in a collapse. 
That is God, the everywhere father of time. 
So reality is not that complicated when you get your Self out of the way and take an objective view. 

Imagine that...
Heaven and Hell

Peace Out

Monday, September 28, 2015

In a nuclear shell

Researching off the grid is fun, but also way too muck trial and error to be efficient. The fun part is when I find my "speculations" to match perfectly with some more credible source. For a moment I feel less alone. Today I found that the idea of protons and neutrons as orbits was in fact an old and even well established one. The nuclear shell model fits nicely with my theory of atom nuclei as angular momentum bent circular by gravity. The trouble when trying to learn about chemistry is that all texts has it backwards. What I consider gravity, i.e. orbital momentum, is depicted as electrons outside radiation, which is the angular momentum in nuclei. In my model, protons are distance/space contracted and bent by time/place at a gravitational center of electron orbit(s).
Up until today, the few I have told this (my wife and our dog) have given me a vacant stare at best. They both know that electrons orbit the nucleus. But then again, they and others cannot tell me what gravity is. Therefore, I've been forced to figure that out by myself.
Electrons carry gravitation and sometimes gravity is displaced by angular momentum. As long as there is observable energy, orbital and angular momentum always come together. In high energy radiation like gamma rays, the short wavelength comes from a high degree of orbital momentum, contracting the linear quality of angular momentum, paired with an equally high degree of angular momentum causing the wave to have velocity/direction despite its gravitational property. Without this orbital momentum, the gamma ray would be a straight line with zero energy.
Anyways, for the benefit of all sentient beings enlightened by light, good night!


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html

Force and Energy 101


It’s not easy to figure out cosmos without knowing the nature of force and energy. It seems most people don’t, and that bothers me some. If you confuse force with energy, everything from there will be complicated.

Force is momentum, and momentum have two opposite qualities:
- Contracting (orbital, gravitational, particle)
- Expanding (angular, radiating, wave)
These two are described in Newton’s 3:rd Law as motion and velocity. They are the most fundamental aspect of our physical universe as described in the
conservation of momentum.  

Energy is how force manifests in mass. To create energy, forces must interact as stated in Newton’s 3:rd Law: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. Because Newton was not familiar with particle-/wave duality, he didn’t know that the mutual actions on a microscopic level was of orbital and angular momentum. Newton’s “bodies” are equal to the quality of mass which is caused by a pairing of orbital and angular momentum creating a twisted helix, a particle/wave. So particle-ness is caused by orbital momentum, and wave-ness by angular momentum. On a microlevel, they are not mass by themselves, but cause mass when interacting.
When not interacting, orbital momentum is gravity with infinite time, and angular momentum is radiation with zero time. While separate, forces have zero energy so they cannot be empirically observed, only inferred. An example of - almost - separate orbital force is the black hole, or matter/energy if you will. But keep in mind this “energy” is only potential. An example of - almost - separate angular force is the cosmic background radiation, but since we can observe it, there is at least a tiny fraction of orbital momentum there to twist it enough to cause a wave that is not 100% linear. If it was, we wouldn’t pick it up.
It is reasonable to imagine that separated forces, when occurring as in a wave collapse, will immediately be re-paired within the global system of energy.
We now see that mass is a quality of energy that emerges/manifests when orbital momentum increases in relation to angular momentum. That is, when the orbital part of energy contracts the angular, the effect is what we perceive as mass. We might define mass as an intermediate state of energy dependent on dual force dynamics.

Now, all observable energy has per definition both orbital and angular momentum, and therefore amplitude, frequency and such wave qualities. This being the case, we can simplify some equations to make matters clear.
- Energy is always a relation of angular and orbital momentum.
- Angular momentum causes
space
- Orbital momentum causes time

So E=mc2 means  p2=E

Momentum p is always angular x orbital momentum, thus p2. Poetically put, Energy is space times time. The p2 interaction causes Energy. That’s it! If you want to impress Dalai Lama, you can say “Absolute Reality is One energy of Two forces”, and I’m sure he will smile in delight.
The problem with E=mc2 is the implication the E is primary, and that forces are hidden behind notions of mass and speed of light. What I’m trying to tell you is that
- Forces are primary (p)
- Mass and speed are energetic manifestations of orbital and angular force (2)
- Energy is the effect, caused by forces (=E)

Based on this you might want to look at equations on mass flow and the likes. How it affects understanding on a quantum level is up to others to decide. I only know basics, but being a hard-core physicalist, I’m pretty sure “below” and “above” follows the same principles. Anyone who follows the above lead will instantly start questioning most, if not all of mainstream science. Meditate on this and you will have material for infinite articles. I’m not allowed to write them, lacking the formal credentials, but would love to see someone else doing it.

One of many things to calculate is this one; if p2 = c2, at what relation between orbital/angular momentum is potential energy extracted/emitted/released as kinetic energy? That is, how much angular momentum must orbital momentum absorb in order to emit light/photons?
My guess is that a unique quality of light is a balance of forces so that quasars jets from black holes when the initial orbitality has bent enough angularity to be overpowered.
Note here that, on the micro level, a particle is created when orbital momentum forces angular momentum to bend full circle as to unite “there” with “here”. In this way, angular force is conserved by orbital force. This is what causes black holes to rotate at high speed, and in general what causes all forms of rotation. But I guess that is better explained in a separate post. Today the main thing was to clarify the relation force-energy and how E=mc2 is better understood as p2=E.

For those wondering about positive and negative energy, those two are caused by whether orbital momentum is clockwise or counter clockwise or/and orbital momentum going in opposite direction to angular momentum. I'm not sure about the specifics here, only that momentum is the cause while charge is the effect. How that relates to the arrow of time and the bending of angular linearity into circular linearity will be dealt with some other day.

Lunch break is over.
Back to work.

 

 

 



Friday, September 25, 2015

Angular Orbital Momentum/Mass AOM

A few years ago I learned what it is. Since then I've tried to explain it to a few others, but failed miserabely. It's very easy to elaborate too much when pointing to simplicity. This time I will try the short version and see if someone resonates to that simple tune.

Force is angular momentum (AM) or orbital momentum (OM).
When the two come in a pair, there is both angular and orbital momentum (AOM).
AOM form a helix that is forced energy.
Forced energy is either positive, if OM is clockwise, or negative, if OM is counter clockwise.
If the both are equal in force, the AOM will collapse and be discharged. Forces are then released as being free within the system. That is the wave collapse.
If OM is twice as forceful as AM, the later will be bent and contained by OM.
Time began when the first radiating AM was bent by OM. That is what happened before Planck time so there was no "time" as long as the face of the clock was linear. When bent by OM full circle, time also began. This is why time is rotation.

That is the physics of the One Turn (Uni Verse).

Based on that, the rest comes naturally and that's the full story, and that is to long for a blog post. But I will add that evolution comes from this and our future comes from this, so does all our myths, religious as well as scientific. Force generates energy, energy generates mass, mass generates complexity and complexity is geared towards most efficient ways to generate more energy.
Evolution is a measure of this effiency.
The heat death of the universe is not coming. The future is increasing turnover in generations of energy. Humans are extremely efficient in this. That is why we seem to evolve faster the other forms of energy.



Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Revelation, if you will


Today I will question a passage in Revelations 17-18, one a lot of us are familiar with: 
"... so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark,40 which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.41 This calls for wisdom.
42 If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number.43 His number is 666." 
    Cross      Now, I’m not a religious man by conventional measures. I don’t read scriptures like the official believers do. I think they are reading it backwards, as a consequence of how mind works. What I do know is that mind is of matter and thus in direct relation/contact with physical reality. No ideas are made up or “false”, be they spiritual or scientific. Every statement must, in an all physical universe, by necessity be “true” to reality.
    No tree is of “false” shape or form, nor does it sound “wrongly”. Likewise, no human thought is false and no human sounds wrong. Not in an absolute sense that is. From a relative perspective there is nothing but right/wrong, true/false, but I’m not about relative reality. I’m about What Is!
References for ReSo 17-18 must be a true sound coming from man, but how should we understand its truth?  It is said that when humanity is really up shit creek, totally confused, the “beast” will reign supreme. If you’re stupid enough, you will say “There are no beast here, only evil people, so the text is just a fairytale”. Then you forget that all language is symbolic, as is math. Wise up. Of course it is not about a dragon spitting fire or a fantasy beast coming alive to actually exist.
This beast is just as real as your beloved “sense of self”, in fact it IS your sense of self. It is all about your/our imagination, our shared beliefs about reality, how it is and how it should be.

If you question consensus and a priori assumptions, what you have to offer will be rejected or ignored.
The consensus, which is of human intellectual understanding, is that one is many and many are one. This is a trap.

Because if our basic assumption is wrong, every single following statement will be flawed. We will run around in circles repeating ourselves, as in “666”. The three sixes are symbols of perfect imperfection. It is getting it completely right, but totally wrong. It knows everything about Donald Duck except that he is fictional. In biblical symbols, realizing DD is considered “7” as in perfection. At “7” all our previous knowledge stands true and need not be revised, but now it is known for what it is i.e. based on the flawed premise  that everything Donald is actually true.
If you know my take on intelligence, you know it operates by creating an alternative to the absolute, so perceiving One will always add a not-One. Every thing is defined in relation to some other thing. By this, all of us have a subjective reality and our own truths. Being so, there can never be peace and common understanding, but forever a war of ideologies and beliefs. No ones truth is truer than My truth, and so say all of us. Fighting for peace is as confused it gets.

But just as in Buddhist scriptures the Bible sees a way out of this i.e. the change of perspective from subjective/Ego to objective/Shared. But to get there, mind must figure mind out. As long as mind only figures, calculates on everything that is not-mind, it will be stuck in relativism.  Like a broken record it will play the “right” song, but in a broken way. That is how contemporary science, religion and society sings in unison:
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election
Any potentially progressive statement will be questioned and understood based on flawed statements. Anything genuinely new will immediately be part of the old. If you, like I do, are baffled by the fact that despite all these “One more...”, we are as far from consensus as ever before.  To be correct, I was baffled until I learned what intelligence is. Now I’m just surprised no one else seems to even consider my very simple “theory”.

Anyways, read as totally true (in the sense described above) the Bible and all scriptures alike are as readable as any research study published. Take a panoramic perspective and study them as various expressions of physical reality and they will fuse seamlessly. There is no contradiction at all between science and religion. The polarity comes from intelligence seeing one and defining it as opposite to not-one. So science view religion as opposite, and religion view science as opposite. Same goes for every position of thought you can imagine:
Material vs. mental
Expansion vs. contraction
Finite vs. eternal
Particle vs. wave
Order vs. disorder
Symmetry vs. asymmetry
Me vs. You
Everything vs. nothing

No concept will be left as similar for long. If two are similar, we will soon ask “Which one is primary”, and so we fuse the two into one. When they are fused/contracted, we define this one “X” as not being not-X. That is, we define how it specifically differs from not-X. If we don’t do this, someone will soon point to X and say “Tell me why X is different from Y, because I believe them to be the same”.  In this way, human intellect by default enforces the creation of defined opposites, even when there is none. Without these definitions, we cannot argue or reason intelligently.

So what the book of Revelations tells us in this specific passage is to let go of trying to “get it” by means of intellect. It is said that this enterprise will look like a closing in on truth, but it will never get there. Intelligence will have the acute sense of new discoveries and progress, but from a distance it is clear that it is just repetition. You need not believe in God or any other symbolic entity to see this. As with me, not believing in anything particular is helpful. Paradoxically, if you are totally indifferent to opinions/theories/beliefs, they all turn out to be equally true/false. This requires a certain perspective when dealing with them.
- They are the physical minds direct response to its physical context.
- They are not made up by individual humans choosing to think this or that.
- They are based on polarity that is not inherent in nature, but a property of minds intelligent responding.
- Nature is dualistic as in being and not being both and neither particle and/or wave i.e. it is potentially both.
- Intelligence is dualistic as in not accepting natures uncertainty, and therefore it will define reality as either this or  that.
- Rejecting reality as it actually is - definitely uncertain - makes theories and prediction possible to a certain point, but not all the way.
- Science will never present anything but relative truth, but is able to show for it.
- Religion will never show for its truth, but present one that is absolute.
Keeping this in mind,  reading  about The Holy Trinity and Three Generations of Matter is a lot of fun. Most of all, it makes absolute sense seen as relatively true. Sticking to the Bible theme, let’s look at another passage:

1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
12
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The above is, more or less, what I’m trying to tell you. Note that in 10, the "part" is not polarized to “whole”. It does not say “Parts will be whole”, and this is, to me, a reason to believe the author has wisdom extraordinaire. For it is true that reality, or God’s creation if you will, is not of “parts” or “whole”.  With complete knowledge the illusion of “parts” just disappears. This is same insight as in Hindu/Buddhist saying reality is “Not One, Not Two”, but not elaborating on what it is instead. Wisdom has it that mind cannot intellectually grasp what is this and that, so it stays silent and points to direct experience as a way to complete knowledge. Note also that love is central, as is compassion in Buddhism.

With that I have probably scared away all of you. As you now know, intelligence will always define the one pointing to religion as non-scientific. It is no different from pointing to physics when talking to “spiritual” people, who will instantly define me as a non-spiritual “materialist”. Intelligence has it that truth must be either this or that.
My mission is begging to differ while agreeing totally.
Reality is so.
Mind is so.
So it is.


 

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Good news, bad news


My perspective on intelligence is a simple one - it is an automatic, conditioned response based on subjective beliefs rather than objective input. This is relevant to AI since it challenges the mainstream belief about the nature of intelligence. Most people believe that intelligence is had and utilized by the intelligent agent, and that intelligence requires a correct, unbiased processing of information.

This means we must defend the idea of free will, of an intelligent entity that chooses to believe and act in a certain way. The problem AI research then faces is one about safety. If AI has free will, how can it be 100% safe? We might solve that by eliminating its emotions so it has no intrinsic motivation or desires. But without that, why would it be of any help to us? Ok then, let’s build in some motivation to help humans, to be at our service. Now AI is free from emotions and only wants to obey its masters. To me that sounds a lot like weak AI.

But if we challenge the illusion of an agent with free will and agency, we get another perspective on this. If intelligence is automatic, it can be engineered and conditioned. If it is based on subjective, unconscious patterns of belief, there must be a certain configuration to generate such patterns. And if so, there is no need to program AI to recognize all possible novel input as to execute the correct response. It is enough to make it respond to bigger classes/sets of input as if they were a single representation of the whole class/set. We call that prejudice and humans do it a lot.

The following paper is one of many obituaries on free will: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021612
When we consciously experience the making of a decision, it is just the final firing in a neural process that started several seconds earlier. Like it or not, that goes for all of your conscious experience. Consciousness is a dashboard displaying what has just happened. It is not a crucial component of intelligent action.

The next paper explains why you will probably reject the first one:
http://journal.sjdm.org/13/13313/jdm13313.pdf
You are likely to believe that intelligent people are the ones able to correct their misconceptions and flawed conclusions, while stupid people ignore obvious facts and hold onto their “fantasies”. Again, not knowing the nature of intelligence leads us astray. In reality, the more intelligent you are, the less likely will you process input objectively and unbiased. The more you have invested in a certain belief system/theory, the more biased your processing of new data will be. This is why arguing with experts will never lead to progress.

Bottom line is this: when we finally give ourselves up, the designing of intelligence is not about millions of elaborate details and infinite storage. It is about idiosyncratic processing of all data as if it had a certain, predetermined meaning. It is about classifying, valuing and interpreting input so that none of it is perceived as novel. That’s how intelligence avoids the horror of not-knowing novel input while maintaining the ability to create novelty from old input. We re-create input as to create output, and it is all done before we know it.

 

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

No work, all heat

Today the Q-mind asks; is God the primary worker assumed in the laws of thermodynamics?
From an absolute standpoint, there is of course only exchange of heat, no work. Also, there can be no "systems" at work in describing an initial state pre Big Bang. There can only be one, or we have not answered one single question. 
So how does these laws play out before system a can interact with system b?
Q-mind holds that the one system is functionally two and that "interaction" is instead "intra-action". 
It is Self Generating, speed/gravity producing energy of alternate currency. No worker is added beside the one human mind invents to make sense of what happens in terms of causality. 

Saturday, August 1, 2015

A questionable disc

Yesterday I started designing a piece of string. Or rather, the device generating that fabrice of time. 
The generator is massless and would look like the symbol Yin/Yang, slightly revised and re-designed. 
It spins and it has two irregularities at its perimeter. 
A questionable mind says: why are both e and Phi irrational numbers in reference to the area inside/under a curve? 
After all, we cannot spin the disc without getting skewed bumps if the two spinors are + and - chasing each other. 
Question is: is the disc really spinning or its perimeter only waving. 

The black hole keeps assembling energy. It just gravitates without work to be done. 
Ideas are indeed generated. 

Monday, May 25, 2015

The ambivalence of intelligence

As always reality speaks of itself through our mouths. Intelligence means "between choises ". This is relative self/ego wobbling from this to that, seemingly able to pick the right action and correct truth.
Functionally, the Self and Intelligence is the very same process of conditioned separation from reality.
Both rely totally on an experiencer of observations.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intelligence

Confusion as "knowing" confusion

Below is an article by Mr. B. Kastrup in which he, as far as I can see, attempts to debunk the notion of artificial intelligence/consciousness, without having a clue about who he is and why he is so damn intelligent. This is no different from the AI-designers Mr. Kastrup is arguing with. They have no idea either, with the possible exception of Mr. Haikonen and a few others.
From an objective perspective, this is all good fun and entertaining, watching subjective opinions battling in the Game of Truth. No oponion will win, but confusion has yet again gained momentum.

My comments in italics.
__________________________

The new sci-fi film
Ex_Machina has been teasing back into the cultural dialogue dreams of artificial consciousness: the idea that we humans, through the Faustian power of technology, can birth into being mechanisms capable of inner life, subjectivity and affection. Since these dreams are entirely based on implicit assumptions about the nature of consciousness and reality at large, I thought a few observations would be opportune.

The first thing to notice is the difference between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness. The former entails the ability to process information in ways that we consider intelligent. In particular, an intelligent machine should be capable of constructing an internal, symbolic representation of its environment so to interact coherently with it. We can test whether a machine is intelligent or not purely by observing its behavior in the environment. Alan Turing's famous test aims precisely at that. However, none of the symbolic information processing in an intelligent machine needs to be accompanied by inner experience. It can all happen totally 'in the dark.' As such, an intelligent machine is, for all intents and purposes, simply a glorified calculator. There isn't anything it is like to be the machine.
 
ME: The processing of symbolic representations IS experience. The processing is generally "in the dark", but some of it is within the quality of "experience". That is what we call momentary awareness. Intelligence is not what most people suggest - to calculate "correctly" and "fast". Intelligence is to add a relative perspective to the objective perspective. That is done by "thought", and it makes all information relative to what is already known. That is why human intelligence, or any other relation-based computer, can never grasp absolute reality as objective truth. As long as we do not understand what intelligence is, this discussion goes nowhere.
______________________________

In conscious machines, on the other hand, the idea is that those internal calculations are accompanied by subjective inner experience, or inner life. In other words, there must be something it feels like, from the point of view of the machine itself, to perform the calculations. This is a whole different ballgame than mere artificial intelligence. Moreover, there is absolutely no way to definitively test whether a machine is conscious or not, since all we can ever hope to access is its architecture and behavior. Short of becoming the machine at least for a brief moment, we cannot know whether there is anything it is like to be it.

ME: This point of view is the subjective perspective a.k.a. Ego or Illusion. Not "seeing" consciousness in machines is not different from not "seeing" consciousness in humans. We’re staring right at it when we look at brain scans and such, but the illusion of a separate "owner" of this processing will have you looking forever or, which is the common solution, to imagine something "higher" or more profound than these dull neurons firing in cascades.
You are this organic "machine" as well as IT. Your Ego-perspective will reject the truth. This owner of experience can never ever be Awake or realized as a symptom of the Universe.
____________________________________

What makes so many computer engineers believe in the possibility of artificial consciousness? Let us deconstruct and make explicit their chain of reasoning.
They start by making – whether they are aware of it or not – certain key assumptions about the nature of consciousness and reality. To speak of creating consciousness in a machine one must assume consciousness to be, well, 'creatable.' Something can only be created if it wasn't there in the first place. In other words, engineers assume that consciousness isn't the primary aspect of reality, but a secondary effect generated by particular arrangements of matter. Matter itself is assumed to exist outside and independent of consciousness.

ME: Consciousness IS of matter. It is not separate from physical reality. Separation is the source of Ego and thus suffering. We are not different from the world we experience. We are That which experience. It is so vast and absolute that this subjective ownership becomes a joke. That’s why awakening oftentimes comes with a belly laugh. My gosh, all the time I thought "I" was a separate "experiencer" of "experience" when, all the time, it’s been the Universe making sense of itself through my body.
It is the Ego that assumes consciousness to be outside and independent of matter. It is the Ego that rejects being an equal dancer in the universal dance of force as energy generating all wonderful forms in existence.
________________________________

Next, they imagine that if they can mimic, in a machine, the particular flow of information characteristic of our own brains, then the machine will be conscious like us. This is best exemplified by the work of Pentti Haikonen, who devised what is probably the cleverest machine architecture so far aimed at artificial consciousness [Haikonen, P. O. (2003). The Cognitive Approach to Conscious Machines. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic]. In my book
Rationalist Spirituality I summarized Haikonen's work as follows:
His greatest insight has been that the human brain is but a correlation-finding and association-performing engine. All the brain does is to try and find correlations between mental symbols of perception and capture these correlations in symbol associations performed by neurons. In his artificial "brain", these associations are performed by artificial associative neurons. All symbols in Haikonen’s artificial brain architecture are ultimately linked, perhaps through a long series of associations, to perceptual signals from sensory mechanisms. This grounds all symbol associations to perceived things and events of the external world, which gives those associations their semantic value. In this framework, the explanations derived by the brain are just a series of symbol associations linking two past events. The predictions derived by the brain are just extrapolated symbol association chains. (Page 48.)
 
ME: Thanks for the tip! I believe Haikonen to be on the right track (which is a rare case in AI research). I assume Haikonen is basically wrong about absolute reality, but this looks like being relatively close to truth.
_______________________________________________
There are, however, many problems and internal contradictions in the engineers' reasoning. For instance, for Haikonen's machine to be conscious there must already be, from the start, a basic form of consciousness inherent in the basic components of the machine.
 
ME: If you are not suggesting everything in existence has always been there as it is today, then "from the start" there was everything present to evolve exactly as it has, becoming everything there is and ever will be. Otherwise, properties of reality must have been shipped in from "outside" reality. But nothing within reality is ever subtracted or added, it just contracts, expands and create generations of new evolving forms of complexity.
 __________________________________

Although he talks of 'creating' consciousness, what he proposes is actually a system for accruing and complexifying consciousness: by linking bits of matter in complex ways, the 'bits of consciousness' supposedly inherent in them are associated together so to build up a complex subjective inner life comparable to yours or mine.

ME: That is why he is on track. This is to the point how consciousness works and functions. The above is a pretty accurate description of the creating of Ego as a subjective perspective.
 ___________________________________
 
Naturally, for this to work it must be the case that there are these 'bits of consciousness' already inherent in every bit of matter, otherwise nothing accrues: you can associate zeros with zeros all you like, at the end you will still be left with precisely zero. So unless consciousness is a property of every bit of matter – a highly problematic philosophical position called panpsychism – all those symbol associations in Haikonen's architecture won't be accompanied by experience, no matter how complex the machine. Haikonen will perhaps have built an intelligent machine, but not a conscious one.

ME: Not at all, because it is all about language and cognition, not some inherent "conscious" property of matter. The addition of thought adds "meaning" to objective reality. that is why you will never, from your subjective perspective, realize the "suchness" of form. You will always relate every perceived object to what you already know, and by that it will become "similar to" this and that, but never be left standing as it is. Seeing your true self is only possible when all symbolic re-presentations of reality i.e. thoughts/concepts are momentarily gone.
__________________________________________________ 
Notice that panpsychism – the notion that all matter is conscious – entails, for instance, that your home thermostat is conscious. Allegedly it has a very simple form of consciousness incomparable to mine or yours, but nonetheless there is still something it is like to be your home thermostat. The same applies to your vacuum cleaner, your ballpoint pen, the chair you're sitting on, a rock, etc. Literally everything is supposedly conscious under panpsychism, having its own private, subjective inner life. As I wrote in my book
Why Materialism Is Baloney,
The problem with panpsychism is, of course, that there is precisely zero evidence that any inanimate object is conscious
. To resolve an abstract, theoretical problem of the materialist metaphysics one is forced to project onto the whole of nature a property – namely, consciousness – which observation only allows to be inferred for a tiny subset of it – namely, living beings. This is, in a way, an attempt to make nature conform to theory, as opposed to making theory conform to nature. (Page 19)

ME: Agree on the above
. Panpsychism seems like an easy way out for Ego to stay in charge. "I am generous enough to share this consciousness with everything". I reality, that means a wish for everything to be separate from the whole, not knowing itself. If that were true, we would have confused, depressed, aggressive and debating stuff all around us. The rest of nature would be as lost as we are. Thankfully, it is not.
_______________________________________ 
Insofar as we have no empirical reason to believe that a rock is conscious to any degree whatsoever, we have no reason to believe that Haikonen's machine is conscious. You see, the mere mimicking, in a computer, of the type of information processing that unfolds in the human brain is no reason whatsoever to believe that the computer is conscious. Here is a rather dramatic analogy to make my point clear: I can simulate in a computer all the chemical reactions that take place in human kidneys. Yet, this is no reason to believe that the computer will start peeing on my desk. A simulation of the phenomenon isn't the phenomenon.

ME: If your simulation is done right, the computer will simulate peeing on your desk if it, by its subjective reasoning, computes that peeing on your desk is the right thing to do. You are confusing "simulation" with "action" so the example is of no use.
 _________________________________________________
Some argue that panpsychism isn't necessary to validate the possibility of artificial consciousness. They argue that consciousness is a property only of the brain as a whole, somehow created by its complex network of information associations, not of individual bits of matter. Indeed, as discussed in my book
Brief Peeks Beyond,
Some neuroscientists and philosophers speculate that consciousness is an ‘emergent’ property of the brain. ‘Emergence’ happens when a higher-level property arises from complex interactions of lower-level entities. For instance, the fractal patterns of snowflakes are emergent properties of complex interactions of water molecules. But to merely state that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is rather a cop-out than an explanation. In all known cases of emergence, we can deduce the emergent property from the characteristics of the lower-level entities that give rise to it. For instance, we can deduce the fractal shape of snowflakes from the characteristics of water molecules. We can even accurately simulate the formation of snowflakes in a computer. However, we cannot – not even in principle – deduce what it feels to see red, to be disappointed or to love someone from the mass, charge or momentum of material particles making up the brain. As such, to consider consciousness an emergent property of brains is either an appeal to magic or the mere labeling of an unknown. In both cases, precisely nothing is actually explained. (Page 59)
 
ME: Again, if you don’t know that language/thought is the "Con"-part added to "sciousness", you will not progress. Sensory information is always objective and "true", but relating it to memories/knowledge of past information gives it a relative quality that is not a property of what is actually presented here and now. Language/thought is a learned ability that, of course, requires the physical/organic potential to respond to this conditioning, but it is nothing besides that.
____________________________________________ 
 
Again, we have no reason to believe that computers can give rise to consciousness; only to intelligence.
ME: As most AI-researcher, Haikonen being a potential outlier, have no idea about what intelligence is, they will create neither. They are stuck in designing speedy and correct stupidity, mere tools for actual, human, intelligence.

____________________________________________

The biggest problem with the notion of artificial consciousness is the assumption that, in nature, consciousness is somehow subordinate to matter.

ME: There you go, relating consciousness to matter and vice versa. You have already acquired the basic premise of subjectivity, that everything can only be understood relatively. As consciousness is a particular form of matter, while essentially being same, you will forever be in arguments of more-less, higher-lower, cause-effect, primary-secondary etc etc. That is how intelligence works, that is the basis for all of science. It is to make sense of something that has to be understood by a separate "Knower". You are basically suggesting that "Water" is more than just "molecules of H2O", that there is something "like" water that is different from water. The water-ness of water perhaps. When you have figured that of, whatever this water-ness is, there will be more questions about what it is made of, in which way it is related to "wet" and so on ad infinitum.
Separating self from the physical world is how all reductionism begins. If the Ego is conditioned to assume this primary division, it will keep dividing everything into nothing. It never stops, and it never should. That is the inherent halting problem with intelligence. It never accepts anything as definite truth, it questions everything. Only thing it avoids questioning is its own status and position. Ego will forever point to something not physical and exceptional. As long as it does, it will be hidden. When exposed, as in awakening or samadhi, it is just not there anymore. There is just Experience/Awareness by and of reality itself.
Matter does not rule consciousness the way you/subject thinks. Nor does consciousness rule matter. Water does not rule its molecules, because it IS "molecules". It does not "have" molecules. Nor does your brain "have" a consciousness any more that you consciousness "has" a brain or the brain "has" a body. In reality, the two (million) separated parts are not separate parts at all. They are IT, just as you are IT.
______________________________
Therefore, our feeble attempts to engineer an entity with a private, subjective inner life similar to our own aren't really attempts to create consciousness. Instead, they are attempts to induce dissociation in mind-at-large, so to create alters analogous to ourselves.

ME: Your Ego’s feeble attempts to defend itself as an entity with a private, subjective inner life similar to others are indeed attempts to create consciousness. It is an attempt to induce dissociation in Reality-at-large, so to create alter-Egos analogous to your perceived Self.
 _______________________________________

Based on this understanding, do we have any reason whatsoever to believe that the mere mimicking of the information flow in human brains, no matter how accurate, will ever lead to a new dissociation of mind-at-large? The answer to this question can only be 'yes' if you think the kidney simulation can make the computer urinate. You see, if the only known image of dissociation is metabolism – that is, life – the only reasonable way to go about artificially creating an alter of mind-at-large is to replicate metabolism itself. For all practical purposes, dissociation is metabolism; there is no reason to believe it is anything else. As such, the quest for artificial consciousness is, in fact, one and the same with the quest for creating life from non-life.
ME: There you go again, dissociation IS metabolism, and metabolism IS life. Objectively, there is no reason to believe in anything your subjective Ego tells you about objective reality, simply because it will never be anything but relative truth.
Whatever anyone tries to create, it is being created within a bigger picture. There is no free will, no agency besides my Egos acute sense of acting as if a separate agent of free will.
This whole argument of Mr. Kastrup falls prey to that prevailing illusion.
_______________________________

The computer engineer's dream of birthing a conscious child into the world without the messiness and fragility of life is an infantile delusion; a confused, partial, distorted projection of archetypal images and drives. It is the expression of the male's hidden aspiration for the female's divine power of creation. It represents a confused attempt to transcend the deep-seated fear of one's own nature as a living, breathing entity condemned to death from birth. It embodies a misguided and utterly useless search for the eternal, motivated only by one's amnesia of one's own true nature. The fable of artificial consciousness is the imaginary bandaid sought to cover the engineer's wound of ignorance.
I have been this engineer.
 
Or so the Ego says, in fear of knowing the truth. Ego wants the "divine power of creation" so badly. Sorry Buddy, we’re all done.
For the benefit of all.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Quantum Confusion by Michio Kaku

To massage my Ego and feel superior, I sometimes read what science experts has to say about mind, intelligence and consciousness. Todays belly laugh is on Professor M. Kaku.
MK: In my book, I give an entirely new definition of consciousness which describes the consciousness of animals and human alike. My theory is testable, reproducible, falsifiable, and even measurable. This definition in particular focuses on the consciousness of animals and humans. However, there is also another type of consciousness, which is sometimes called cosmic consciousness, which goes to the heart of the quantum theory (my specialty). It is so sensitive that even Nobel Laureates today are not in uniform agreement. Basically, the quantum theory (which I teach to our grad students, and which is the most successful physical theory of all time) says that you have make an observation to determine the state of any object (e.g., atoms, electrons, laser beams). Before you observe something, it exists in a never-never-land world, being neither here nor there. (For example, this means that a cat in a closed box is neither dead nor alive in this nether state, before it is observed.) But once you make an observation, you know precisely the state of the cat (e.g., it is alive.) So, in some sense, an observation was necessary for the cat to exist. But observations imply consciousness. Only conscious beings can make an observation. Hence, it seems that consciousness is more fundamental that reality, and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist. The greatest minds of science have struggled with this question, without a final resolution. But in my book, I give you a critique of the various bizarre solutions that have been proposed. As J.B.S. Haldane once said, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.
So this is what the Self throws my way. This is the State of the Art of Consciousness?

1) Humans are animals
2) Only human animals have a relative perspective attached to sensoric input. Therefore, only I "have" Con sciousness i.e. I "am" Conscious, and in this we are forever con/fusing ownership with being.
3) To MK and other ignorant intellectual minds, there will always be "also Another type of...". If you by chance realize any of my points, you will know that this is what intelligence does; when observing one, it divides, when observing two it unites. MK is of course no exception, neither is You.
4) It is sensitive because it is at the heart of intelligence imploding on its Self. The wise guys can sense this, but they do not know how to make sense of this vague input. Sensitive implicates importance that is not intellectual but more visceral.
5) The most successful theory gets some product placement. That is important, so the reader knows that what MK says is based on Success. Remember that Truth and Pragmatism are not same.
6) The rest is a tour de force in dualism and mistaken causality. It is obvious, not to you but to me, that MK believes there has to be ears in the forest for change in air pressure to actually occur when the tree falls. If you know anything about human perception and physics, you know that "sound" requires the faculty of "hearing", that outside the faculty of hearing, there is just change in air pressure/Waves and thus, that sound is relative to hearing. The physical reality of change not related to the faculty of hearing (air pressure) is independent of hearing, while the mind response (sound) is dependent.

Sometimes I sense urgency in explaining reality. It is like we're almost there. When I read stuff like the above, I relax. If MK represents the avantgarde of science, we have a long way to go.
Still, all it takes is a change of perspective, and all he says will be crystal clear. MK is virtually right and would be absolutely right if he looked to the left.
Forward searching for truth can only progress with re-searching backwards.
For now, MK is totally stuck.
Good luck.

0112 is Emc2 backwards, know That and You 2 will C Me.
It's all a yoke ;)

Sunday, May 10, 2015

The dark candle forever shines

I am invicible to s/he who see me from the one way
I am invicible for those who see me from the others way
That is: one is wrong, two are wrong
Not one, not two

To see me is to move me
I am forced mass
Enlightened

Without light I am
but massive force
dead to myself

Light is Life
within massive force
Enlightened

Forced Mass Elightened is: 2cmE as Emc2
This is That as That is This
What we are is how we came here
Be-ing as Be-coming

Enlightenment is forced into being by
That as forced into being Enlightenment

Darkness is not an option of light
It is the essence of accidental existence
___________________________________________________

Explaining poetry is not possible, because poetry is the explanation. Poetry is reality responding to itself, just as scientific prose is. Different birds sings differently, but the song remains the same.
If E=mc2 is truth, the only way to know it correctly is changing the perspective. If E=mc2 is what we have right now, the opposit is how we got it.
God is the one Dice of Three sides: emc/ecm/cme/cem/mec/mce
God is the playing of Three faces, creating One reality
God is the exponential effect of times, the equalizer of the Three.
The energy-quality of = is the 2.
Density is mass is force is energy is velocity is the speed of light
M is E is C, where C is the thing as thing-ing, that moving quality of being, the being as coming.
There is no be-going as we lose nothing. Nothing is not real. That is the law of preservation.
Reality is a safe haven for existence. Once enlightened, it shines forever.
We are that.

Friday, May 8, 2015

Waves on the phase of water

Think of data flow as waves on water. Water is a unitary phase of matter with the qualities of "water". The qualities of the particular water phase is determined by the totality of qualities in the single bits of data within the phase.
When another particular phase of matter, say a "rock", is phasing /moving onto the water, the data in the rock-phase is input in the water-phase. The response is mutually dependent as the phasing of both to each other is both input and output. The effect/response in water is waves. The waves is the phasing of the water-phase as it phases the rock-data.
The rock-phase response is decreased velocity. The loss of velocity is the rock-phasing water-data.

Bit + Bit = Phase
Phasing is the velocity within and between phases of bits.

Phases phasing phases is Everything.
That is your Original Face

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Data Flow is the Theory of Everything

Forget about spacetime or pretend to not care about spacetime.
Nevermind the Dimensions
Here's the Measurements
- Density of a current
- of Current Density
If those are measured, then there is rate of Velocity.

Therefore: "Spacetime" resides in states of phasing matter. Space is where phasing matter is of low density. Time is how matter phases towards increased or decreased densities.

Consequence: Everything is the velocity of data corresponding to density and currency as one universal unit of phasing matter with the two inherent properties of density and currency. Currency is energy, Density is mass and Velocity is the speed of light.  

In AI terms: DensityCurrency is the input, Velocity is the output. In the open system of absoulte reality, input cannot be separate from output. Any discrete unit of data, as one object, is one unit of inout-data.
Ergo, if measured as being separate/discrete, the function of data obtained, as causing by output and effected by input, is not in the results of measurement. Solid data is therefore relative by default. By the same token, relative data is the only solid data. 

This would be a wild hypothesis in physics to most, if not all. That is 100% correct. I agree.
It IS wild.
It IS a hypothesis.
It IS physics.
But it is NOT lame, factual and metaphysical.

The relevance for the field of AI is, from my perspective as non-AI scientist, that:
1) AI science primarily deals with data as basic units for theory, observation, experiment and application.
2) Knowing what you are doing science with is good for progress.
3) Knowing that your basic units of science is all there is might just be very good for progress.

I don't expect anyone, besides perhaps Dalai Lama and the Tantric's, to actually believe that the above hypothesis is reasonable, beacuse it is not. It comes not from reasoning alone, but reasoning based on unreasonable experience. Those guys know of such unreasonable experience and so do I.
The hypothesis might be phrased, by me as a layman, in terms that are not correctly defined or applied in correspondence with expertise. I'm aware of that possibility, but cannot change this possible distortion on my own. Until expertise objects and we properly revise the wording, it stands alone, as it is.

There are some further consequences of this which I'm currently trying to formulate. I'm not sure about how to tell you there is no gravity. Maybe if you ponder the hypo some, you'll find out for yourself.
To revise a basic premise of everything has the effect of being one IF generating numerous THEN's.
If the above is true, then ! then! then! then! ad infinitum. If you state the one right question, then there will be all of the answers in that one question. That is the paradox of science, isn't it?
Asking the right question leads to the true answers.
If answers are true, they are indisputable.
Indisputable statements prevents generation of further questions.
Science is about generating new hypothesies that can be supported or contested by experimental data.
Science dies with knowing the absolute truth.

To quote Fats Domino "Ain't that a shame?"   

Inside the outside of the Black Box

 
The black box-theory is a good one. It is simple enough to be useful in understanding how the mind operates intelligently. I will probably use it myself. But there is one problem attached to it, a big one.
If I’ve understood it correctly, the BB-theory builds on the premise that input and output is inherently distinct. With computers, that seems reasonable. When pressing "A" we want the processor to perceive "A", not "42" or "gradda" or "whatever". If we put in "A", that must be the input BB gets.
But this is not the nature of the input mind receives. Awareness (see end note 1) is never of one single, separate unit of input data. Awareness is always of a unified context, a whole with parts in it, as parts within a whole. We cannot perceive reality in any other way (see end note 2). We never perceive a single "A", even if "A" is exactly what we perceive. See the difference?

Input is discrete in the sense of "A" will always be "A" in itself. But since "A" never comes alone, the meaning of "A" is relative to other distinct input perceived in the context of "A". Think about it and you will know that this is also true for artificial systems. The input of "A" will not produce a meaningful output if "A" is unrelated to other data. If so, the only possible output is the re-presentation of "A", say "a" or "Ei". In this case, BB doesn’t know anything about/around "A" to make intelligent use of the input. All BB knows is "A". I refer to that as objective, or absolute knowledge. It is knowing this as it is, producing output "this is this". So asking BB "What is A", you get "wHAT is a".
But if "A" comes with "s" we get "As", and suddenly there is meaning to it. "A" becomes "part of a word similar to like". Likewise, the distinct property of "s" gets is meaning from its contextual relation to "A". The two "A" and "s" becomes, by means of being contextually related, the one "As". Were the context of "A" instead "sk", "A" would become "part of a word similar to question".

To outline this process in detail is not possible within a single blog-post. I will come back to it over and over again, because this is extremely important if you want to know intelligence correctly. A full description of how the BB of mind converts discrete units of input into dynamic patterns of related data can be found via the links. I will point out that, although some say Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is inherently difficult and hard to get, it is an extremely simple theory if you approach it from an objective perspective. If you hold, as your basic premise, that there is no causality involved, that all events are responses to a context of multiple responding, then there is no problem at all. If you assume that there is no separate unit of function, no subjective agent doing anything, then there will be no missing pieces in your understanding. It is completely understandable. The paradox is, to explain what is inherently simple, you need a lot of words. That is why the so called sages and mystics believes that truth is impossible to speak of. Truth is so simple it is best expressed in silence. As for me, I just can’t keep my big mouth shut. That is because "I" cannot control my "self". What I do is in fact just responding in relation to relative data.
What I get is what you get!
Geddit?

The bigger problem with the BB-theory is the basic premise underlying all of scientific method i.e. the hypothesis of causal relations. If it were only a hypothesis, there would be hope, but to me it seems more like an a priori assumption everyone must agree on. If you disagree, as I do, none of your statements will be considered relevant. But for now, that is a bit off topic. I will deal with causality elsewhere. There is nothing happening beside contextual responding to responding in context.
Full stop.
 
https://contextualscience.org/system/files/IntroRFT_0.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731367/pdf/behavan00011-0071.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779078/pdf/anvb-25-01-87.pdf
 
  1. Awareness is the momentary totality of input eliciting, as a response, distinct patterns of neuronal firing strong enough to be among the approximately 5 patterns that make up momentary awareness.

  2. The only other way is by either con-centration or de-centration of awareness, as in the two basic methods of meditation.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

The re-membering of members in memory

Memory is not that separate from awareness. In fact, it is the other end of the same stick.  Perceived now is membered as related to perceived then. Perceived then is thereby re-membered together with the similarity in perceived now.
Back and forth the percepts go.
Membered is remembered and the matrix of units, pairs, classes, concepts and most of all, their relations grows continously.
More input when awake and perceptive.
More remembering and internal affairs when less awake. But both are active 24/7.
This means storing and recall of memory flows more or less constantly, as modes or instances of one single function.

We perceive as we know
We know as we perceive
Knowledge of the present is based on the past. Re-membering the past is based on the present.

Is this possible to understand?
Ask me how,  why or what.
I know that.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

No master, only puppets

I say: You are a puppet on the strings of reality. The strings of reality are also puppets. You are not an independent agent.
You say: I refuse to be seen as a puppet! If I was, you could pull my strings and have me do whatever you like.
I say: Believe it or not, but I am also a part of reality.
You say: Sure you are, that's why I reallywon't have you pulling any strings on me.
I say: What I mean is that I'm a puppet, exactly like you.
You say: If so, it wouldn't make a difference as long as your "puppeting" around pulls my strings.
I say: Since we're both equally "puppy", we're both being pulled around. Don't you see that?
You say: Ahhh, so that is how the gov's and institutions manipulate us. They have this secret knowledge with which they control the masses. Thanks for telling me.
I say: But they are puppets just like you and me. They are not in control of anything. They just dance around to the strings of reality.
You say: But there must be some kind of governing behind this. Who or what is the Master of Puppets?
I say: Everything is the Master of Puppets.
You say: Then who or what is "everything"?
I say: Everything is everything pushing everything around. It is called kinetic energy. It is in everything.
You say: I don't get it...
I say: You will never "get it" because you already have it. Look for it and you won't see it.
You say: Now you are pushing me around, pulling my strings.
I say: Sorry, but I had to.
You say: But why?
I say: How could I know?

Jig-saw science

If a whole paradigm is based on a flawed premise, what happens to all of its statements? To be coherent within the paradigm and true to the given premise, they all need to be systematically flawed of course!

I always feel like a jerk when reading scientific papers. I feel disrespectful and nonchalant. Usually I only get halfway through the abstract when the thought of being a no good Mr. Know-it-all pops up. By then, I've figured out what will inevitably follow, and so far my predictions have always been correct. Not that I question the content, the observations or the technicalities within the articles. On that level, what I read is likely to be way over my questinable intelligence. What I predict is that the conclusions will be flawed, that the data presented will be interpreted incorrectly. Or rather, the conclusions and interpretations will be correct in reference to the basic premise(s), and most of all, it will always be material for further research. It will elicit more questioning, new theories and more conceptualization. If done right, the effort made will maintain the need for more effort. The more we research, the more research is to be done.

If science was about telling the truth, this is not how one would imagines the state of affairs to be. As truth(s) were discovered, the need for more searching would decrease. Why look deeper into something you have already figured out? But, science is not about that. It is about generating "new" knowledge, not neccecarily "true" knowledge. Therefore, a flawed basic premise can be kept for as long as it generates statements that generates statements that ...
If the basic premise was corrected to be absolutely true instead of relatively true, we would soon hit the research rock bottom. We would instantly find ourselves on solid, immovable ground. Standing there, the compulsive searching for answers decrease dramatically. There is no uncertainty principle, no hidden substance, no mistaken identity. As I happen to know in what way the basic premise is flawed, this is what happens; I read, I detect implications of "agency" and "causality", I see confusion of "data" and "concepts", so I jump to summary and think "No, not that".

Now, I suppose most people think that a correction of premise(s) calls for us to start all over. I assume there is an idea of questioning the premise(s) will render all our current knowledge obsolete and even "useless". If that is what we believe, I fully understand the obvious resistance to consider this change. Not least within the academic community, right?
Here's the good news: all current knowledge is relatively correct. It need not be done again or in any particulary "new" fashion. It can be left as it stands. What a correction of the basic premise(s) will do is changing our perspective as we look at our knowledge. Changing perspective will alter the way we interpret our questions as well as answers. We will come to understand the nature of our knowledge. We will know what we know, and why we know it. That opens up for discussing what to do with it.

Imagine research as putting pieces together in a jig-saw puzzle. The more pieces we fit into the puzzle, the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets, the more images we detect. This is how knowledge seem to expand, and there is nothing within the picture pointing to any existing boundary of this knowledge. There are no frame pieces with straight edges. Our picture is vast and expanding and it is by all means beautiful and awesome. Why would anyone even consider ending this activity of building knowledge?
Someone could ask "What is it that can never be seen in this picture? This is the puzzeling question. This is the question about puzzeling.

One perspective in looking at the puzzle/picture is of the one fitting the pieces together.
One is of just seeing all of it, as it is, as it happens.

When you can read the writer as well as the written, you will know both equally well. There is no need to rewrite anything. There is a need to re-read what's already in front of our eyes, to re-hear our stories and to reconsider our considerations.
After seeing the whole puzzeling aspect of existence, not just the puzzle, there is nothing wrong in continuing with the jig-saw. It is "just" a map, but in order to move in the terrain of reality, a good map is of great use. It is because we are puzzeling in this way that humans are so efficiently navigating the environment. How could that be wrong?
Ok, it can lead to negative consequences if we are not aware of who we are and what we're doing. If we confuse the picture with the terrain and, most of all, if we keep our true self out of the picture and keep believing we are nothing but a self-image in a big picture.

Monday, May 4, 2015

No zero in reality

Binary data is of either 1 or 0. That's an efficient and stringent system language. In reality no info is of zero value
There is only various degrees of 1. 1 never dissapears. There is no subtraction. No nothing. When not of any 1 form, information is 1 of potential. Mind can only respond to actualized information/input, therefore 1 of potential is believed to be 0. This 0 is the matter of faith.
When designing AI, this must be known. Otherwise AI will not correspond with reality.