Huffington Post article on 8 subconscious behaviors that keep people from living their lives they want to live:
Every generation has a "monoculture" of sorts, a governing pattern or
system of beliefs that people unconsciously accept as "truth." It's
easy to identify the monoculture of Germany in the 1930s, or America in
1776. It's clear what people at those times, in those places, accepted
to be "good" and "true" even when in reality, that was certainly not
always the case.
The objectivity required to see the effects of
present monoculture is very difficult to maintain (once you have so
deeply accepted an idea as 'truth' it doesn't register as 'cultural' or
'subjective' anymore) ... but it's crucial. So much of our inner turmoil
is simply the result of conducting a life we don't inherently agree
with, because we have accepted an inner narrative of "normal" and
"ideal" without ever realizing.
The fundamentals of any given
monoculture tend to surround how to live your best life, how to live a
better life, and what's most worth living for (nation, religion, self,
etc.) and there are a number of ways in which our current system has us
shooting ourselves in the feet as we try to step forward. Simply, there
are a few fundamentals on happiness, decision making, instinct following
and peace finding that we don't seem to understand.
So here, eight of the daily behaviors and unconscious habits that are keeping you from the life you really want.
1.
You believe that creating your best possible life is a matter of
deciding what you want and then going after it, but in reality, you are
psychologically incapable of being able to predict what will make you
happy.
Your brain can only perceive what it has known, so when you choose what you want for the future, you're actually just
re-creating a solution or an ideal of the past. Ironically, when said
ideas don't come to fruition (things never look the way we think they
will) you suffer, because you think you've failed, when really, you're
most likely experiencing something better than you could have chosen for
yourself at the time. (Moral of the story: Living in the moment isn't a
lofty ideal reserved for the zen and enlightened, it's the only way to
live a life that isn't infiltrated with illusions... it's the only thing
your brain can actually comprehend.)
2. You extrapolate
the present moment because you believe that success is somewhere you
"arrive," so you are constantly trying to take a snapshot of your life
and see if you can be happy yet.
You accidentally
convince yourself that any given moment is your life, when in reality,
it is a moment in your life. Because we're wired to believe that success
is somewhere we get to - when goals are accomplished and things are
completed - we're constantly measuring our present moments by how
"finished" they are, how good the story sounds, how someone else would
judge the summary. (If at any point you find yourself thinking: "is this
all there is?" you're forgetting that everything is transitory. There
is nowhere to "arrive" at. The only thing you're rushing toward is
death. Accomplishing goals is not success. How much you learn and enjoy
and expand in the process of doing them is.)
3. You assume that when it comes to following your "gut instincts," happiness is "good," and fear and pain is "bad."
When
you consider doing something that you truly love and are invested in,
you are going to feel an influx of fear and pain, mostly because it will
involve being vulnerable. When it comes to making decisions, you have
to know that bad feelings are not deterrents. They are indicators that
you want to do something, but it scares you (which are the things most
worth doing, if you ask me). Not wanting to do something would make you
feel indifferent about it. Fear = interest.
4. You needlessly create problems and crises in your life because you're afraid of actually living it.
The
pattern of unnecessarily creating crisis in your life is actually an
avoidance technique. It distracts you from actually having to be
vulnerable or held accountable or whatever it is you're afraid of.
You're never upset for the reason you think you are: at the core of your
desire to create a problem is simply the fear of being who you are, and
living the life you want.
5. You think that to change
your beliefs, you have to adopt a new line of thinking, rather than seek
experiences that make that thinking self-evident.
A
belief is what you know to be true because experience has made it
evident to you. If you want to change your life, change your beliefs. If
you want to change your beliefs, go out and have experiences that make
them real to you. Not the opposite way around.
6. You think "problems" are road blocks to achieving what you want, when in reality, they are pathways.
If
you haven't heard it before, Marcus Aurelius sums this up well: "The
impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the
way." Ryan Holiday explains it even more gracefully: "The obstacle is the way."Simply, running into a "problem" forces you to take action to resolve
it. That action leads you down the path you had ultimately intended to
go anyway, as the only "problems" in your life ultimately come down to
how you resist who you are and how your life naturally unfolds.
7.
You think your past defines you, and worse, you think that it is an
unchangeable reality, when really, your perception of it changes as you
do.
Because experience is always multi-dimensional,
there are a variety of memories, experiences, feelings, "gists" you can
choose to recall... and what you choose is indicative of your present
state of mind. So many people get caught up in allowing the past to
define them, or haunt them, simply because they have not evolved to the
place of seeing how the past did not prevent them from achieving the
life they want... it facilitated it (see: the obstacle is the way). This
doesn't mean to disregard or gloss over painful or traumatic events,
but simply to be able to recall them with acceptance and to be able to
place them in the storyline of your personal evolution.
8.
You try to change other people, situations and things (or you just
complain/get upset about them) when anger = self-recognition.
Most
negative emotional reactions are you identifying a disassociated aspect
of yourself. Your "shadow selves" are the parts of you that, at some
point, you were conditioned to believe were "not okay," so you
suppressed them and have done everything in your power not to
acknowledge them. You don't actually dislike these parts of yourself,
though, you absolutely love them. So when you see somebody else
displaying one of these traits, it absolutely infuriates you, not
because you inherently dislike it, but because you have to fight your
desire to fully integrate it into your whole consciousness. The things
you love about others are the things you love about yourself. The things
you hate about others are the things you cannot see in yourself.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
SOCIAL DEATH
In 1993, social psychologist Craig Haney began studying the effects of solitary confinement at Pelican Bay State
Prison in California, one of the first "super-max" prisons in the
country.
Twenty years later, he went back to gather more information — and found many of the same inmates still suffering alone in their cells.
"It was shocking, frankly," Haney, a professor in the psychology department at the University of California Santa Cruz, recently told The New York Times.
Despite not being peer reviewed as a formal study yet, Haney's interviewed of 56 prisoners, all of whom spent between 10 and 28 years in solitary confinement.
The results provide the most comprehensive look at the effects of long-term solitary confinement yet, according to the Times.
An estimated 75,000 prisoners across the US live in Special Housing Units, also known as the SHU — what the Federal Bureau of Prisons calls solitary confinement. There, they spend up to 23 hours locked in cells often no larger than the span of their outstretched arms with little to no interaction with others.
During their few precious hours free from bars, they shower, exercise, and tend to their medical needs, still often alone.
In such extreme isolation for years, the prisoners Haney interviewed at Pelican Bay experienced what he calls a "social death."
“They were grieving for their lost lives, for their loss of connectedness to the social world and their families outside, and also for their lost selves,” Haney told the Times. “Most of them really did understand that they had lost who they were, and weren’t sure of who they had become."
The inmates describe the experience much more viscerally.
One compared Pelican Bay's solitary confinement wing to "a weapons labs or a place for human experiments," the Times reported. Another admitted he imagines his family watching TV with him and talks to them.
"Maybe I'm crazy, but it makes me feel like I'm with them," the inmate told Haney, according to the Times.
Yet another had considered begging a judge for the death penalty.
In 1993, the inmates Haney interviewed reported high rates of psychiatric issues, like depression and irrational anger and even confusion and dizziness.
When Haney returned to Pelican Bay in 2013, according to the Times, the prisoner's conditions hadn't improved.
Sixty-three percent of the inmates in solitary for more than 10 years told Haney they felt near an "impending breakdown," the Times reported.
By contrast, only 4% of the regular inmates at the maximum security facility described themselves in the same manner. And 73% of solitary prisoners reported being chronically depressed, compared to 48% of maximum-security inmates.
Prolonged depression has been linked to the shrinkage of the brain's hippocampus, an area of the brain that helps us form new memories, process long-term memories, and link emotions to those memories.
Ian Hickie, the co-director of the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Research Institute, helped lead the largest international study comparing brain volumes in people with and without major depression. The study, published in June 2015, found that "more episodes of depression a person had, the greater the reduction in hippocampus size," he told The Guardian newspaper.
Aside from depression, the lack of physical activity, social interaction, or natural sunlight in solitary would likely be enough to cause a person harm, explained, Haney. "Each one is sufficient enough to change the brain and change it dramatically, whether it is brief or extended. And when I say extended, I mean days, not decades," he said.
While these studies show that isolation in a prison setting can cause severe mental and emotional problems, when we examine LOST's foundational story lines that have the basis in severe emotional and mental issues, one can see a link between the two.
Isolation does not have to come from prison confinement. At times, people create their own prisons. They withdraw from the world; hide in their own homes; remove contact with friends and family members. In such a situation, their mind preys upon their anxieties, fears, phobias and disillusions about how bad their life has become because of X, Y or Z reasons.
Normal human beings live life. They work, try, fail, learn and try again. But those people trapped in their own mental prisons create the illusion of a real life because they cannot experience a real one. And this illusion based on past memories can be as vivid as reality itself.
So, even non-institutional people can create their own "social death." People are grieving for their lost lives, for their loss of connectedness to the social world and their families outside, and also for their lost selves. That sounds like the foundational story engine for the LOST series.
Twenty years later, he went back to gather more information — and found many of the same inmates still suffering alone in their cells.
"It was shocking, frankly," Haney, a professor in the psychology department at the University of California Santa Cruz, recently told The New York Times.
Despite not being peer reviewed as a formal study yet, Haney's interviewed of 56 prisoners, all of whom spent between 10 and 28 years in solitary confinement.
The results provide the most comprehensive look at the effects of long-term solitary confinement yet, according to the Times.
An estimated 75,000 prisoners across the US live in Special Housing Units, also known as the SHU — what the Federal Bureau of Prisons calls solitary confinement. There, they spend up to 23 hours locked in cells often no larger than the span of their outstretched arms with little to no interaction with others.
During their few precious hours free from bars, they shower, exercise, and tend to their medical needs, still often alone.
In such extreme isolation for years, the prisoners Haney interviewed at Pelican Bay experienced what he calls a "social death."
“They were grieving for their lost lives, for their loss of connectedness to the social world and their families outside, and also for their lost selves,” Haney told the Times. “Most of them really did understand that they had lost who they were, and weren’t sure of who they had become."
The inmates describe the experience much more viscerally.
One compared Pelican Bay's solitary confinement wing to "a weapons labs or a place for human experiments," the Times reported. Another admitted he imagines his family watching TV with him and talks to them.
"Maybe I'm crazy, but it makes me feel like I'm with them," the inmate told Haney, according to the Times.
Yet another had considered begging a judge for the death penalty.
In 1993, the inmates Haney interviewed reported high rates of psychiatric issues, like depression and irrational anger and even confusion and dizziness.
When Haney returned to Pelican Bay in 2013, according to the Times, the prisoner's conditions hadn't improved.
Sixty-three percent of the inmates in solitary for more than 10 years told Haney they felt near an "impending breakdown," the Times reported.
By contrast, only 4% of the regular inmates at the maximum security facility described themselves in the same manner. And 73% of solitary prisoners reported being chronically depressed, compared to 48% of maximum-security inmates.
Prolonged depression has been linked to the shrinkage of the brain's hippocampus, an area of the brain that helps us form new memories, process long-term memories, and link emotions to those memories.
Ian Hickie, the co-director of the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Research Institute, helped lead the largest international study comparing brain volumes in people with and without major depression. The study, published in June 2015, found that "more episodes of depression a person had, the greater the reduction in hippocampus size," he told The Guardian newspaper.
Aside from depression, the lack of physical activity, social interaction, or natural sunlight in solitary would likely be enough to cause a person harm, explained, Haney. "Each one is sufficient enough to change the brain and change it dramatically, whether it is brief or extended. And when I say extended, I mean days, not decades," he said.
While these studies show that isolation in a prison setting can cause severe mental and emotional problems, when we examine LOST's foundational story lines that have the basis in severe emotional and mental issues, one can see a link between the two.
Isolation does not have to come from prison confinement. At times, people create their own prisons. They withdraw from the world; hide in their own homes; remove contact with friends and family members. In such a situation, their mind preys upon their anxieties, fears, phobias and disillusions about how bad their life has become because of X, Y or Z reasons.
Normal human beings live life. They work, try, fail, learn and try again. But those people trapped in their own mental prisons create the illusion of a real life because they cannot experience a real one. And this illusion based on past memories can be as vivid as reality itself.
So, even non-institutional people can create their own "social death." People are grieving for their lost lives, for their loss of connectedness to the social world and their families outside, and also for their lost selves. That sounds like the foundational story engine for the LOST series.
Monday, August 10, 2015
WHOLE WORLD SIMULATION PART THREE
MNN.com reports that scientists have been baffled by a new cosmic discovery.
The sheer size of our universe is just about unfathomable, so you can imagine the surprise that researchers must have experienced when they recently discovered a structure within our known universe that measures 5 billion light years across. That's more than one-ninth the size of the entire observable universe, and by far the largest structure ever discovered by Earth scientists.
The mysterious structure is so colossal that it could shatter our current understanding of how the universe operates in size and shape.
“If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe,” said Lajos Balazs, lead author on the paper. “It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don’t quite understand how it came to exist at all.”
Just what is this massive structure? It's not a single, physical object, but rather a cluster of nine massive galaxies bound together gravitationally, much like how our Milky Way is part of a cluster of galaxies. It was discovered after researchers identified a ring of nine gamma ray bursts (GRBs) that appeared to be at very similar distances from us, each around 7 billion light years away.
GRBs are the brightest electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe, caused by a supernova. Their detection typically indicates the presence of a galaxy, so all of the GRBs in this ring are believed to each come from a different galaxy. But their close proximity to one another suggests that these galaxies must be linked together. There is only a 1 in 20,000 probability of the GRBs being in this distribution by chance.
A mega-cluster of this size shouldn't be possible, at least not if you think in terms of our current theories. Those theories predict that the universe ought to be relatively uniform on the largest scales, meaning that the sizes of structures shouldn't vary by much. In fact, the theoretical limit to structure size has been calculated at around 1.2 billion light years across.
If the Hungarian-American team's calculations are correct, then this giant new structure-- which measures in at over 5 billion light years across — would blow that classic model out of the water. In fact, either the researchers' calculations are wrong on this, or scientists will need to radically revise their theories on the evolution of the cosmos.
This discovery reminds us just how small our view of the universe really is and what it contains.
One can apply this new discovery to our recent discussion of our world being a simulation from higher species far, far, far away in space. If we are allowed to break through the fourth wall of our current illusion to find the reality of our existence, then this massive GRB, an electromagnetic event, could be the "projector" of all we know, understand and feel in our lives.
As Daniel observed, the electromagnetics of the island were "off." He could not explain it, but perhaps this was the focal point for the data stream from outside our world. In essence, the island would be the "router" of the illusion we call reality through our world. The light source is our planetary projector which provides us with all the elements of life.
But why would a higher intelligence beam an illusion to Earth? Perhaps, it is a method of augmented reality - - - overlaying additional information inside the heads of lower species. Whether that augmentation is supposed to help raise the consciousness of mankind or hinder its progress is a debate for another day. But it does fit into the notion that human beings, as biochemical computers, could be constantly fed "firmware" updates from their programmers (creators).
The sheer size of our universe is just about unfathomable, so you can imagine the surprise that researchers must have experienced when they recently discovered a structure within our known universe that measures 5 billion light years across. That's more than one-ninth the size of the entire observable universe, and by far the largest structure ever discovered by Earth scientists.
The mysterious structure is so colossal that it could shatter our current understanding of how the universe operates in size and shape.
“If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe,” said Lajos Balazs, lead author on the paper. “It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don’t quite understand how it came to exist at all.”
Just what is this massive structure? It's not a single, physical object, but rather a cluster of nine massive galaxies bound together gravitationally, much like how our Milky Way is part of a cluster of galaxies. It was discovered after researchers identified a ring of nine gamma ray bursts (GRBs) that appeared to be at very similar distances from us, each around 7 billion light years away.
GRBs are the brightest electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe, caused by a supernova. Their detection typically indicates the presence of a galaxy, so all of the GRBs in this ring are believed to each come from a different galaxy. But their close proximity to one another suggests that these galaxies must be linked together. There is only a 1 in 20,000 probability of the GRBs being in this distribution by chance.
A mega-cluster of this size shouldn't be possible, at least not if you think in terms of our current theories. Those theories predict that the universe ought to be relatively uniform on the largest scales, meaning that the sizes of structures shouldn't vary by much. In fact, the theoretical limit to structure size has been calculated at around 1.2 billion light years across.
If the Hungarian-American team's calculations are correct, then this giant new structure-- which measures in at over 5 billion light years across — would blow that classic model out of the water. In fact, either the researchers' calculations are wrong on this, or scientists will need to radically revise their theories on the evolution of the cosmos.
This discovery reminds us just how small our view of the universe really is and what it contains.
One can apply this new discovery to our recent discussion of our world being a simulation from higher species far, far, far away in space. If we are allowed to break through the fourth wall of our current illusion to find the reality of our existence, then this massive GRB, an electromagnetic event, could be the "projector" of all we know, understand and feel in our lives.
As Daniel observed, the electromagnetics of the island were "off." He could not explain it, but perhaps this was the focal point for the data stream from outside our world. In essence, the island would be the "router" of the illusion we call reality through our world. The light source is our planetary projector which provides us with all the elements of life.
But why would a higher intelligence beam an illusion to Earth? Perhaps, it is a method of augmented reality - - - overlaying additional information inside the heads of lower species. Whether that augmentation is supposed to help raise the consciousness of mankind or hinder its progress is a debate for another day. But it does fit into the notion that human beings, as biochemical computers, could be constantly fed "firmware" updates from their programmers (creators).
Saturday, August 8, 2015
WHOLE WORLD SIMULATION PART TWO
There was a fan theory that LOST was just an elaborate computer game. The main characters were merely avatars in computer worlds (which do not have to conform to science, laws of physics or even continuity). Most fans discounted the game theory notion because the series had live actors so it seemed real.
But for a long time, scientists and philosophers have debated our own understanding of the world around us. There has been some traction that everything we know may just be part of a Matrix-style simulation, according to physicists who claim that we could all be part of a giant GAME.
A new theory has suggested that our entire lives and memories may not be real, instead being part of a computer program played by advanced robots, according to Yahoo News article.
The so-called ‘simulation argument’ has been theorized for several years, with noted academics including Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, suggesting that the plot of The Matrix could be closer to real life than we think.
In the sci-fi classic, humans are bred in vats that are fed with simulations that make them believe they are living an ordinary life. Scientists say that we could all be living in the future, and our life in 2015 is nothing more than a series of numbers in a computer program.
It may sound like science fiction but scientists believe they may actually be able to PROVE that what you know isn’t what you know.
Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of artificial intelligence (AI) thinks that there may be tell-tale signs if the programmer of our mass simulation “has made some slips."
He said that some laws of physics that “aren’t quite right” could be the start of being able to prove that the universe is a simulation.
Silas Beane, from the University of Bonn, suggested several years ago that if humans were to build a small-sale simulation of the universe we would be able to identify any constraints. These constraints would include a cut-off in the spectrum of high energy particles - exactly the kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic rays. This would be the start of proving that our universe is not what it seems - and that it is part of a giant construct.
This is an interesting notion because of Daniel's express comments when he arrived at the island, that the light "acted differently" and the spectrum was off. This could be the biggest clue that the island itself was not what we viewed it as, but as another construct (with various other theories such as alternative dimension, time loop, mini-worm hole, alien space craft, different planet through a cosmic gateway, etc.)
These theories are not the first time that humans have debated whether we are actually real - French philosopher Rene Descartes theorized that nothing we perceive is true except our consciousness being aware of itself and its doubts - which is how the phrase ‘I think, therefore I am’ came about.
However, some believe that our own thoughts can also be part of a simulation or program that is being controlled by robots or aliens. The concept of "free will" may be artificial intelligence programming that allows people "choices" from various sets of rational, irrational, logical, illogical, emotional, intellectual, etc.
But what about us as human beings? In the U.S.-U.K series Humans, android AI robots called synths look and act like human beings but they are just complex machines. They are called synths because that is what they are programmed to be; so there is no reason why artificial intelligent machines could be called "humans."
But then what about our own perceptions and senses, like touch, smell, vision? Again, in theory we occupy three dimensional space because that is what our brains process as three dimensional space. WE touch, hold, feel objects because our brain processes the tactile responses from the sensors in our hands and fingertips. At its core, that is merely data being processed by an organic computer module which automatically sends back feedback in the form of conscious recognition of touch, smell or imagines of the world around us.
It does put an introspective question to any human being. What is our true reality?
We may be organic beings, but could some other advanced civilization have created organic computing machines? We could be nanobots in a different universe. There is a basis for that belief because every time a scientist puts a prepared glass plate under a microscope, he will find an invisible world of microbes and viruses which have no perception of our world view. So, logically, in some other world view, we are microbes and viruses to another alien world.
Even our current generation of video games have graphics that begin to rival HD movie films. So the idea that perception is reality is something that everyone thinks about daily at a subconscious level. It is when it reaches a conscious level discussion that things get strange.
In a logic program, the smoke monster may have been not a security system, but a software program to use to combat computer viruses (in the form of evil, destructive character avatars).
But if humans are part of a complex computer program or network, does that put doubt into the meaning of our lives? Perhaps. And that may be the main reason why human beings need to pair bond, to form communities, share resources and values and create religious principles to calm and comfort those desiring a better explanation of life and death. All machines have a useful life expectancy. So do human beings. Creating circuit pathways to lead to productive output is the goal of both man and machine. It may be the reason why some consider humans the greatest machines in history.
But for a long time, scientists and philosophers have debated our own understanding of the world around us. There has been some traction that everything we know may just be part of a Matrix-style simulation, according to physicists who claim that we could all be part of a giant GAME.
A new theory has suggested that our entire lives and memories may not be real, instead being part of a computer program played by advanced robots, according to Yahoo News article.
The so-called ‘simulation argument’ has been theorized for several years, with noted academics including Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, suggesting that the plot of The Matrix could be closer to real life than we think.
In the sci-fi classic, humans are bred in vats that are fed with simulations that make them believe they are living an ordinary life. Scientists say that we could all be living in the future, and our life in 2015 is nothing more than a series of numbers in a computer program.
It may sound like science fiction but scientists believe they may actually be able to PROVE that what you know isn’t what you know.
Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of artificial intelligence (AI) thinks that there may be tell-tale signs if the programmer of our mass simulation “has made some slips."
He said that some laws of physics that “aren’t quite right” could be the start of being able to prove that the universe is a simulation.
Silas Beane, from the University of Bonn, suggested several years ago that if humans were to build a small-sale simulation of the universe we would be able to identify any constraints. These constraints would include a cut-off in the spectrum of high energy particles - exactly the kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic rays. This would be the start of proving that our universe is not what it seems - and that it is part of a giant construct.
This is an interesting notion because of Daniel's express comments when he arrived at the island, that the light "acted differently" and the spectrum was off. This could be the biggest clue that the island itself was not what we viewed it as, but as another construct (with various other theories such as alternative dimension, time loop, mini-worm hole, alien space craft, different planet through a cosmic gateway, etc.)
These theories are not the first time that humans have debated whether we are actually real - French philosopher Rene Descartes theorized that nothing we perceive is true except our consciousness being aware of itself and its doubts - which is how the phrase ‘I think, therefore I am’ came about.
However, some believe that our own thoughts can also be part of a simulation or program that is being controlled by robots or aliens. The concept of "free will" may be artificial intelligence programming that allows people "choices" from various sets of rational, irrational, logical, illogical, emotional, intellectual, etc.
But what about us as human beings? In the U.S.-U.K series Humans, android AI robots called synths look and act like human beings but they are just complex machines. They are called synths because that is what they are programmed to be; so there is no reason why artificial intelligent machines could be called "humans."
But then what about our own perceptions and senses, like touch, smell, vision? Again, in theory we occupy three dimensional space because that is what our brains process as three dimensional space. WE touch, hold, feel objects because our brain processes the tactile responses from the sensors in our hands and fingertips. At its core, that is merely data being processed by an organic computer module which automatically sends back feedback in the form of conscious recognition of touch, smell or imagines of the world around us.
It does put an introspective question to any human being. What is our true reality?
We may be organic beings, but could some other advanced civilization have created organic computing machines? We could be nanobots in a different universe. There is a basis for that belief because every time a scientist puts a prepared glass plate under a microscope, he will find an invisible world of microbes and viruses which have no perception of our world view. So, logically, in some other world view, we are microbes and viruses to another alien world.
Even our current generation of video games have graphics that begin to rival HD movie films. So the idea that perception is reality is something that everyone thinks about daily at a subconscious level. It is when it reaches a conscious level discussion that things get strange.
In a logic program, the smoke monster may have been not a security system, but a software program to use to combat computer viruses (in the form of evil, destructive character avatars).
But if humans are part of a complex computer program or network, does that put doubt into the meaning of our lives? Perhaps. And that may be the main reason why human beings need to pair bond, to form communities, share resources and values and create religious principles to calm and comfort those desiring a better explanation of life and death. All machines have a useful life expectancy. So do human beings. Creating circuit pathways to lead to productive output is the goal of both man and machine. It may be the reason why some consider humans the greatest machines in history.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
WHOLE WORLD SIMULATION PART ONE
The notion that humanity might be living in an artificial reality — a simulated universe — seemed sophomoric, at best science fiction.
However, many scientists and philosophers realized that the notion that everything humans see and know is a gigantic computer game of sorts, the creation of super-intelligent hackers existing somewhere else, is not a joke. Exploring a "whole-world simulation," Yahoo News reported:
David Brin, sci-fi writer and space scientist, relates the Chinese parable of an emperor dreaming that he was a butterfly dreaming that he was an emperor. In contemporary versions, Brin said, it may be the year 2050 and people are living in a computer simulation of what life was like in the early 21st century — or it may be billions of years from now, and people are in a simulation of what primitive planets and people were once like.
It's like the movie "The Matrix," Bostrom said, except that "instead of having brains in vats that are fed by sensory inputs from a simulator, the brains themselves would also be part of the simulation. It would be one big computer program simulating everything, including human brains down to neurons and synapses."
Bostrum is not saying that humanity is living in such a simulation. Rather, his "Simulation Argument" seeks to show that one of three possible scenarios must be true (assuming there are other intelligent civilizations):
All civilizations become extinct before becoming technologically mature;
All technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating simulations;
Humanity is literally living in a computer simulation.
His point is that all cosmic civilizations either disappear (e.g., destroy themselves) before becoming technologically capable, or all decide not to generate whole-world simulations (e.g., decide such creations are not ethical, or get bored with them). The operative word is "all" — because if even one civilization anywhere in the cosmos could generate such simulations, then simulated worlds would multiply rapidly and almost certainly humanity would be in one.
As technology visionary Ray Kurzweil put it, "maybe our whole universe is a science experiment of some junior high school student in another universe."
Kurzweil's worldview is based on the profound implications of what happens over time when computing power grows exponentially. To Kurzweil, a precise simulation is not meaningfully different from real reality. Corroborating the evidence that this universe runs on a computer, he says, is that "physical laws are sets of computational processes" and "information is constantly changing, being manipulated, running on some computational substrate." And that would mean, he concluded, "the universe is a computer." Kurzweil said he considers himself to be a "pattern of information."
"I'm a patternist," he said. "I think patterns, which means that information is the fundamental reality."
If people are in a whole-world simulation, how could they know it? Brin suggests a "back door" in the simulation program that would enable the alleged programmers to control people (much like countries accuse each other of installing "back doors" in code to conduct espionage).
"If we are living in a simulation, then everything is software, including every atom in our bodies," Brin said, "and there may be 'back doors' that the programmers left ajar."
Marvin Minsky, a legendary founder of artificial intelligence, to distinguish among three kinds of simulations: (i) brains in vats, (ii) universal simulation as pure software and (iii) universal simulation as real physical stuff.
"It would be very hard to distinguish among those," Minsky said, "unless the programmer has made some slips — if you notice that some laws of physics aren't quite right, if you find rounding-off errors, you might sense some of the grain of the computer showing through."
If that were the case, he says, it would mean that the universe is easier to understand than scientists had imagined, and that they might even find ways to change it.
The thought that this level of reality might not be ultimate reality can be unsettling, but not to Minsky: "Wouldn't it be nice to know that we are part of a larger reality?"
Martin Rees, U.K. Astronomer Royal, is a bold visionary and hard-nosed realist. "Well, it's a bit flaky, but a fascinating idea," he said. "The real question is what are the limits of computing powers."
Astronomers are already doing simulations of parts of universes. "We can't do experiments on stars and galaxies," Rees explained, "but we can have a virtual universe in our computer, and calculate what happens if you crash galaxies together, evolve stars, etc. So, because we can simulate some cosmic features in a gross sense, we have to ask, 'As computers become vastly more powerful, what more could we simulate?'
"It's not crazy to believe that some time in the far future," he said, "there could be computers which could simulate a fairly large fraction of a world."
A prime assumption of all simulation theories is that consciousness — the inner sense of awareness, like the sound of Gershwin or the smell of garlic — can be simulated; in other words, that a replication of the complete physical states of the brain will yield, ipso facto, the complete mental states of the mind. (This direct correspondence usually assumes, unknowingly, the veracity of what's known in philosophy of mind as "identity theory," one among many competing theories seeking to solve the intractable "mind-body problem".) Such a brain-only mechanism to account for consciousness, required for whole-world simulations and promulgated by physicalists.
"That may be the kind of question that would demand a superhuman intelligence to answer," which, Rees said on whether human-level consciousness and self-consciousness can be simulated., "could be forever beyond our capacity."
Physicist Paul Davies has a different take. He uses simulation theory to tease out possible contradictions in the multiple universe (multiverse) theory, which is his countercultural challenge to today's mainstream cosmology.
"If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations," Davies said, "at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we're just typical observers, then we're overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one."
Davies claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe's physics is a fake. Therefore, Davies reasoned, "We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics." That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity.
Davies concluded, "While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions."
Five premises to the simulation argument:
(i) Other intelligent civilizations exist;
(ii) their technologies grow exponentially;
(iii) they do not all go extinct;
(iv) there is no universal ban or barrier for running simulations; and
(v) consciousness can be simulated.
If these five premises are true, humanity is likely living in a simulation. The logic seems sound, which means that if you don't accept (or don't want to accept) the conclusion, then you must reject at least one of the premises.
Which to reject? Other intelligent civilizations? Exponential growth of technology?
Not all civilizations going extinct? No simulations ban or barrier? Consciousness simulated?
Whichever you choose, it must apply always, everywhere. For all time. In all universes. No exceptions.
Would the simulation argument relate to theism, the existence of God? Not necessarily.
Bostrum said, "the simulation hypothesis is not an alternative to theism or atheism. It could be a version of either — it's independent of whether God exists." While the simulation argument is "not an attempt to refute theism," he said, it would "imply a weaker form of a creation hypothesis," because the creator-simulators "would have some of the attributes we traditionally associate with God in the sense that they would have created our world."
They would be superintelligent, but they "wouldn't need unlimited or infinite minds." They could "intervene in the world, our experiential world, by manipulating the simulation. So they would have some of the capabilities of omnipotence in the sense that they could change anything they wanted about our world."
So even if this universe looks like it was created, neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians could easily distinguish between the traditional creator God and hyper-advanced creator-simulators.
But that leads to the old regress game and the question of who created the (weaker) creator-simulators.
At some point, the chain of causation must end — although even this, some would dispute.
But because the simulation argument seems to work, what it seems to do is to uncover deep discrepancies, or fundamental flaws, in how people think about deep reality — about this universe, multiple universes, consciousness, and even inferences for and against theism.
However, many scientists and philosophers realized that the notion that everything humans see and know is a gigantic computer game of sorts, the creation of super-intelligent hackers existing somewhere else, is not a joke. Exploring a "whole-world simulation," Yahoo News reported:
David Brin, sci-fi writer and space scientist, relates the Chinese parable of an emperor dreaming that he was a butterfly dreaming that he was an emperor. In contemporary versions, Brin said, it may be the year 2050 and people are living in a computer simulation of what life was like in the early 21st century — or it may be billions of years from now, and people are in a simulation of what primitive planets and people were once like.
It's like the movie "The Matrix," Bostrom said, except that "instead of having brains in vats that are fed by sensory inputs from a simulator, the brains themselves would also be part of the simulation. It would be one big computer program simulating everything, including human brains down to neurons and synapses."
Bostrum is not saying that humanity is living in such a simulation. Rather, his "Simulation Argument" seeks to show that one of three possible scenarios must be true (assuming there are other intelligent civilizations):
All civilizations become extinct before becoming technologically mature;
All technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating simulations;
Humanity is literally living in a computer simulation.
His point is that all cosmic civilizations either disappear (e.g., destroy themselves) before becoming technologically capable, or all decide not to generate whole-world simulations (e.g., decide such creations are not ethical, or get bored with them). The operative word is "all" — because if even one civilization anywhere in the cosmos could generate such simulations, then simulated worlds would multiply rapidly and almost certainly humanity would be in one.
As technology visionary Ray Kurzweil put it, "maybe our whole universe is a science experiment of some junior high school student in another universe."
Kurzweil's worldview is based on the profound implications of what happens over time when computing power grows exponentially. To Kurzweil, a precise simulation is not meaningfully different from real reality. Corroborating the evidence that this universe runs on a computer, he says, is that "physical laws are sets of computational processes" and "information is constantly changing, being manipulated, running on some computational substrate." And that would mean, he concluded, "the universe is a computer." Kurzweil said he considers himself to be a "pattern of information."
"I'm a patternist," he said. "I think patterns, which means that information is the fundamental reality."
If people are in a whole-world simulation, how could they know it? Brin suggests a "back door" in the simulation program that would enable the alleged programmers to control people (much like countries accuse each other of installing "back doors" in code to conduct espionage).
"If we are living in a simulation, then everything is software, including every atom in our bodies," Brin said, "and there may be 'back doors' that the programmers left ajar."
Marvin Minsky, a legendary founder of artificial intelligence, to distinguish among three kinds of simulations: (i) brains in vats, (ii) universal simulation as pure software and (iii) universal simulation as real physical stuff.
"It would be very hard to distinguish among those," Minsky said, "unless the programmer has made some slips — if you notice that some laws of physics aren't quite right, if you find rounding-off errors, you might sense some of the grain of the computer showing through."
If that were the case, he says, it would mean that the universe is easier to understand than scientists had imagined, and that they might even find ways to change it.
The thought that this level of reality might not be ultimate reality can be unsettling, but not to Minsky: "Wouldn't it be nice to know that we are part of a larger reality?"
Martin Rees, U.K. Astronomer Royal, is a bold visionary and hard-nosed realist. "Well, it's a bit flaky, but a fascinating idea," he said. "The real question is what are the limits of computing powers."
Astronomers are already doing simulations of parts of universes. "We can't do experiments on stars and galaxies," Rees explained, "but we can have a virtual universe in our computer, and calculate what happens if you crash galaxies together, evolve stars, etc. So, because we can simulate some cosmic features in a gross sense, we have to ask, 'As computers become vastly more powerful, what more could we simulate?'
"It's not crazy to believe that some time in the far future," he said, "there could be computers which could simulate a fairly large fraction of a world."
A prime assumption of all simulation theories is that consciousness — the inner sense of awareness, like the sound of Gershwin or the smell of garlic — can be simulated; in other words, that a replication of the complete physical states of the brain will yield, ipso facto, the complete mental states of the mind. (This direct correspondence usually assumes, unknowingly, the veracity of what's known in philosophy of mind as "identity theory," one among many competing theories seeking to solve the intractable "mind-body problem".) Such a brain-only mechanism to account for consciousness, required for whole-world simulations and promulgated by physicalists.
"That may be the kind of question that would demand a superhuman intelligence to answer," which, Rees said on whether human-level consciousness and self-consciousness can be simulated., "could be forever beyond our capacity."
Physicist Paul Davies has a different take. He uses simulation theory to tease out possible contradictions in the multiple universe (multiverse) theory, which is his countercultural challenge to today's mainstream cosmology.
"If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations," Davies said, "at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we're just typical observers, then we're overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one."
Davies claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe's physics is a fake. Therefore, Davies reasoned, "We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics." That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity.
Davies concluded, "While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions."
Five premises to the simulation argument:
(i) Other intelligent civilizations exist;
(ii) their technologies grow exponentially;
(iii) they do not all go extinct;
(iv) there is no universal ban or barrier for running simulations; and
(v) consciousness can be simulated.
If these five premises are true, humanity is likely living in a simulation. The logic seems sound, which means that if you don't accept (or don't want to accept) the conclusion, then you must reject at least one of the premises.
Which to reject? Other intelligent civilizations? Exponential growth of technology?
Not all civilizations going extinct? No simulations ban or barrier? Consciousness simulated?
Whichever you choose, it must apply always, everywhere. For all time. In all universes. No exceptions.
Would the simulation argument relate to theism, the existence of God? Not necessarily.
Bostrum said, "the simulation hypothesis is not an alternative to theism or atheism. It could be a version of either — it's independent of whether God exists." While the simulation argument is "not an attempt to refute theism," he said, it would "imply a weaker form of a creation hypothesis," because the creator-simulators "would have some of the attributes we traditionally associate with God in the sense that they would have created our world."
They would be superintelligent, but they "wouldn't need unlimited or infinite minds." They could "intervene in the world, our experiential world, by manipulating the simulation. So they would have some of the capabilities of omnipotence in the sense that they could change anything they wanted about our world."
So even if this universe looks like it was created, neither scientists nor philosophers nor theologians could easily distinguish between the traditional creator God and hyper-advanced creator-simulators.
But that leads to the old regress game and the question of who created the (weaker) creator-simulators.
At some point, the chain of causation must end — although even this, some would dispute.
But because the simulation argument seems to work, what it seems to do is to uncover deep discrepancies, or fundamental flaws, in how people think about deep reality — about this universe, multiple universes, consciousness, and even inferences for and against theism.
Monday, August 3, 2015
EXPECTATIONS
I can't imagine I am the only woman over 50, not married or in a serious relationship, that has been told by some well meaning friend that It would be so good for me to find someone. Find someone? Is there a specific spot I should look? Is there a lost and found pile I can dig through to see if someone in there belongs to me? Perhaps there's a room full of eligible smart kind men in a building somewhere I can't locate. Of course I am kidding. I know people are well intentioned when they say it. But did they ever think that people who aren't in serious relationships can still be seriously happy?
That while it may be lovely to be with someone it doesn't mean we can't be happy without someone? My happiness is based on me liking myself and loving the time I spend with my family and my friends. I've been in relationships that tore my very soul apart and left me desperately unhappy and marginalized. But, from the outside looking in I would have been seen to have it all. A handsome man and a ring on your finger is not the arbiter of a life or love fulfilled.
I have no problems with the truth on this matter. It will be nice if or when I meet the right, good man. But for now I am most happily living with exactly the right woman. Me.
--Arlene Dickinson
Society puts expectations on all of us. Especially on women on their role in our culture.
In fact, many people still judge another person by their status - - - whether it be social, wealth or relationship.
In Asian cultures, if a woman is not married by age 30, she is deemed a social outcast, an old maid, not worthy of total respect. In America, there was a strong Puritan ethic that women should marry early, raise children and tend a household. The American Dream was defined by a suburban house, picket fence, two cars in the garage and chicken in the stove pot.
But times change but the perceptions remain the same.
In the 1970s, women were told by feminists that they could have a career as good as men; that they did not need men to validate their lives; that they could find their own path to happiness. Women were no longer defined by the men around them.
Even so, there were expectations that women were to settle down, marry and have a "normal" life.
With the advent of no fault divorces (where the promise "until death do we part" has been nullified), more and more women find themselves at mid-life, alone and in the cross hairs of family and friend advice that happiness is sharing your life with someone new.
Some women are too hurt by their past experiences to try it again. Past pain does not equate to future unhappiness, but human minds do tend to lessen emotional risks with mental excuses and procrastination themes. Some women try too hard to find a new partner, only to change their personality to something they are not - - - and hurting both themselves and their new relationship in the process of unwinding the white lies.
In LOST, many of the women were defined in this cultural stigma.
Juliet was a medical doctor. But she was defined by her brilliant doctor husband. She was always in his shadow. Her accomplishments were secondary to his work. He cheated on her, disrespected her and then discarded her. But her upbringing and personality keep that bond with him even after they broke up. They were never compatible because he lacked the mutual trust and respect for her.
Kate was the rural farm girl. She had the spunk and fire of a tom boy. She was adventurous and fun. But at the point where she was supposed to grow up and become a responsible woman (settle down, marry, get a stable job, raise a family, etc.) she rebelled and lashed out at her own family. She valued her freedom more than her own happiness. It made her a bitter, lonely, frightened and sad young woman with no goals, desires or dreams.
Sun was the opposite. She was the daughter of a wealthy industrialist. She grew up in the power and position of a wealthy family. She had no hardships growing up. She became bored with the life of a rich princess. She hated the fact that her parents had their own path for her life (including marrying a proper man). Like Kate, she rebelled against her parents to marry Jin, a lowly, poor, uneducated fisherman's son. To her own shock, Jin did not take to her own adventurous side - - - he quickly changed to become Sun's father's "yes man," because Jin wanted what Sun already abandoned: wealth and status.
People have to decide their own paths. Yes, there are speed bumps along the journey of life. Some of those are created by luck, society's pressures, cultural perceptions and one's own mistaken choices. But in the end, every person must make their own decisions that are best for them and them alone. Only then can that person who is comfortable with their own life, open up to share the "real" them with another person.
That while it may be lovely to be with someone it doesn't mean we can't be happy without someone? My happiness is based on me liking myself and loving the time I spend with my family and my friends. I've been in relationships that tore my very soul apart and left me desperately unhappy and marginalized. But, from the outside looking in I would have been seen to have it all. A handsome man and a ring on your finger is not the arbiter of a life or love fulfilled.
I have no problems with the truth on this matter. It will be nice if or when I meet the right, good man. But for now I am most happily living with exactly the right woman. Me.
--Arlene Dickinson
Society puts expectations on all of us. Especially on women on their role in our culture.
In fact, many people still judge another person by their status - - - whether it be social, wealth or relationship.
In Asian cultures, if a woman is not married by age 30, she is deemed a social outcast, an old maid, not worthy of total respect. In America, there was a strong Puritan ethic that women should marry early, raise children and tend a household. The American Dream was defined by a suburban house, picket fence, two cars in the garage and chicken in the stove pot.
But times change but the perceptions remain the same.
In the 1970s, women were told by feminists that they could have a career as good as men; that they did not need men to validate their lives; that they could find their own path to happiness. Women were no longer defined by the men around them.
Even so, there were expectations that women were to settle down, marry and have a "normal" life.
With the advent of no fault divorces (where the promise "until death do we part" has been nullified), more and more women find themselves at mid-life, alone and in the cross hairs of family and friend advice that happiness is sharing your life with someone new.
Some women are too hurt by their past experiences to try it again. Past pain does not equate to future unhappiness, but human minds do tend to lessen emotional risks with mental excuses and procrastination themes. Some women try too hard to find a new partner, only to change their personality to something they are not - - - and hurting both themselves and their new relationship in the process of unwinding the white lies.
In LOST, many of the women were defined in this cultural stigma.
Juliet was a medical doctor. But she was defined by her brilliant doctor husband. She was always in his shadow. Her accomplishments were secondary to his work. He cheated on her, disrespected her and then discarded her. But her upbringing and personality keep that bond with him even after they broke up. They were never compatible because he lacked the mutual trust and respect for her.
Kate was the rural farm girl. She had the spunk and fire of a tom boy. She was adventurous and fun. But at the point where she was supposed to grow up and become a responsible woman (settle down, marry, get a stable job, raise a family, etc.) she rebelled and lashed out at her own family. She valued her freedom more than her own happiness. It made her a bitter, lonely, frightened and sad young woman with no goals, desires or dreams.
Sun was the opposite. She was the daughter of a wealthy industrialist. She grew up in the power and position of a wealthy family. She had no hardships growing up. She became bored with the life of a rich princess. She hated the fact that her parents had their own path for her life (including marrying a proper man). Like Kate, she rebelled against her parents to marry Jin, a lowly, poor, uneducated fisherman's son. To her own shock, Jin did not take to her own adventurous side - - - he quickly changed to become Sun's father's "yes man," because Jin wanted what Sun already abandoned: wealth and status.
People have to decide their own paths. Yes, there are speed bumps along the journey of life. Some of those are created by luck, society's pressures, cultural perceptions and one's own mistaken choices. But in the end, every person must make their own decisions that are best for them and them alone. Only then can that person who is comfortable with their own life, open up to share the "real" them with another person.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
WORDS FROM TED
People are often unreasonable, illogical and self centered;
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you've got, and you will get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
by Ted Nugent.
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you've got, and you will get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
by Ted Nugent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
