tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post2933366506549621720..comments2024-03-28T03:22:24.202-04:00Comments on The Multiverse According to Ben: Why Humans Are So ScrewyBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-1192890335342196462014-06-16T19:31:13.224-04:002014-06-16T19:31:13.224-04:00" Why did the universe divide itself from its..." Why did the universe divide itself from itself?" So that we would have an arrow of Time. Check out Hitoshi Kitada's Local Time interpretation of QM. In order to break the timelessness we have from Wheeler-Dewitt's H = 0, the number of QM systems, that is the universe, must decompose from One into many incomplete - and thus open - systems. Each having its own arrow of time.Stephen Paul Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12854545182901504082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-23883108052974570452014-03-01T22:03:54.296-05:002014-03-01T22:03:54.296-05:00Well, I finished reading the entire post and ultim...Well, I finished reading the entire post and ultimately you have answered my above statement and it seems that we agree with pretty much everything there.<br /><br />Concerning you comment to Hruy, how are they coming along with the whole consciousness thing being developed into the AI?starrduskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885750631025786513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-46566747370721376532014-03-01T19:29:01.374-05:002014-03-01T19:29:01.374-05:00What makes a reproductively successful individual ...What makes a reproductively successful individual is, by and large, being selfish and looking out for one's own genes above those of others. What makes a successful *tribe* is, by and large, individual tribe members who are willing to "take one for the team" and put the tribe first.<br /><br /><br />Ideally that person who is expected to take one for the tribe instead of looking for self will be able to come up with some way to help him or her self in such a way that it will actually be helping the whole tribe. starrduskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885750631025786513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-8717799217641270222014-02-21T15:18:56.424-05:002014-02-21T15:18:56.424-05:00"Now under the play of Maya, the One becomes ..."Now under the play of Maya, the One becomes the Many; But why; to what purpose?" asks Aurobindo. His answer is philosophical and utterly preposterous!<br /><br />Why are there so many psychedelic substances in the botanical kingdom, and so many more which have been successfully synthesized by humans, all of which seem to have similar effects on the human psyche? Is this just random chance? It would seem as though the odds that we humans should ingest said chemicals were somewhat weighted in the positive! And what about the new research suggesting that the brain actually acts as an information filter to dumb us down while these psychedelic substances retard the brain's/neurosystem's effectiveness leading to sometimes overwhelming sense perceptions and feelings of oneness? <br /><br />Perhaps tribes function so well because they utilize rituals which culminate in the self-ego being transcended to the tribe-ego? The ego of the part becomes the ego of the whole; it's interesting to note that many of these rituals include psychedelic states either induced by the ingestion of botanical substances or physical depravation and hardship. <br /><br />Maybe the play of Maya is just a ritual of enrichment. Maybe it's just an omniscient paradox exploring mathematical structure for no reason other than it finds the set of such structures fascinating and mysterious. Perhaps the omniscient paradox is searching for Omega simply because it has time on its paradoxical hands? I, personally, blame Christians for my own screwiness . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-63274339407358191122014-02-16T20:52:59.920-05:002014-02-16T20:52:59.920-05:00Excerpt from Wilhelm Reich in Hell (Act I)
Early o...Excerpt from Wilhelm Reich in Hell (Act I)<br />Early on in the trial, Dr. Reich introduced as evidence a Computer which continually monitors the growth of the worldwide nuclear weapons stockpile. The Computer emits an ear-splitting whistle every time there is an increment in firepower equivalent to the original Hiroshima bomb…..)<br /><br />SADE: Why did you rebel against Freud?<br /><br />REICH: (slowly) I rebelled against Freud because he was a coward.<br /><br />The Computer whistles again.<br /><br />SADE: A coward? The man who challenged all the taboos of his age?<br /><br />REICH:He back-tracked, he evaded, he weaseled. He would not say flatly what his theories all implied.<br /><br />The Computer whistles again.<br /><br />SADE: (shouting over whistle) You mean he did not share your Utopian fantasies.<br /><br />Read on - http://goo.gl/lG3JQIAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18060379565916193009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-11883025774147821342014-02-15T04:24:14.018-05:002014-02-15T04:24:14.018-05:00Hruy,
Thanks for the reply, which is thoughtful a...Hruy,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply, which is thoughtful and erudite as usual ;)<br /><br />About the difficulty of explaining every human trait via evolutionary selection: Don't forget genetic drift! ... and don't forget spandrels.... Plenty of traits, in any evolving organism, can emerge as indirect side-effects of other traits, or can emerge just via the genetic drift that comes along with having a finite-size population. Evolutionary theory does not imply that every single trait in an organism must have a direct explanation in terms of fitness increase. Organisms are complex self-organizing systems, and "differential reproduction based on fitness" is perhaps best viewed as nudging their self-organization, rather than as fine-tuning each of their traits.... Group selection is very much this way too, as social systems are also complex self-organizing creatures...<br /><br />As for the divine spark of screwiness -- as you know I'm not a strict materialist. The fact that psi appears to be a real phenomenon, indicates fairly strongly that our current physical model of mind/brain is incomplete. Our inability to handle consciousness thoroughly within the modern scientific world-view is additional evidence of this sort of incompleteness.... So I am quite willing to accept that there's likely some additional "mysterious" aspect to mind/universe, that current science has not comprehended. Fair enough. <br /><br />Is this extra divine spark screwy in some way? The data on psi would indicate that it probably is. Phenomena like psi-missing and the decline effect are evidence in this regard. Diverse shamanic traditions regarding transdimensional tricksters fit into this view as well.... Just ask Terrence McKenna's machine-elves...<br /><br />So, sure, there may be some additional source of screwiness, related to psi and the subjectivity of consciousness and other currently unclear factors, which I didn't mention in my blog post.<br /><br />I also didn't mention the original underlying source of all the screwiness, which is the existence of entities without access to infinite memory and processing power. The theological/philosophical part of my mind always wants to ask: Why did the universe divide itself from itself? Why are there finite being like ourselves, whose finiteness is sustained precisely by their own illusions of being finite -- why not just one big fluid timeless point/moment of infinite bliss or Brahman or whatever? But then the asking of this question is sort of the answer to the question -- <br /><br />Evolution on both the individual and group levels is about scarcity of resources. Psi is about lamely, partially, temporarily bridging the physical separation of portions of a fabric that, at some level (so quantum theory says, along with various spiritual traditions) is all one.... If not for the Original Sin of the void separating itself from itself, these consequences of scarcity and separation would be irrelevant.... <br /><br />In short there are many many layers of screwiness in the Cosmos, and in this blog post I was just attempting to elucidate a couple of the more concrete ones that are most closely allied to our physical and cultural instantiation...<br /><br />Screwily ...<br />benBen Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-74023610199305860792014-02-14T14:42:26.163-05:002014-02-14T14:42:26.163-05:00"Screwy" attribute of humans is mercuric..."Screwy" attribute of humans is mercuric rise and fall of endorphin.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09325194102655844220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-29477632900159373832014-02-10T09:36:51.802-05:002014-02-10T09:36:51.802-05:00Why do I think that you should give it a chance?
...Why do I think that you should give it a chance?<br /><br />Because of the obvious reason that you believe in the next phase of humanity we can change this screwiness with a short cut solution. Because of your faith that we can change humanity and our nature using the technological modification. Because of your belief that instead of passing through evolution to maturity, one can alter nature using technology as a short cut. <br /><br />You believe that,using technology, we are going to modify our brains and bodies according to our wishes. What makes you so sure that this has never been done by something else long before today? In the short cut approach to life, everything is possible. The singularity is possible and so is a simulated reality. What makes you so sure that this has not been done long before our time; using more than one variation of the already accepted theoretical physics and their ground, one can prove that (with valid mathematics) the world we live in could be a simulated reality. (I am not talking about religion I am talking about the ‘ability to modify the nature of humanity’! )<br /><br />To me, the most fair and accurate answer to the origin of life is “inconclusive data” ;) and when one is studying possible sources of the traits of a certain life form the source of that life form is indirectly addressed too. <br /><br />In our case, the data is still inconclusive ;)Hruyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316866815292888850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-56574106104690938242014-02-10T09:35:39.942-05:002014-02-10T09:35:39.942-05:00Ben, it is an interesting theory and it totally ma...Ben, it is an interesting theory and it totally makes sense within the theories of developmental and evolutionary approach to the Philosophy of Morality.<br /> <br />Yet it totally ignored one angle: the divine Ethics approach. Indeed, science has proved to us that the hard-wired moral traits of the human race are no longer the champions of the divine theory argument on human morality.So far, The Philosophy of Morality has immensely benefited from science and what we used to think as the uniquely hard-wired moral traits of the human race are now proved to be the results of the collective impacts of our evolutionary phase.<br /><br />Countless researches showed us that other mammals share many of these uniquely hard-wired moral traits of the human being. Altruism, rudimentary instincts of being just and fair, not to inflicting pain knowingly or even the ‘golden rule’ (to do to others what you want the others to do to you) are no more unique characteristics of the human race and its moral philosophy.<br /> <br />However, there are still traits that cannot be defined (so far) with the developmental and evolutionary approach. <br /><br />Modern Philosophers of Morality labelled these as 1) the Ethics of the divinity (a term coined by Richard Shweder) on purity and other matters 2) the 3rd party sentiments and 3) extending morality to strangers. The real problem with these is that their source cannot be traced; it is as if they are ‘true mystery’. <br /> <br />Of course there are some other traits that are still a mystery from both angles, developmental and evolutionary theory of morality, but these three are studied intensively as they happen to exist in the universal structure for human morality. The source for such kind of morals is still unsolved and modern philosophy of Morality (which is totally secular) still label them as ‘the mysteries’. Some even suggest that they should be left as mystery because a) there is no rational explanation capable of explaining their source in the developmental approach and b)despite the fact that there is no hint of such traits in other animals, modern evolutionary approach cannot find a reason nor an environment in which these traits are developed as part of our survival instinct then eventually turn to be part of our behavior and parts of our morality. Hence both the developmental and evolutionary theory totally failed to explain this.<br /><br />In Addition to the conflict between Individual versus Group Selection and The Discontents of Civilization (which can be pretty much summarised under the theories of developmental and evolutionary approach to Human morality), could there be a third option as a source to our Screwiness? An option uniquely and innately limited to human? Is there an out of this world source (alien origin, which can be associated with our DNA as a source code to our human nature, or the divine origin, which can be a source to our psyche) I think you should give it a chance. Why? <br />Hruyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08316866815292888850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-87233584771451945012014-02-08T05:29:45.232-05:002014-02-08T05:29:45.232-05:00I was just listening today to a related interview ...I was just listening today to a related interview with evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson. <br /><br />https://soundcloud.com/onbeing/unedited-interview-with-david<br /><br />David Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02098536008064055636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-78760076824135157462014-02-07T18:09:29.211-05:002014-02-07T18:09:29.211-05:00Another attempt to put this together is Marcuse...Another attempt to put this together is Marcuse's 1951 book Eros and Civilization. Eros drags us into organic growth and complexity till we are swamped by it and we turn destructive to break out, but bring down the system we have created. He looks for a more erotic loving less "productive' mechanized world as a possible solution.<br /><br />It reads well after 60 years, still a good narrative of where we are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-88615676983009262492014-02-06T19:27:05.179-05:002014-02-06T19:27:05.179-05:00William Hamilton had something to say about this. ...William Hamilton had something to say about this. He pictured humans as a shifting allegiance of genes (and memes) - all pulling in different (and often conflicting) directions.<br /><br />IMO, his vision was broader, earlier and better articulated than that of E. O. Wilson - and he had a much better understanding of cultural evolution than Wilson does.<br />Tim Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623536372084468307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-83915405762829017842014-02-06T14:58:29.162-05:002014-02-06T14:58:29.162-05:00Ben, just realized this at the same time as you. I...Ben, just realized this at the same time as you. I'm working with a group trying to get to decisions over several matters. Every time we vote the group gets more fragmented. I realized that people tend to be closed to ideas that are against their initial beliefs. It is a common behavior pattern as you presented. I'm think if democracy is only an utopia. Humans really have some software bugs. While I don't agree with changing the behavior by manipulating our brain (brain waves, chemically, whatever), but we can delegate some important decisions to machines or we may try to overcome this problem applying a processes framework. About my group, I will try to use the decision by consensus, the main problem is to have the agreement for adopting it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265572090419977879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-61750056518773279432014-02-06T11:43:40.731-05:002014-02-06T11:43:40.731-05:00I HAVE FIGURED OUT THE REAL REASON HUMANS ARE SO S...I HAVE FIGURED OUT THE REAL REASON HUMANS ARE SO SCREWY, BUT IM NOT TELLING YOU SO THERE :DD :PKonamiusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14664591983116198055noreply@blogger.com