reasons for spirituality and mysticism

Leave a comment

English: Sapta Chakra, from a Yoga manuscipt i...

English: Sapta Chakra, from a Yoga manuscipt in Braj Bhasa lanaguage with 118 pages. 1899. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

aliens and children likely arrive at this question:
“why do people go to church or yoga or gaze at a wall for hours?”
well, I cannot speak for others. but I made some observations of their behaviour:
somewhere around the age of 22 humans arrive at the realization that life has no meaning, at least not the way most people are spending their lifetime with trivialities.
that’s the age where you finish school, get a job, get a boss who asks you to do stuff completely unrelated to what you learned at school, get told by family you should fetch a partner of the opposite gender and create some children for society to move on, get dragged regularily by your elder collegues into bars for a drink, and so on.
all this creates the impression, life would be just a sequence of activities aimed at pleasure and procreation, interrupted by periods of dull work aimed at providing pleasure for others, or at least freeing their time from the dull work they’d have to do.
sadly few years later most forget that realization, and just keep on nourishing this system. the few who don’t forget about it, will get fired for getting distracted by such thoughts, and eventually develop a depression or other excuses for refusing to get another job. but such things are really easy to forget as soon as you aren’t on the lowest end of such a back-scratching ladder. as soon as you have someone who does help you with achieving some pleasure of your own, at that person’s cost, the thoughts, at how horrible our system really is, these thoughts will dissipate.

what happens is that people ordinarily develop many addictions. smoking, drinking, sex, drugs, entertainment, and even such things like work or sports or stamp-collecting could become a true addiction. what happens is that such activities put certain chemicals into our neuronal system and our feedback-controlled brain associates (because of repetition) the appearance of such chemicals with the activities that produced them. that’s a behavioural addiction I’m describing here! (of course there’s also the physical addiction to those chemicals, in addition.)
we end up with activities we don’t want to perform, they become boring, but at the same time we want those chemicals and know no other way of obtaining them. in reality, apart from the physical addiction, there is only one reason why we need such chemicals: we know that as soon as we die, all that earning money and building up social status, all the knowledge we accumulated, all that is gone as our body decomposes. the chemicals then are supposed to fend off this kind of knowledge. alcohol unhinges the functionality of mind, tabacco makes us more forgetful, as do drugs. media and hobbies keep our mind occupied with activities completely unrelated to such thoughts. as I said in an earlier posting, among all these things only sexual activities are what I could recommend for this goal.
now see all that a bit more abstractly. we’re doing things of which we know they are bad for us. and we do things of which we know they are bad for others we do care for. and we do all that self-destructing and society-destructing stuff for getting rid of some nagging truth, alike to cutting off an arm for stopping the infection it suffered from. not saying that’s a bad thing, without penicilline many people would lack an arm or two in exchange for still being alive. ignoring how useless all our activities are is important for maintaining the current form of how society works. however, in this posting I’m asking the question: is there any alternative form of how society could work?

as people grow older they develop a related question to the one they had in youth, the mid-life crisis question of “what have I achieved?” that’s when people realize their contribution to the world will definitely not be noticed by a majority of the billions of people living on earth, even less by the universe.
of course there are such great achievements like creating life (getting a baby) or destroying life (killing someone, hopefully evil). but even they are extremely local in the consequences. one could found a huge company, a commercial enterprise spanning the whole world, entering the lives of all the people around the world. but was that a good or a bad contribution? of course the own ideas in that enterprise seem to be a good contribution, but what about missed opportunities for eliminating the root of all evil happening in future?
needless to say, all that is just some form of superman-complex. you cannot save the world, no chance an individual could connect to the lives of all people in the world in a conscious way.
mysticism, religion, all such schools of thought contain a practice of pure contemplation. when you meditate you meditate on something. contemplation means your mind is free to do whatever its nature calls.
basically contemplation is for people who are fed up with the way how our world works.

well, to be accurate, contemplation is a mixture of lacking distractions and lacking mental activity. in other words, most physical activities are a form of contemplation if done fullheartedly. be it singing or dancing or whatever other sports. contemplation means you concentrate so intensively on what you physically do, that during long periods no thought comes up at all because you’re keeping your mental ressources free for something more relevant to happen eventually. it means you perceive everything intensively as it could become relevant for the body, but nothing triggers the usual traits of thought, as it would in an everyday situation.
people who ever experienced contemplation desire to experience it again, but in various situations during life, not just in whatever limited activity where it got experienced for the first time. the goal is to integrate it in every-day life situations. in an attempt to reach such a goal usually in current times people tend to conceptualize it into a cost-benefit scheme. people who do that end up with a definition of that “state” which excludes the lack of thoughts and would focus only on the wholeheartedness. in old times it was the other way around and most tried feverishly to eliminate all thoughts. religion or mysticism, if old enough to notice these problems, often offer solutions and methods to avoid these pitfalls.

the world would be a much better place if people would spend more time in contemplation. what youth discovers, that life is an empty meaningless construct alike to a dream, and what mid-life people discover, that no matter what we do as individuals it always is doomed to be dominated by the billions of other people around, and the old-age discovery that life was just a incessant struggling with circumstances without any real victories, especially without ever being victorious against death, all these realizations should mark the beginning of a human’s adult life. and no matter what people do, these things should never be forgotten! contemplation is for making these truths more bearable.
how could you think about them if you are lacking thoughts? of course mind still would do its work, the facts and their immediate consequences would reach our awareness, but our real suffering is to develop negative emotions from that, to indulge into fantasies about how horrible our future as a dead person will be. we lack knowledge on death or what consequences our actions really do have, and when we do lack that much information then no further thoughts are needed. in contemplation this kind of thought-barrier happens automatically.

being a workaholic is a bit like contemplation:
always on the move, always investing the full heart into the various activities.
if that results in a burn-out, in a complete lack of power to continue, then:
the workoholic obviously was  lacking the clarity of mind to
1) do things efficiently,
2) to restrict superfluous thoughts and emotions,
3) to increase thoughts and emotions if and only if that’s needed.

and the other way around, philosophers who think too much are a bit like contemplation too:
always judging, always doubting, always efficient in argumentation and work.
in whole, true mastery of coping with emotions.
those people tend to get into some sort of depression or melancholy.
their thoughts end up taking away all that’s important in life.
and the life ends with some sort of intentional or accidental suicide.
obviously they take their thoughts much too seriously.
their excess of thoughts ends up with lots of logical mistakes and idiosyncracies.
discovering those mistakes then is out of the question because too much emotions were already invested in the thoughts’ existence. these people then end up forgetting about how limited our lifetime is, how worthless our knowledge is in face of death.
life is meaningless! just face it, and do your stuff nonetheless! the ultimate goal never should consist of knowledge or wealth, not even of being remembered in a few hundred years. the true goal of humans, based on our mind’s nature, is to collect and categorize experience from among the fully chaotic world of seemingly unrelated events, point.
no thinking required! no judging and no doubting is necessary!
judging and doubting are just methods we developed for that purpose.
but they aren’t necessarily the best methods for everything!

all that and more can be discovered among the vast knowledge accumulated in various traditions of mysticism and spirituality, provided to some degree you look abstractly on their instructions…

Advertisements

sqrt(2) is rational?

Leave a comment

English: Foto of blackboard picture of a const...

logic is a funny thing. there’s syntax and there’s its meaning. totally independent.
it is quite frequent in maths that while syntax stays the same, meaning changes. the reason why syntax stays the same is: so you can make the same claims. write the same thing over and over again, only the meaning changes. this way the deep insight is shared that abstractly it’s the same thing.
for example numbers. we’re used to a decimal system, 10 digits. abstractly it’s the same as a binary system though. instead of denoting which number-system is meant, be sloppy. adding the b to every number over and over again is redundant. write once you’re talking of binary numbers, and everybody will understand.
only problem is when quoting someone. you’d need to repeat the definitions. so a non-mathematician might write 1+1=10 because someone wrote that. more correct would be to first define what the numbers mean. i.e. say: a number a_na_{n-1}\ldots a_1a_0 means \sum_{i=0}^n 2^i\cdot a_i

 this will be the 1+1=10 kind of proof. i.e. change the definition to get something unexpected.
the definition of real numbers based on rational ones is to look at limits of open rational intervals. every real number is a (non-unique) sequence of open intervals, each containing the next. and every such sequence which converges to an empty set represents some real number.
this real number then will be contained in every single interval of that sequence.

more exactly, every real number is a whole lot of such sequences, a whole equivalence class. two sequences are in the same equivalence class if eventually the intervals mutually contain eachother.
i.e. there exists a sub-sequence of one such that they’re inside the intervals of the other, at same index. and also the other way around, as both are open intervals, by definition containing points other than their border.

in a way real numbers are infinitesimal intervals, while rational numbers are actual points you can draw.
but then, \sqrt 2 is also a point you can draw! just take a  1×1 square, it will have diameter \sqrt{1^2+1^2}.
well, ability to draw means it’s constructible on paper with a ruler and compass. so, no, this can’t be the proof.
we need to show, \left(\frac pq\right)^2==2 or p^2==2\cdot q^2 for whole numbers p,q:
obviously p must be an even number, but then squaring it makes it divisible by 4. hence q must be an even number, and p^2 must be divisible by 8. and so on.
in the end both, p and q must contain all powers of 2. i.e. they must be infinite in size.

is that allowed? in the axioms of ZFC it isn’t. actually it isn’t the axioms on their own. what isn’t allowed is to create an expression that is infinite in length. in the language of logic this is clearly forbidden, you can’t have logic-expressions “converge” to something.
but why not? in fact, there are several approaches to create a set \sqrt 2 is contained in, as a point!

i.e. you can actually turn some real numbers into actual constructible points. apart from circle also other shapes could be used for construction. naturally construction of those other tools require some kind of approximation.
but then, if you restrict yourself to the 1-dimensional line, rational numbers are an approximation of their own already!
it’s possible to check if a rational number is what it claims to be. just use the compass to copy the rational number q times along the straight line. in the same way also other approximations can be verified for accuracy.

math isn’t just geometry. it’s also about formulas and functions. most prominent example is derivatives and their inverse, integration.
every formula has a formally definitive derivative. but formal integration is not always possible. so, while derivatives are constructible by formulas, integration is an approximation.
hence, real numbers created by integrals of formulas can be verified by derivative. but as language allows only finite expressions, these real numbers are countable.

English: Illustration of how the rational numb...

English: Illustration of how the rational numbers may be ordered and counted. Illustration contains a grid and an arrow, and two Swedish words (the words for “nominator” and “denominator”). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

the notion of countable means: there exists a mapping onto the natural numbers.
for example whole numbers are countable: map every positive number to the odd numbers. negative numbers and zero are mapped to even numbers including zero.
a similar method works also for rational numbers. just interpret them as integer-coordinates on a half-plane.
then use some distance-function mapping them on natural numbers. and then add some ordering to points with the same distance.
(well, maybe this will skip some natural numbers. but it shouldn’t be a problem to re-index.)

no such strategy will work for infinite-length expressions. polynomials are countable, but power-series \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_i\cdot x^i aren’t. for every method to count them, one can create an element that isn’t counted.
i.e. a map from natural numbers to real numbers has no inverse! isn’t surjective!

thanks to this limitation of logic, only countably many reals are constructible. an uncountable amount remains as intervals.
in logic the constuction of a point cannot take up infinitely many steps. if it would, maths would be an intangible mess,
you cannot prove consistency by finite-size proofs then.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem says in our mathematical logic you cannot prove consistency.
the proof starts out with the observation that expressions can be counted. same with proofs. then it goes on showing how this counting can be implemented in the language of logic.
the problem arises when you start proving stuff about these numbers. then you get into the same mess as with my proof above. some things require expressions of infinite length. but as history has shown, then inconsistency easily would creep in.
when dealing with infinity, a lot of additional information is required. literally, an infinite amount of information, infinite sets of axioms and such. talking of infinity is always alike to leaning out of a window: easy to lose your grip on the ground.

 

Good always wins over Evil

Leave a comment

Good has one advantage: it is destructive, while Evil relies on being constructive.

English: A stereotypical caricature of a villa...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Just take the average villain of James Bond or whatever superhero.
the villain has constructed a huge empire of minions and resources.
what does the superhero do? walks up to the bad guy and kicks ass! pure destruction!
and the best hero is always the one without a chance to be Evil.
without a Wife he can’t mistreat her, no children to abuse either. nothing to lose.
Evil on the other hand loses everything, a whole life’s worth of scheming!

to be fair I must mention other kinds of villains too.
one nowadays popular type is the villain who didn’t do anything, just using what already is there.
WorldWar2 made use of the antisemitism that already existed.
Islamists and whatever islamic terror abuses religion and general attitude in some people.
if the above type was “the Mastermind”, the actual Evil decribed here should be called “The Horde”.
even though there is no single person who built the circumstances, it’s still something that developed.
similarily it can be destroyed. much more easily than the constuction of these circumstances.

IS is abusing religion and the attitude of people. take one away and IS is gone.
well, what actually is needed is to take one away from all people in the world!
robbing people of what they believe in is easy, any dictator could do that within a few generations.
wont make people stop believing in whatever they believe in, but protects religion from abuse.
therefore this is the path politicians go. one even suggested a unified Quran.
let’s teach children in school the translation that has  been acknowledged by psychologists.
luckily all the religions are based on such ancient books that nobody understands the original anymore.
unfortunately this solution is not very safe. the attitude of those people still remains.
democracy has no means of forbidding alternative translations, this is a double-edged sword.
attitude is a much better point to leverage. We have a demand for explanations, so let’s satisfy it.
what do we live for? for dancing? for watching tv? for getting rich and having sex? for taking drugs?
there exist people who believe that none of above is the answer to the meaning of life. I too belong to them.
find an answer yourself, find a method how people can quickly find an answer. this will destroy the attitude of revolution.

well, this isn’t really so easy to do.
I quickly found the meaning of life:
the meaning of life is to die after lots of experience.
you dance, this is just one experience among many.
you watch tv, again your whole life shouldn’t be filled with that.
having sex, taking drugs, why believe everybody should do these?
there are so many experiences we could have, why emphasize those 4?
unfortunately my insight cannot be taught, it passes on the blind side of most adults.
who would even accept the fact that all human beings have to die?I don’t even know anybody accepting their permanent change.
so you had some fun with taking drugs, you’re a drug-addict.
you had this experience and now your body needs drugs.
so your body has changed, before it lived without drugs for about 20 years!
for most it’s already difficult to accept that. but once you did accept the body’s change:
why you think it can’t change again in the opposite?
why do you believe no other experience can satisfy you?

how I arrived at my “meaning of life” is simple logic:
everybody dies. and everybody enjoys experience.
additionally the same experience over and over again is boring.
so obviously the meaning of life is to avoid repeating experience.
a drug offers infinite experiences, just like mind does in dreams.
I admit it, I never did do drugs, I am addicted to Dreams instead.
the difficulty to get rid of the addiction is the same though.
but I always remind myself:
our creator certainly didn’t have drugs or dreams in mind.
we feel happy through experiences, our purpose is biologically encoded.
these are the words of our creator. repeatedly doing the same stuff isn’t in the spirit of these words.

the actual difficulty is to show people there exists other stuff than whatever they do.
and it’s actually very difficult to teach that more experiences exist than can be experienced in a lifetime.
to children you can teach these things easily.
but as soon as the children grow up, it’s forgotten again.
religions solve that problem by prohibiting some common activities.
so theoretically it’s best to tabooize some experiences all around the world.
that’s the whole idea of religious wars, to force the world into having less common experiences.
looking at a beautiful woman is a frequent experience, so let’s cover all women.
watching tv, listening to music or dancing, all too common in society. let’s prohibit that.
on the other hand praying is much too unpopular, let’s force everybody to do that instead.
again all these rules would go against the spirit of the words of our creator.
if we were meant to pray so much, why do we have the ability to stand upright?
maybe the ability to stand upright is a test for our faith? even though we can, we shouldn’t?
the difficulty with changing people’s attitude is, how do you avoid defining what to change it to?
this question no religion has ever managed to answer so far!
an answer is essential to teaching the meaning of life I discovered…

another villain in our world is the impersonal Horde of capitalism and globalization.
to fight globalization is quite easy: destroy all internet connections, all cables and satelites.
takes much more time to repair them than to bomb them down again.
similarly aeroplanes, streets, phone-cables and cell-phone receivers.
you want to stop global warming? bomb down factories and chimneys!
of course you’d need to calculate if the bombing is worth the effort.
but getting below the 2°C is possible this way. (preventing rise of sea-level isn’t though.)
capitalism is a somewhat tougher enemy. it’s not really capitlism that’s evil, corruption is.
of course you’d need to widen the meaning of the word “corruption”.
with enough time this enemy can be slain though. all you need is some science.
observe where the money is corrupting the underlying processes and fix it.
the philosophy of capitalism is to rely on the markets to regulate themselves.
this pure form of capitalism already failed hundred years ago.
if you want something regulated, you’d have to do it yourself!
becoming a largely corruption-free country is hard work, without end!
would you stop doing that work, new ways for circumventing the rules will be found.
the natural state of the world is constant change. rules never account for that.
but in order for the rules to change in sync with the situation you need research.
you need to know the situation, what others do against it, and how efficiently laws are being executed.

next common villain is the spirit of freedom. french revolution, killing all these aristocrats. now hongkong.
china itself is a villain of this type, but also people fighting against china from within are.
in terms of superheroes, this is an extremely rare type of villain, mostly depiced as pirates and such.
I am quite certain also this kind of enemy can be defeated easily with some brainwashing.
roman empire was full of people who believed to be free, then in middle-ages, not anymore.
or rather all these citizens of rome seemingly became bandits and witches and such.
everybody who felt free was hunted down and killed. quite effective.
I’m afraid china will do that too, over and over again, just like europe did some centuries ago.
not saying they’re retarded, I don’t believe actual “development” of society is possible.
point is, now europe is making use of brain-washing, china prefers to kill people instead.
not really surprising considering the over-population there, and the low birthrate here.
especially the high education makes killing too much a loss of valuable resources here.
but these things could quickly change, maybe next century it will be the other way around.
problem with this villain type is, they mostly fight among themselves.
and people who don’t belong to this type are rare.
thereby most of earth’s population is a villain of this type.
as Douglas Adams suggested, we could easily develop into a species of bureaucrats.
so maybe even this kind of Evil can be fought with a bit of genetic engineering.
our struggling for freedom has developed over time, animals don’t have it.
shouldn’t be difficult to make us more alike to animals again.

Now the question that is implied in all that evil-bashing: why?
if Good fights Evil, doesn’t that make Good another kind of Evil?
if Evil can be conquered by blowing up the HQ, wasn’t building HQ a Good action?
shouldn’t constructive be called Good and destructive be Evil?
if you watched some anime, read some mangas, Good and Evil don’t really exist there!
often there is someone who is “right” and someone who is “wrong”.
the “wrong” person is actually the victim of some delusion or fantasy.
being “right” means you have a different delusion or fantasy, usually a more logical one.
alter some beliefs and wrong becomes right and the other way around.
you can’t define Good and Evil as Constructive and Destructive. those depend on beliefs too!

according to maths there exists such a thing called entropy.
you could define Constructive as reducing entropy.
for example human language has lower entropy than random radiation does.
when you look at probability-distribution of words, it isn’t flat.
so how is entropy defined? the less random the distribution the more random the underlying event?
sounds very awkward. especially the notion of randomness is only in our mind.
of course there are quantum-mechanics with its probability-distribution of particles.
i.e. a particle switches to being a wave of probability-distribution, and back again.
but that’s again just an interpretation of some formulas, it’s all in our mind.
in maths you have only the formulas. they don’t justify our interpretation.
maybe formulas will stay the same, but interpretation will definitely change!
it already changed so many times in the last millenia. new formulas appeared.
even the formulas of mechanics became more detailed in last few centuries.
so quite naturally our notion of entropy will change too.
einstein said god doesn’t play dice, maybe that’s true?
hawkins said black holes eat up information, thereby restoring lost entropy.
again a belief. but maybe it makes every Constructive attempts futile?
what’s the use of building anything when it will end up in a black hole?
aren’t then the destroyers of information the Good Guys?

if our purpose in life is to experience and die because of us doing exactly that, what’s the use of black holes?
how does a black hole die? how does it perceive? what kind of experiences can it have?
what’s obvious is that it destroys free-flowing matter. is that the meaning of life for a black hole?

what we should maybe consider is that all our constructing might be an act of evil.
whenever we leave any traces in the world, we are committing a crime against nature.
some things we need to construct, but wouldn’t it be better to make the changes as small as possible?
other beings surely do construct stuff too. whenever we build something, efforts of those beings are destroyed.
if we only alter the world a little bit, the other beings can adapt.
IMHO best would be if every being would get an equal share of how much it can construct.
maybe count the amount of cells each being has, and allow only a fixed amount of change per cell.
make it so that ants and bees have a nice head-room for construction.
then define as Evil all the people who construct more, physically.
same can be done on a mental level. only allow a certain amount of ideas to publish.
no more spam on the internet! take max amount of words said every day by humans and add headroom.
a corporation then has to pay people for using their allowance of words, to create commercials…

Bandwidth and Context Mapping

Leave a comment

http://verraes.net/2014/01/bandwidth-and-context-mapping/

Context Map with Bandwidth

la petite morte is what dreams have in common with reality

Leave a comment

some say “life is a big dream”. I disagree with that.

“life is just a big dream” however sounds somewhat more true.
the word “just” signifies a kind of limitation. here it means that life is at most as limited as dreams are.
maybe dreams have more limitations than reality.
but obviously the author of this saying is convinced life has some important limitations in common with dreams.

I guess I have to explain in more detail why I used the notion “at most” instead of “at least”.
let’s start with set-theory: a set is a collection of elements.
however at the same time a set is also a collection of elements that fulfil certain properties.
a finite set can have each of its objects individually listed in such a description, an infinite set can not.
the reason is that for defining some properties only finite-length expressions are allowed.
so when dealing with sets of infinite size, one really is dealing with limitations of some predefined infinite set.
to define an infinite set you take another infinite set and add limitations to it, you throw out elements.

now lets say life is a set of things that could happen, particularly my life is a set of experiences I could potentially have.
dreams are part of my life too, for me it is possible to re-experience all the same things I already experienced in dreams.
those things happened in my mind while I had these dreams. wouldn’t be surprising if my mind could repeat that.
even when I am awake and perceiving my surroundings, I can still additionally experience these things.
this is called hallucinations or day-dreams. therefore the set called “life” additionally contains what otherwise isn’t part of the set called “dreams”.

life has less limitations than dreams, in terms of what one could possibly experience.
for example when awake I can experience defecating, and my creations will remain real. can’t do that in mind alone.
some things possible in reality simply are not possible in dreams. hence dreams have more limitations than life even more than waken life.
the trick here is to interpret dreams as experiences of mind, instead of taking the hallucinations at face value.
then it is natural that experiences of mind also are possible when fully awake.
leaves the question, does life have any limitations at all?
but it is for sure, the limitations we have in life also apply to dreams, they merely are irrelevant there since dream-experiences aren’t bodily experiences.

I have been told, the limitation life has in common with dreams is that both are completely pointless.
you live your life, and eventually you die, there is nothing you gain. similarly a nice dream eventually ends — in disappointment.
also the other way around: all your life long you had those fears, as death comes they all are pointless, a gigantic relief.
at least this is the current time’s interpretation of the quote I made at the beginning.
we can’t really know how the words were originally meant.

dreams are so much more than life could ever offer. a dream is like an experiment in a laboratory!
all the things that encumber us in our waken state, they all are gone in our dreams.
we even frequently lose our memory of life’s hardships, when we dream.
in these ideal conditions we can experiment with our mind’s potentialities, explore mind’s limitations.
can’t do that in the mess we call “life”. in dreams we are responsible for the order, when awake this responsibility is shared.
who ever tried to re-live experiences from a dream also in waken reality, quickly will get disappointed.
some people are capable of experiencing hallucinations, alike to the ones experienced as dreams.
but even for these people such experience is more limited than within dreams.
the biggest difference is that when sleeping we have our eyes closed.
so while waken hallucinations  must adapt to our surroundings, dreams only adapt to our 4 facial senses.
light falling on the eyelids, smells, sounds, tastes, all find their way into dreams.
but when hallucinating awake there further is the sense of touch, and actual shapes we see with our eyes.
these two make it quite impossible to hallucinate for example about sexual experience. but wet dreams we can have anytime.

So, what is the meaning of waken life then? why not just live in dreams all the time?
truth is all I said in the previous paragraph is unimportant, except maybe for a scientist who writes books about mind.
the most important characteristic of dreams and of reality in general is the continuity, the (relative) stability.
we do something, and it has an impact, we are the cause for some effects. our actions are what makes life meaningful.
of course no effect is forever. nothing will last. but relatively to our lifespan, we can actually build up something reliable.
some of our deeds will have effects for hundreds of years.
throw a plastic bag into the ocean and you made a monument for centuries.
for your whole life you then can rely on any fish caught there to contain remnants of your contribution.
dreams have something similar too, but there time-spans are much shorter since dreams are shorter than life is.
and also relatively speaking, the effects dreams have on the future is much more limited than what we do when awake.
the difference here is that dreams depend on mind only. as soon as mind forgets, also its seemingly stable creations disappear.

one just can’t live in dreams alone, our mind isn’t meant to be used that way and our society hasn’t yet automated the gathering of food.
maybe in future this will change, maybe in future nobody will ever forget anything and eating will be a relic of the conservatives.
but till then we have to face the facts. human isn’t meant to live life inside of whatever mind.
even in terms of learning and understanding, our mind isn’t really trustworthy.

this worthlessness of mind, in terms of instability and fragility, this is the only thing that equally limits waken life and dreams alike.
any student will tell you: memory is the biggest challenge in acquiring knowledge, healthy nutrition comes second and could also become part of the same problem.
of course we have great memory, we could learn thousands of books by heart. but that’s not the problem I’m talking about.
let’s look at dreams for example: you see a wall, then you turn around, and as you look again the wall is gone. why?
obviously you noticed the wall is gone, so it cannot be a problem of memory. you remember there’s supposed to be a wall.
same with the student: after many exercises, a completely analogous problem at the exam seems unsolvable. black-out.
and even when the exam is passed, later in job and wherever applicable in private life, all the training is wasted.
we learned things in school and in reality we never even get the idea to apply them. why?
in both, dreams and school, mind is only as strong as it was a moment ago.
you didn’t perform the algebraic exercises a moment ago, then you now must relearn how to do them.
in a dream you stopped looking at the wall, so it isn’t surprising when it’s gone completely.

you must keep mind occupied with some activity, otherwise that activity will need to be re-learned anew.
as a rule of thumb, after 2 weeks without training, whatever abilities you had are lost.
an exercise must be repeated once a week to keep mind alert for that kind of situations.

there is the saying “for a man with a hammer as the only tool, every problem looks like a loose nail”.
this point of view, this seeing only loose nails all around you, I claim this point of view has a time-limit.
i.e. you put your hammer aside for a week or two, and you’ll stop seeing all those loose nails.
maybe other people have a different time-limit, but for me it is at least 1 week and at most 2 weeks.
when I was pretty good at some math stuff and I didn’t do it for that time, I am not good at it anymore.
of course I still can do it, my memory of how to do it isn’t lost, I just stop being so masterful at it.

in dreams there is no such time-limit, instead some sort of attachment is required.
in order for the wall to stay where it was as I turn my back to it, I must continue to feel its presence.

maybe I hear the wall, in the sense that sounds from behind it are muffled.
or maybe I feel how the air-currents get stopped by the wall, or I see its shadow.
maybe I feel the coldness of the wall or I feel how it is looming behind my back like a giant.
luckily this kind of continuity can be trained, now I even am able to leave a room and return to it without problems.
however, that kind of training too has the derogation factor. after about a year without training also this ability is lost.

now to summarize: human is changing all the time, nothing is forever, most things wont hold even for a lifetime.
abstractly seen, if a human had only a single ability, it would be as if that human would reincarnate every week, into the same body.
once a week it would be as if that human died, and someone else is then occupying that body.
this new host still has the same physical set-up, also the same knowledge, but character and abilities differ.
it’s as if the previous host would have left behind some book, from which to re-learn the abilities.
similarly also character can be re-acquired from the remnants of the previous person in that body.

but this kind of relearning has the same limitation as any kind of communication:
the main landmarks of the knowledge can be conveyed in detail, but it’s up to the person to connect the dots.
in mathematics one could say that only a countable subset can be conveyed, the completion must be done manually.
but this isn’t accurate, our memory can only store a finite amount of information, no communication can go beyond that.
so we have some limited description, some thoughts telling us what to do, how to do it we must figure out.
keep this in mind next time you learn something new, it really matters how you store that memory.
no matter how good you are at something after learning it, it’s important to formulate what you learnt for your future selves.

I think at this point I should emphasize, when I talk of death, I mean it!
in my experience it is wrong to beautify the memory-loss into something happening concurrently.
it’s really a cut, one moment I had an ability and the next moment I don’t have it anymore.
but it’s also wrong to claim the real you is dying at some point in your body’s life.
it’s always a small loss of abilities, one ability after the other is lost, till a whole bunch is gone.
also it happens at random time, mostly at a time you relax, for example during sleep.
and most importantly the loss isn’t being noticed till you need the things lost.
it’s as if part of you died and you are facing some zombie instead, some alien person.
in such moments we then say “why did I do such a stupid thing?”
of course it isn’t an alien, we just suppress the fact that nothing is forever, even our mind dies — piece by piece.

no matter if dream or reality, in a way we all die a little from time to time, repeatedly. always keep in mind that secondary mortality.
what’s the point in learning anything at all? you wont improve your abilities after these 2 weeks of training.
whatever new tricks you learn after that time, you will forget about all the old tricks which you then neglected.
if your goal is some kind of mental achievement, never waste more than those 2 weeks.
you want enlightenment? it takes only 2 weeks! if it doesn’t then you will never reach it! give up! or at least focus your life on it!

well, that really isn’t true. as I implied while talking about dreams, the ability of not-forgetting can be trained.
in dreams I have managed to do that, why not when awake?
if abilities of mind are as important for you as they are for me, do that!
keep track of how quickly you lose abilities and make that time become longer.
the secret to this it to avoid being distracted. in the dreams mind must be continuously occupied with the objects.
similarly when awake keep your mind occupied with the abilities you want to keep.
make a list of what abilities you need and create a training-schedule.
this schedule isn’t the important thing here, what one must learn is to be more systematic in the training.
if mind wanders off into unrelated fields, a lot of time is wasted that could have been used for being occupied with some new tricks.
and most importantly, always keep track of what your mind does do, at any time.
it’s important not to be controlled by circumstances, and instead keep up control of the own mind…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ruling the World

Leave a comment

English: Emblem of the United Nations. Color i...

English: Emblem of the United Nations. Color is #d69d36 from the image at http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/maplib/flag.htm (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

such games like civilization teach us about the various kinds of governments. is democracy really the best?
till now it seems it was. what has changed though is dimly a truth is taking shape: in future this might change!

all the various kinds of democracy have the weakness that once you know all voters you can manipulate them.
for now this danger has the name “google” or “Facebook”, some accuse the “NSA”. who cares how it’s called?
in the abstraction lies the truth, statistical methods are undermining the principles of democracy.
if to statistical analysis data becomes available that depicts our very soul, then our votes become predictable.
if you ever tried autofeedback methods for self-control you know what this means: commercials are becoming science.
so far they had not much power over us. so far making commercials was assigned to the artists.
but each individual’s data now is available. no more guesswork. just personalize commercials to those.

what makes things worse is that such a thing like “individual” mind doesn’t exist. no mind is unique.
it is our delusion to assume we would be different from each other. but truth is, we cannot know the truth!
statistically to judge if one of the billions of people on earth is alike to you, you’d need to know millions of them.
nobody knows millions of people personally. especially not to the degree to judge if their mind differs.
someone proposed the claim that there exist only about 20000 different individuals on earth.
everybody else is just a copy of those 20000 people, in terms of mind. I can’t prove such a claim, of course.
however, I can point out that the amount of possible faces is similarly limited. I guess everybody observed that.
bones and skin are determined by genes, but our face isn’t. every single muscle determines how we look.
so, if there ever exist 2 people with the same face, they probably also have the same mind.
at least when talking of which muscle is under tension when and how, minds must match for physical synchronisms.
I’m not saying identical twins would have the same mind. their faces usually diverge from each other over time.
and the other way around, people with the same mind don’t necessarily look alike. there’s still genetics and culture.
but I at least conclude that as long as people like Saddam can find a double, also mind-doubles probably exist.
based on this number above,  I probably exist about 500000 times on earth.
now individualise a commercial to my mind, and you’ll catch half a million worldwide…

a good method against this danger is to give the government officially the power over personnel decisions.
a vote only determines the politician on the seat, but the real danger is when those politicians are being manipulated.
additionally whatever a commercial says, people can talk about it freely online — if government allows internet.
the real problem is whenever people are assembled to make a seemingly democratic decision.

democracy isn’t just votes, democracy also regulated how the text being voted about was to get created.
according to democracy some politicians are supposed to work together on formulating it.
but who decides what people are supposed to work together here? t isn’t the voters. they only elected the candidates!
some chief-politicians do that kind of decision, because they know who has the competence for good formulations.
this way personnel decisions are undemocratic because they require information that isn’t available to voters.
but this only goes for making laws. any other kind of discussion is being manipulated by other forces, in-transparently.

take for example a discussion between government and teachers. of course not all teachers of a country can participate.
who decides what teachers are allowed to take part in that discussion? usually it’s the labour union or similar!
again these kind of organizations are highly democratic, except only participants are allowed to vote.
now this is a small amount of voters, easy to manipulate each of them individually.
just let them vote for the candidate who is the easiest to manipulate. impossible to prevent.
however, if by manipulating those elected people the whole government is manipulated, this is a problem.
but what’s the worst those people could ever do? it’s selecting wrong people for a discussion!

especially in the area of science it’s visible how the right combination of people can help a project.
also when you ever observed whatever group of people, their hieve-mind changes depending on who has come.
they meet, somewhere, and only 10 people are there to discuss. one day the combination is good, another it isn’t.
out of 50 people those 10 can make a difference like between day and night, depending on who is among them.
even the most ingenious person could behave completely different if the right person is/isn’t present.

so I say, whenever government needs people to meet up and talk, government should decide who.
that’s what secret agencies are for, to investigate what is best for the country. so let them inform government.
then a meeting with teachers could easily go in favour of politicians. and if personnel decisions are transparent, even better.
let the politicians explain whom they chose and what list of people they had to choose from. let them explain their work.
when by law politicians are in charge of those decisions, people will see that electing the right politicians is important.
only problem is, who decides the list of people at an international conference? for example on global warming?
now for this I propose some sort of world-government. except it isn’t governing anything, but rather making conferences.
it should be an organization beyond nations, sort of united nations organization. or rather a conference-organization.

first and foremost such an organization should have an elected head. of course all participating countries have to elect him/her.
I propose that by organizing those elections a country automatically becomes a member, no real membership fees.
the only income of this conference organization should be the actual conferences, nothing else.
any other kind of income would undermine the independentness aspect of its reputation.
even this kind of income is already problematic, maybe such an organization would want to spam us down with conferences?
but here at least each country can decide on its own if it wants to participate. being spammed down would lower the participation.

the conference organization should have only 2 purposes: to organize a discussion, and to investigate the outcome.
more exactly it has to choose the participants, and has to verify if the countries know what has been discussed.

choosing participants is easy, just take the votes from each country’s representatives and count them.
maybe the head should have a veto in that, rejecting some participants. but more important is the choice of topics.
here the head definitely should have a veto-right after all countries decided what needs to be discussed.
again spamming down the countries is the reason behind that. the head would need to agree to the spamming.

to make it clear: again participants of conferences are chosen transparently. thanks to internet there is no limit.
the representatives get a list of people to choose from, and maybe using statistics and computer they choose.
each of them inputs what the goal of the choice shall be and the computer gives an estimate on who might achieve it.
no matter how they choose, list of candidates and list of participants must be public.
this way everyone can verify what computer-algorithm was used.
and thereby the representatives would better tell the truth. especially if they were chosen democratically.
as for topics, all representatives and the head may propose topics. they then discuss formulation.
if a topic is accepted by a majority then the conference will be held (unless head is against it).
all this of course is just a rough sketch of the rules. all this is subject to change by the head after voting.
however the basic rule of preparing and verifying the conference-work cannot be changed.

after the topic and participants have been chosen, the conference has been held, verification is very important.
each country taking part in the conference will be presented with several papers, formulated during conference.
each ministry gets at least one paper with concrete directions how to put things into action, readily formulated laws.
the head of the government gets another paper which explains how those laws work together.
each paper contains precise explanations why things have been formulated in the particular way.
one week later, or up to 3 months later the head of each ministry has to make an exam on these papers.
the conference-organization should prepare test-questions and make sure the ministry doesn’t cheat.
after the test the results are published. no more consequences arise from the conference. only understanding counts.

the idea behind those tests is that in a democracy population will get informed about the intelligence of politicians.
but even in a monarchy there might be a ministry, and the king/queen will then get informed of the ministry’s performance.
if there is no ministry at all, whatever illusions about him/her get shattered.
either way such a test will definitely be a humbling experience. not passing it will be a shame.
again a recording of the test will be available to everyone, along with questions and correct answers.
each ministry is tested about the papers related to it, head of government only about the connecting paper.
it is not acceptable some secretary takes the tests, it must be the people actually in charge.
the person who has the power to put the conference’s outcome into practice must be tested directly and transparently.

also important to mention, only countries which voted when the conference-organization’s head was elected, can participate.
each county then is responsible for making sure the elections are fair, regardless if it’s a democracy or not.
as for the country’s own representative in the organization, they may vote for that person too, but don’t need to.
it is sufficient when government just announces who gets to join the organization.

as for fees, it’s important also poor countries can participate. so the fees for the conference are relative to the country’s wealth.
but maybe instead of usual numbers the current financial situation should be used.
if the country has no debts, then the conference costs 0,1% of how much it increases what it owns, in terms of gold and such.
if the country has debts, it is paying an interest rate. 0,1% of those interest fees are the price for the conference.
however, no need for the country to immediately pay. the interest rate for those debts will be again 0,1% per year.
even better would be to wait 5 years, compare interest-fees then with those at the time of the conference and take the lower value.
during those 5 years, the debts don’t grow. no interest rate, only after that time. the currency for those debts is gold.

so, some degree of banking also belongs to the conference organization’s tasks.
another area of competence should be spying on all possible future participants of the conferences.
buying data from Facebook and such is probably sufficient though.
to create a list of possible participants, it’s enough to expect the volunteers to put some effort in their web-appearance…

in order to make all this happen one would need crowd-funding and some prominent politicians.
the job-description here is much alike to an ambassador or of  someone working in high position of a secret service.
the crowd-funding would then pay that job till the conferences generate money.
keep in mind most countries have debts. that’s because as someone pointed out robots pay no taxes.
the more we trust machines to create stuff for us, the less income governments will get, till they’re broke.
solution is to eliminate taxes on income and tax only expenses. say, 100% of price then would be added as tax.
investing in this conference-organization would then be an investment into this kind of change of taxes.
if you are against high taxes on stuff you buy, then you are in favour of governments going broke.
quite understandable, most science-fiction starts out with the assumption police and judges will be privatized.
but then, don’t ever support whatever ideas that are trying to get some money out of the government.
such investments then generally will go down in the long run, as there’s no more money to get!

does Love exist?

Leave a comment

Purple lilac symbolizes "first emotions o...

Purple lilac symbolizes “first emotions of love” in the language of flowers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

another feature of abstraction is talking about topics that are beyond explanation. Love is such a thing.
in a way Love is empty.  tell me your definition, and I show you it doesn’t exist.
doesn’t mean Love wouldn’t really exist, it’s just our words that can easily be debunked.

well, there are some exceptions:
when you define Love as the thing some couple has running, obviously it exists.
you’d need to try describing their relationship for me to show you how inaccurate the description is.
a relationship is dynamical, it changes with circumstance, new situations produce completely new behaviour.
Similarly I couldn’t do anything with non-serious definitions alike to “love is to take a cold shower every morning”.
surely love is about more aspects of life than just taking a shower? and where’s the other person?
most likely there does exist people who take a cold shower every morning.
I can’t refute this. but if you keep on listing many activities, who is ever doing all of them every time?
words are designed to single out a particular activity, but they can’t encompass complex behaviour patterns.

so the first thing to do for finding out if love exists is to give an abstract definition.
this must be done by everyone individually. if it could be put into words, it wouldn’t be love.
most obvious aspect of love is the lack of hate. does this mean misogynists cannot feel love to a woman?
well, if you go that route, pretty much every male is misogynistic,  as a result love doesn’t exist.
so better get rid of that aspect, experience tells us it’s possible to feel hate and love to the same person.
another idea people might have is that love is exclusive, only one person can be loved.
strictly seen this idea introduces a contradiction when you consider a mother’s love to her children as love.
will she cease to love her husband when she gets babies? that’s doubtful.
the only useful aspect of love here is that of “considering the other person’s point of view”.
of course that’s much too weak for defining love, it also describes any kind of friendship.
so, start from here and attach any feelings you associate with love to that.
when dealing with emotions, this is what must be done in general for an abstraction.
get a bunch of words that can be real, and add emotions around them. that’s a definition.
of course you know that only the emotions are the real emotion.
the words however are just there to protect you in future from wrong decisions.

as I wrote in my previous post, to me warm love is all the love-stuff minus the hormonal and drug-induced feelings.
of course that exists. my bunch of words is “no drugs”, to protect me from addiction.
actually to me it isn’t important if another person considers my point of view.
to me it is natural to consider all people’s points of view.  I don’t expect others to be alike.
the only important thing to me is how I feel when abstaining from sexuality and other fun activities.
if the feelings survive such an abstinence, then I know what I feel is love.
on the other hand I noticed others see “being together” as an important nourisher of love.
in my own experience however it’s just the diversity that’s important.
one could meet only on a monthly basis, as long as every meeting is unique.
this feeling of uniqueness of situations is important to me. stop it, and my love is diminishing slowly.
if monthly uniqueness is enough then a whole year could diminish love only 12 times.
many many years would need to pass that way, till all the unique moments of past are undone…

it really isn’t a problem when every person has a different definition of love.
it is preferable when two people at least agree on a bunch of words to which the emotions are attached.
otherwise the mind would rebel against the idea that such a person can be loved, although only subconsciously.
however, much more important than this agreement with the loved one is to check if love exists.
if you have unfulfillable expectations about love, expectations about yourself or your partner, you’ll only feel miserable!
lighten up your definitions, introduce different words for different kinds of love!
if you are educated with theories of monogamy, tell yourself that to each person you love you have a uniquely different feeling!
maybe even drop the word “love” alltogether, invent new words, or use such words like “affection” or “attachment”.
it makes no sense to learn a new word every day when all the words have the same meaning. create your own vocabulary!

Older Entries