metaphysical mumbo-jumbo: 2/1/07

banquet for bacteria

Because everything is relative (including the meaning of words) it can be a challenge to think, speak or act meaningfully across multiple axes. Consider, for example, people going on a picnic. They get to the picnic spot and after settling down they begin eating. Inevitably, someone (often a child) will help zerself to gigantic portions of food, but be unable to eat it all (the "...eyes bigger than your stomach..." syndrome) and will then throw the uneaten food away.

Someone else (often a parent) will criticise the child along these lines: "Don't throw that food away, there are people starving in xyz*. What a waste! I paid good money for that. And another thing, haven't I told you not to litter? You are spoiling it for everyone, making a mess like that!"

Actually, from another perspective the food does not go to waste, because bugs and worms eat part of it, and bacteria eat the rest. It is only "waste" from a limited, self-centric and self-serving perspective. Our "waste" is manna from heaven for bacteria. Likewise, the food that is "thrown away" is only "litter" from a limited, self-centric and self-serving perspective. From another perspective the food thrown away represents just another model of resource allocation.

The underlying principle is that anything and everything is seen through a particular pair of spectacles, not necessarily the correct pair (whatever "correct" means) and absolutely not the only pair. In fact, there is no "correct" pair of spectacles. From the perspective of Everything That Is (ETI) there's no such thing as waste. Nothing is ever wasted.

Is the human perspective the one and only? No. Does the human perspective override everything else. No. (We tend to think it does, and we certainly behave as if it does, but we are wrong on that score (whatever "wrong" means!))

Do humans have more rights than other creatures and things? (Excluding the rights we grant themselves) the answer is "no". Do we have the right to use and abuse nature to the detriment of all else, including ourselves? Well, the bible says that god granted humankind dominion over nature, but I'm not having a bar of that.

Humans tend to believe that we are the beginning and end and centre of everything, (it's a fallacy and it's pathetic, so you could call it the pathetic fallacy). How we think about waste (per the discussion above) is one example of the pathetic fallacy. Another is how we took centuries to move from believing that the universe revolved around our planet, Earth (Terra), to believing that the universe revolved around our sun, Sol, to believing that the universe comprises only our galaxy, the Milky Way, etc etc.

A thing called the anthropic principle is an extreme instance of the fallacy. What a load of nonsense: that the universe is surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of us. Yes, well the universe is as it is and was as it was and that's why, how, when and wherefore we emerged. If the universe were different to the way it is and was, well then different beings may or may not have emerged. Who cares! Talk about tautologies. It's just the old, tired "argument by design" of the proof of the existence of God, usually mounted by people who are either ignorant and/or should know better. Let's just leave it at that.

HOME of mumbo jumbo

fiction generating engine

The pure ontology of this diagram has nothing to do with metaphysics or mumbo-jumbo for that matter. However, moving up one level of abstraction you could say that the self-referentially ironic nature of this post does in fact warrant its inclusion. And certainly, this caption itself is a fine example of mumbo-jumbo. However if you really insist on a halfway meaningful rationale for including this diagram, you could read about the disturbing end of FictBot (chapter 1) in my wicked and sick blog.

HOME of mumbo jumbo

wakeful sleeping

The art of sleeping without sleeping.

Applications: A useful technique for manic depressives in the hyper- or hypo-manic phase, and for insomniacs of all kinds including mystics, gnostics and/or anyone in the long dark night of zer soul. A combination of visualisation, affirmation, prayer and meditation, the technique can be used for several consecutive nights, but consult your physician if you need to use it for more than four nights in a row.

Instructions: Lie flat on your back with appropriate support (for your head and behind your neck). Do whatever you need to do to relax. ‘Tune in’ to your own heartbeat—using earplugs will help you identify/establish your ‘inner clock’ or pulse.

When you are relaxed and aware of your heartbeat, then practise the three stages in order (‘Thought’, ‘Word’, ‘Deed’) as described below. By all means customise either or both Thought and/or Word, but leave Deed alone: it works best as is.

Thought Stage: Your breathing should be deep and slow. If you can, try and synchronise your breathing to your heartbeat. Think the following words, ie say them in your mind, as if you were visualizing the letters and words being printed on the inside of your skull: “I am practising the technique for wakeful sleeping. The technique helps me restore, revive, renew, refresh, revitalize, rejuvenate and re-energize my mind, body and soul. The technique is as efficient if not more so than normal sleep. Thank you […]”

Whoever / whatever you want to thank is entirely up to you. You can thank any entity or being you like, including yourself, your god, your mother, your guardian angel, whatever. Here are a few examples: “Thank you [yourownname]”, “Thank you God”, "Thank you [nameofyourgod]”, “Thank you mom”, “Thank you [nameofyourmom]”, etc, etc. For the technique to be effective, it is important to be absolutely sincere, intensely grateful.

Word Stage: Speak or say the words of the thought out loud, ie “I am practising…” etc. When you get to the 'thank you' part, be as sincere and as grateful as you possibly can be. Be truly, humbly grateful.

Deed Stage: Timing is important in the Deed part of the cycle. Use your own pulsebeat as your timer. You will find that using earplugs makes it easier to identify your pulsebeat.

Exhale: Purse the lips and expel air slowly and strongly pranayama-style clenching the stomach muscles and the chest muscles in turn until the very last particle of air is expelled from the lungs. The duration of the exhalation should be no more and no less than four pulsebeats. Count the pulsebeats in your mind, but see note below for how to count.

When the lungs are empty, swallow hard and immediately keep your throat ‘locked down’ in the unreleased swallow position. Do not breath for eight pulsebeats (or six if you find eight too challenging). Count the pulsebeats in your mind, but see note below for how to count.

Inhale: At the beginning of the ninth (or seventh) pulsebeat, take one single slow, deep breath in through the nose (do not open your mouth). Take one slow continuous breath to fill your lungs to capacity, to bursting point almost. The inhalation is a mirror image of the exhalation: both should be of four pulsebeats, no more and no less. Count the pulsebeats in your mind, but see note below for how to count.

When the lungs are completely full, 'lock down' the throat as before, to prevent any air escaping out of the lungs. Do not expel any air for at least eight (or six) pulsebeats. Count the pulsebeats in your mind, but see note below for how to count.

Repeat the Thought, Word, Deed cycle at least five times. After five (or more) cycles, let your breathing return to normal, deep pranayama-style breathing (in through nose, out through pursed lips). Relax and enjoy the sensations.

Please note this technique does not help you sleep, or put you to sleep. What it does is help you get all the benefits of sleep, without being asleep, ie while you are awake.

Throughout the Deed Stage, empty your mind of all thoughts, concepts or words, except for one: “white”. This means you should either mentally visualise “white” as the absence of any colour and all colours, or if you find that difficult, simply repeat the word “white” in your mind over and over. Whilever you are doing the eight, six or four counts (as stipulated above) do not count numbers (ie ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’ etc.). Instead, you should count by saying the word “white” eight times inside your mind.

I realise it all sounds very 'new-age'. But try it anyway. And be as cynical as you like. Fake it while you make it. Whether you believe or not, it really works!! Trust me, I'm not a doctor.

home (refresh screen)

the cat killed by curiousity (not its own)

Whereby the Akashic Record is less record than portfolio or ensemble of multi-dimensional timeslices or instances, all but one of which are potential; and the one which is not potential but rather actual is brought into actuality by virtue of the actualising agent, which would be of the Copenhagen, Everrettian or multiversal School of Thought, whereby the Observer brings reality into being by decoherently collapsing the renormalised wave function (hopefully without killing Schrodinger's cat).

mumbo (refresh/home)

very short sentences

What is the shortest (grammatically and syntactically) correct sentence in the English language? How about "Be"? "Be." is shorter than "Kill." and is the same length as "Do." but based on descending alphabetical order of the initial letter in each case "Be." would take pride of place at the top of the list. The sentence "I." is neither grammatically nor syntactically correct because it lacks an object not to mention a verb, as do the exclamatories "O!", "Ah!" and many more. So it would seem that "Be." is the outright winner, unless anyone can come up with another candidate (let me know if you think you can).

mumbo (refresh/home)

towards values-free living

Can there be morality without God or gods? First, let's talk about absolute and relative values. I believe all values are relative, and absolute values do not exist. Take murder for instance. Most cultures today would condemn murdering children as "bad" or "wrong", but in many ancient cultures including the Carthaginian and Aztec cultures child sacrifice was regularly practised on a large scale. In the Aztec culture, thousands of children were ritually drowned to appease the god Tlaloc. There are many examples of how values differ from one culture to the next.

But that was then, and this is now. Things have changed, for the "better" (whatever that means), haven't they? Today, all right-thinking people agree on what is right and wrong, don't they? Well, actually, no. Female genital mutilation, for instance, is still practised widely in a number of modern cultures. Even today, there is nothing absolute about the value of protecting children from harm. And there are numerous other modern examples, and to those cultures I say, "you know who you are and what you do".

In a values-based morality, actions (and even thoughts) are said to be "bad" or "wrong" by reference to rules or standards imposed by an authority external to the individual (eg God, gods, the law, the priesthood, the army, mom and dad, the headmaster, social worker, etc). But often, the external authority has feet of clay and acts or speaks in a way that is inconsistent with values previously established by the selfsame authority. And often the values imposed or the protocols we live by are just plain dumb and have no practical application. Why do men wear neckties to work, for instance?

The New Testament for instance, records that Jesus lost his temper with a fig tree and withered it when it would not produce fruit on demand and out of season. Oh, but that was intended metaphorically, oh, I see, sorry, my mistake.

In fact, most people unthinkingly and blindly accept external authority as the dictator of morality and values. Others, however, are not willing to accept an external authority, but instead use the compass of purpose to guide behaviour.

To illustrate, if my purpose is to travel from Paris, France to Berlin, Germany along the shortest possible route, then for me to make that journey via Sydney, Australia would not be "wrong" or "bad", but rather, would not serve that particular purpose.

Another example: If I want to have a healthy respiratory system, then to smoke cigarettes would not serve my purpose. It would not be wrong or bad to smoke; it would be inadvisable given the stated purpose.

Another example: If I don't ever want to be punched in the face, then for me to punch someone in the face will not serve that particular purpose, because by punching someone in the face I am increasing the likelihood of that person retaliating in kind. From a purpose-driven perspective, therefore, it would not be "wrong" or "bad" for me to punch someone in the face; instead, it would be an action that would not serve my purpose.

So, in my view the answer is no: we don't need God, or gods, or any external authority to dictate morality. And I'll go further: I believe the results produced by purpose-driven, values-free living are indistinguishable from those produced when values are imposed or dictated by an external authority. And yes, I realise it's a bit like the "invisible hand" of market forces, but there's no time or space to get into that now.

home (refresh screen)

who are you and who's in charge?

Understanding and defining consciousness is one of the toughest items on any thinker's agenda.

Dialogues (monologues? soliloquies? multilogues?) of the self, with the self, between selves, can produce mutual understanding, empathy, congeniality, even love. But these solipsistic conversations can also involve a self holding negative emotions towards itself---hostility, confusion, hatred, recrimination, resentment, contempt, and the like.

Consider the example of a drug addict who castigates zerself for committing crimes to get money to satisfy zer habit. Ze sees these acts to be not in alignment with zer personal values. Ze argues with zerself. Ze is at war with zerself. How can this be? Why is this so? And so what?

These days, many if not most philosophers, neurologists and psychologists consider that the meme or concept (call it what you will) of 'the self' (or 'a self') is confusing and misleading mainly because it does not exist in objective reality (whatever that is: let me know if you find out). Quite simply, there is no such thing as the self or a self---an homogenous, indivisible, fundamental thing in itself. There is no homunculus (little person) in the control room inside your skull behind your eyes. There is no-one in control. Consciousness is emergent; it is an aggregation of multiple dynamic processes and sub-processes, sometimes collaborating, other times opposing. In fact, a number of these processes and sub-processes (or modules, if you will) fly low "under the radar", below the threshold of consciousness: we're not even aware of them. Things happen in the mind without the mind's owner (?) being consciously or unconsciously aware of them.

Consciousness is not a thing; it does not live at any particular address in or outside of the brain; it can not be found anywhere in the material world. It is a dynamic gestalt of processes, and it tends to emerge whenever a certain threshold of complexity is reached. See my "manic memes" blog for a pictorial example.

You can't find the spot in the human brain where consciousness lives, because it is not material. In my view, robots/computers can be conscious if the software that runs them is sufficiently complex. The actual substrate on which the process runs or is embodied is irrelevant. Whether it is silicone or carbon, hardware or wetware, is irrelevant.

I believe a planet can be conscious (eg the Gaia metaphor). In fact, I believe that whole of reality, the entire universe, Everything That Is (ETI) is alive and well and aware and intelligent. But how can a lump of rock be conscious? How can a cloud of dust be conscious. Very simple, when a gestalt-based perspective (the whole greater than the sum of the parts) is adopted. My foot is not smart but I am. Or, as the universe might say, "My interstellar dust clouds are not smart, but I am. Intelligent beings reside within me, so I am at least as intelligent as they are all put together. But in fact my emergent cosmic intelligence is greater than the sum of the intelligent and non-intelligent parts of me. My intelligence does not reside in any particular material part of me; my consciousness is not material, it resides in another domain.

Consider, for example, a political party. The party produces new policy and modifications to existing policy through a process in which heterogenous factions and sub-factions battle it out or cooperate, as the case may be. The end product is for external consumption, ie by members of the public (voters, constituents, etc).

In similar vein, the 'self' or 'soul' of a person (or any conscious entity for that matter) is an ongoing, dynamic aggregation that manufactures products and services for public consumption (ie 'other people', other 'selves').

PS: This post reflects the influence of a person I admire for the depth, lucidity and hard-edged robustness of his thought: the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. In particular I recommend his book Consciousness Explained, published in 1991. He is co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. The Centre’s site is well worth a visit.

home (refresh screen)

bag of bones, sack of flesh

If I am just a bag of bones, a sack of flesh and blood
then what are thoughts, feelings, memories and where do they come from and where do they reside?

[Now this is not an area where no-one has boldly gone before: many have, eg Descartes. So I am walking well-trodden paths, and I hope you don't mind or think any less of me.]

What then, is belief? Knowledge? Planning? Goal-seeking? Visualisation? And where do they all reside?

[Ah, the frailty of telos--grasp it gently, for it shatters easily, crumbling to dust, which then crumbles to nothingness in a (to date unobserved) process called proton decay.]

If then we grant the existence of non-material, non-physical realms, what's to stop us sliding down the slippery slope and grudgingly consider the hypothetically possible existence in those non-material realms of other strange and wonderful denizens, eg reincarnation, ghosts, 'psychic powers', and even---dare I utter one of zer names---God.

[But let's move away from a discussion involving the term, name or concept of God. It's too sensitive, too controversial, it prevents people from thinking clearly. We'll talk about this in great detail somewhen else.]

But for now let's just settle for the grudging admittance that non-material things exist, and that they can and do impact upon or affect physical things in material/physical realities. For example, a recipe in the mind of a chef can result in a delicious material meal in a material world (no Maddona jokes please) yet recipes and minds are non-material. A piece of software produces outputs which human beings use to produce effects in the material and other worlds.

Now here is an interesting (to me anyway) question: can a thought have a thought? Preliminary answer: software (non-material) can produce or cause to be or bring into being outputs (data) that are non-material. So yes, I would tentatively say that thoughts can have thoughts.

home (refresh screen)

a mind-expanding universe

I was wandering and wondering about the Cosmos (as one does) when a question up and bit me. So I decided to ask Professor Paul Davies, the world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist. The Prof has very broad interests extending from the “highly mathematical to the deeply philosophical.” He likes “…to ponder the big questions of existence: How did the universe begin? What is the destiny of mankind? Is there a meaning to the universe?”

As a great fan of Professor Davies’ work, and an avid reader of his books and articles, I was very grateful and appreciative that he took the time to respond to me quickly and curteously. Below is the gist of our email correspondence in late 2006:

SRS: In our expanding universe, space itself is expanding. The analogy of inflating a balloon is sometimes given. But if space itself is expanding, then how about the stuff that occupies space? Are space, and the stuff that occupies space one and the same thing? Is matter the same thing as space, what about spacetime?

If space is expanding and the stuff that occupies space is expanding, then is it true to say that all the superclusters, clusters, galaxies, stars, nebulae, dust and planets in the universe are also expanding? And the atomic and sub-atomic particles, are they also expanding? And the space between them at the sub-atomic level?

And as space expands, do human beings expand? How about our eyes, ears, hands? And the particles making up our eyes, ears and hands? And the space between the particles? And our telescopes and detectors and other pieces of equipment for observing the expansion of the universe? And the atomic and sub-atomic particles comprising the equipment?

If everything is expanding (presumably at the same rate) then how would we notice? Red shift / Doppler effect? But wouldn't relativity mean that if everything is expanding then nothing is expanding , and nobody would be able to tell the difference?

PD: The space between galaxies expands, but the galaxies themselves don't. Nor does anything else. It's all explained in my new book The Goldilocks Enigma.

SRS: A follow up question: If outside the galaxies space is expanding and inside it is not, where do you draw the line? There are no sharp edged boundaries in or outside galaxies.

PD: There is no boundary. Systems that are gravitationally bound do not expand. Those that are unbound do. It is a straightforward calculation to determine how bound systems shade into expanding ones. It is somewhere around the size of a cluster of galaxies, depending on the exact mass and velocity profiles, and the amount and degree of clustering of dark matter. These things are routinely modelled on supercomputers.

home (refresh screen)

Everything That Is

Everything That Is, has been, will be and could be (ETI) comprises all living and inanimate things and everything else, including non-material as well as material things, in this and/or any other universe or reality. And when I say "everything" I do mean "everything": Atoms and breakfasts and mountain goats and clever tactics and cabbages and kings and sealing wax and theories and vacuums and memories and nothingnesses and infinities (ask georg) and emptinesses and neurons and fables and ghosts and non-existent things and the past and the future and membranes and p-branes and topology and mobius bands and galaxies and light and everything. ETI is that which binds it all together.

Omniscience? All the knowledge there is, is part of ETI. (Note, this does not mean ETI is infinite knowledge necessarily. Rather it means that ETI is or contains all the knowledge there is, was, will be or could be.)

Omnipotence? All the power there is, is part of ETI. (Note, this does not mean ETI is infinite power necessarily. Rather, it means that ETI is or contains all the power there is, was, will be or could be.)

Omnipresence? Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, ETI is everywhere there is to be. (Note, this does not mean ETI is in infinite places necessarily. Rather it means that God is or contains or is in all the places there are, have been, will be or could be. And by the way, remember the Beatles song, "Strawberry Fields", and the line that goes, "...there's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be..."?)

I don't like to use the word/name "God" because of the potential for confusion, misunderstanding, argument and disagreement about the nature and name of ETI.

ETI is context-independent, values-free, cares for nothing and everything... but more on this later; I'm tired and want to go to bed.

home (refresh screen)

gender-neutral pronouns

One of the deficiencies of the English language as she is spoke or writ is the lack of gender-neutral pronouns. As any corporate comms practitioner or PR hack will attest: "he/she", "his/hers", "him/her" and "himself/herself" are clumsy; "it" and "its" are dehumanising; and "they", "their" and "them" are ungrammatical in the singular.

So let's all just agree on a new set of gender-neutral pronouns? How about "ze" for "he" or "she, "zem" for "him" or "her", "zer" for "his" or "her", "zers" for "his" or "hers", and "zerself" for "himself" or "herself".

I use these new pronouns in everything I write, including this and other blogs. For example: "Ze remembered when zer life was under control, when ze could look at zerself in a mirror without becoming afraid."

A language is a living, breathing, evolving thing. So come on people, it's just a numbers game. Tell your friends, your enemies, your colleagues, your children, your parents. Let's get it up and happening.

home (refresh screen)