(by Dlanorrenrag*)
ALTRUISM:
Too many discussions about altruism focus, in simplistic rationalism, upon pushing aside meta-empathy, just as if altruism should be completely explained within limits of one’s brain cells, skin, or kinship. Greedy Objectivists and Rationalists seem naturally to gravitate to shell games masqueraded as some sort of complete-in-itself logic, pretending thereby to render superfluous all religion, spirituality, and metaphysics.
However, an ever-present source of intuition ever laughs at such incomplete, self contradicting arguments. Just ask: Why should anyone who scoffs at altruism (empathetic caring) care so much as to work so hard to try to demonstrate that which is beyond demonstration, completion, or proof --- i.e., that one should not deign to care (be altruistic) beyond limits of one’s apparent interests?
Except in respect of some sort of confused altruism, why should a vaunted anti-altruist care enough about me to try to justify my selfishness? Well, an anti-altruist will quibble and resort to “Enlightened Selfishness.” So, how is “Enlightened Selfishness” not mere wordplay for repackaging Enlightened Altruism?
By the way, just Who is the “one” being considered for altruism? After all, proofs” about altruism turn upon assumptions about who it is who supposedly should be altruistic.
Too few seem to appreciate or envision how “One,” in one’s empathetic altruism, may not necessarily or completely be limited to a perimeter of skin or kinship. Rather, a meta-capacity is availed to all to explore, identify, and share potential, re-creative interests allied beyond immediate perimeters --- even so far as to encompass perspectives of others. Such is the capacity of Enlightened Empathy, which manifests each perspective in respect of One conserving system.
To deem it rational to assume enlightened altruism should pertain only to manifested limits of one’s skin or kinship is merely to deem by assumption that which one seeks to prove. Such is laughable.
Enlightened altruism is often appreciated, not merely in measurable empiricism, but with an accompanying meta-insight and subconscious intuition. Each one seeking empathetic regard for interests is pursuing a conserving meta-centric that is common for both. That is, selfish perspective cannot operate except upon a coin which is required for its conservation and expression, the other side of which is empathetic regard for an environment which defines and nurtures its needs. That coin is subject to metaphysical circularity; it is not restricted to logical linearity or directionality.
So-called Objectivists and Pure Rationalists may better muse about that which is linearly measurable, as opposed to pretending to complete and foreclose meta-intuitions by other perspectives about such altruism as conserves moral identity.
Thus spake Anti-Zoroaster.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Creative Tolerance Of Diversity
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Creative Tolerance Of Diversity:
Even for Artificial Intelligence, to obtain and retain perspective and self identity necessitates that one acquire capacity at some level for emotional motivation, based on empathetic loyalties and antipathetic disloyalties.
We cannot pierce God’s cloak of ambiguity; nor can we tolerate the diversity of everything. We can no more love everything than we can be indifferent to everything. For us, to love everything is as oxymoronic as to be indifferent to everything.
We have no choice but to invest and associate our very definitions of our emotional selves and perspectives in intolerant loyalties and choices.
A moving conservatism requires that we cannot create without also destroying. For us, there is no such thing as objective, artificial intelligence, devoid of emotional involvement — however "arbitrary" such may be.
No civilization can cohere except in respect of some ever-morphing, common, changing, creative, inspiring vision of intolerance against such adversaries and challenges as are needed in order for it to define itself with continuity.
Perhaps, a movement for awakening Enlightened Empathy may eventually educate and lead us to identify creative adversaries in goals — rather than in races, tribes, religions, or mutual assured destruction.
****
We are not yet ready for one, borderless, world-wide system of government. If we wish to preserve an option, at some eventual point, to achieve a world-wide federalism of some sort, it presently becomes all the more important, as exemplar, to defend and not squander republican aspects of the territorial and cultural integrity of the USA. Otherwise, what beckons is not a pendulum, but a seething broth of over-boiling diversity.
Creative Tolerance Of Diversity:
Even for Artificial Intelligence, to obtain and retain perspective and self identity necessitates that one acquire capacity at some level for emotional motivation, based on empathetic loyalties and antipathetic disloyalties.
We cannot pierce God’s cloak of ambiguity; nor can we tolerate the diversity of everything. We can no more love everything than we can be indifferent to everything. For us, to love everything is as oxymoronic as to be indifferent to everything.
We have no choice but to invest and associate our very definitions of our emotional selves and perspectives in intolerant loyalties and choices.
A moving conservatism requires that we cannot create without also destroying. For us, there is no such thing as objective, artificial intelligence, devoid of emotional involvement — however "arbitrary" such may be.
No civilization can cohere except in respect of some ever-morphing, common, changing, creative, inspiring vision of intolerance against such adversaries and challenges as are needed in order for it to define itself with continuity.
Perhaps, a movement for awakening Enlightened Empathy may eventually educate and lead us to identify creative adversaries in goals — rather than in races, tribes, religions, or mutual assured destruction.
****
We are not yet ready for one, borderless, world-wide system of government. If we wish to preserve an option, at some eventual point, to achieve a world-wide federalism of some sort, it presently becomes all the more important, as exemplar, to defend and not squander republican aspects of the territorial and cultural integrity of the USA. Otherwise, what beckons is not a pendulum, but a seething broth of over-boiling diversity.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
No Selfhood Without Competing Loyalties
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
No Selfhood Without Competing Loyalties:
If there does not exist substance-in-itself, then neither does there exist time-in-itself, nor means for measuring chronology-in-itself among substantive interactions. Perhaps, chronology, time, and substance may best be minded as products of competing perspectives of an encompassing Super Imagination or Will. Time and substance may be enabled to appear to exist, relative only to such Super Encompassment Of Will.
If so, evolution may consist, not among substances, but among competing perspectives of Super Will. In such respect, as a term of art, “morphogenesis” may serve better than “evolution.” Indeed, for Will, all of time and all of morphogenesis, mathematically, may just as well be considered as being compressed into a mere instant.
Regardless, for any shaping or calling forth of morphed forms for perspectives, what is the value of competing empathies and loyalties, for developing and protecting any perspective of self? What is the value of morphing an instinct or enlightenment for or against associations leading to loyalties? Apart from loyalty and service to at least one vision, can any perspective flourish, or any identity of self even be defined?
Perhaps, all of “knowledge” consists merely in permutations among potential, partial, competing, empathetic perspectives and appreciations --- all in loyal deference to one Meta-Conserving-Parameter for allowing competing perspectives.
No Selfhood Without Competing Loyalties:
If there does not exist substance-in-itself, then neither does there exist time-in-itself, nor means for measuring chronology-in-itself among substantive interactions. Perhaps, chronology, time, and substance may best be minded as products of competing perspectives of an encompassing Super Imagination or Will. Time and substance may be enabled to appear to exist, relative only to such Super Encompassment Of Will.
If so, evolution may consist, not among substances, but among competing perspectives of Super Will. In such respect, as a term of art, “morphogenesis” may serve better than “evolution.” Indeed, for Will, all of time and all of morphogenesis, mathematically, may just as well be considered as being compressed into a mere instant.
Regardless, for any shaping or calling forth of morphed forms for perspectives, what is the value of competing empathies and loyalties, for developing and protecting any perspective of self? What is the value of morphing an instinct or enlightenment for or against associations leading to loyalties? Apart from loyalty and service to at least one vision, can any perspective flourish, or any identity of self even be defined?
Perhaps, all of “knowledge” consists merely in permutations among potential, partial, competing, empathetic perspectives and appreciations --- all in loyal deference to one Meta-Conserving-Parameter for allowing competing perspectives.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Karmic Deja Vu
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Karmic Deja Vu:
Perhaps, neither time nor substantive nature exist in themselves, but only as imagined — as principles for organizing sequences for appreciation out of all potential perspectives availed by Being’ness. Perhaps, what exists in itself is only That which Avails Relatively Conserved Perspectives about Being’ness.
Relative existence of each perspective may be created, preserved, or presented for coordination among others, without necessarily being conserved in actual substance or time. Enlightened demise of each perspective may entail translation among alternative perspectives.
What really exists may be like an unchanging, general condition of perpetual Being’ness, in respect of which each one of us imagines or receives a relative, perpetual perspective, ever transitioning into or through one another.
What I dish to others may eventually become similar to what I dish to myself. How I handle a present challenge may factor into how I handle a future, similar permutation. How we come to think, desire, and will may factor into our morphological experiences or appreciations — not altogether unlike a calling forth of karma and deja vu.
We are beckoned by a creatively redemptive morphogenesis among forms. Receive history or repeat it. Of Being’ness, receive philosophy or lose insight.
Karmic Deja Vu:
Perhaps, neither time nor substantive nature exist in themselves, but only as imagined — as principles for organizing sequences for appreciation out of all potential perspectives availed by Being’ness. Perhaps, what exists in itself is only That which Avails Relatively Conserved Perspectives about Being’ness.
Relative existence of each perspective may be created, preserved, or presented for coordination among others, without necessarily being conserved in actual substance or time. Enlightened demise of each perspective may entail translation among alternative perspectives.
What really exists may be like an unchanging, general condition of perpetual Being’ness, in respect of which each one of us imagines or receives a relative, perpetual perspective, ever transitioning into or through one another.
What I dish to others may eventually become similar to what I dish to myself. How I handle a present challenge may factor into how I handle a future, similar permutation. How we come to think, desire, and will may factor into our morphological experiences or appreciations — not altogether unlike a calling forth of karma and deja vu.
We are beckoned by a creatively redemptive morphogenesis among forms. Receive history or repeat it. Of Being’ness, receive philosophy or lose insight.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
REASONING RELIGION AWAY
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
REASONING RELIGION AWAY:
CONSERVER: All which is subject to feedback sensation may manifest only in a state of measurably conserved, continuously fluxing, asymmetrically directed, balance. But, what is IT, which unites all that is conserved? Is a Unifier necessarily or reasonably implicated, insofar as all that is manifested may be manifested only in respect of laws of conservation?
UNIFIER: All particular forms obey one general conservation; all express perspectives of one Unifier. So, is such Unifier, even in analogical sense: relevant, intuit-able, subject to propitiation, formulaic, random, dumb, inanimate, measurable, involved, sensate to feedback, appreciative, caring, artistic, emotional, conscious, willful, purposeful, and/or intelligent?
RELEVANCE: Regardless, WE express appreciation, art, emotion, will, purpose, and intelligence --- all of which we balance in respect of the unifying Conserver of Being’ness.
REASONED BELIEF: Regarding our state of being, what sort of notion or combination of notions may reasonably account for or explicate about our state’s fluxing parameters and asymmetrical directions --- is it: (1) some unifying formula of nature; (2) propitiation required in respect of some supernatural, caring Will; or (3) fluxing layers of random and indifferent chance? Regarding our common state, what may be reasonable, in common, to believe?
SENSES OF GOD: With respect to any given time and place, what is reasonable for one to believe about Being’ness-In-Itself (to which one may relate only analogically)? Perhaps, what is reasonable to believe is affected by the creative purposes one, then and there, wishes to fulfill.
PURPOSE: As for what should be one’s purposes, one must be receptive to feedback, even as one looks within one’s self. It may be for each of us to function as “Senses of God” --- for bringing sense out of chaos. In such respect, so may we seek Enlightened Empathy.
MORALITY WITHIN CHAOS: Each of us, in deference to Being’ness, has no choice but to express perspectives and interpretations of moral choices. For us, wisdom may not abide in making moral choices which are “correct in themselves.” Rather, wisdom may abide in moral choices which serve one’s reach to fulfill or create temporal, artistic, meaningful, representative perspectives of the infinity and eternity of Being’ness. We have no moral choice but to receive, as best we may, such insights, intuitions, and perspectives as may be represented or filtered to us, through The Unifier.
IS GOD INDIFFERENT, OR EVEN-HANDED: What seems contradictory to me may be reconciled and balanced in Holistic Will. Regardless, it is beyond me to reason that Holistic Will is Indifferent. I cannot measure how Holistic Will, in seeking fulfillment within limits of conservation, may care. Yet, I have no choice but to express choices, appreciations, and responses to conserved feedback. To seek fulfillment, what therefore should I do? How should I ascertain, if not by being observant and intuitive about my general surroundings and by being receptive to such divine guidance, insight, inspiration, and intuition as I may feel inclined to appreciate? If each of us is a perspective of God, I must appreciate at least a part or perspective of what God appreciates. What, then, should we do, collectively, as God’s eyes?
PERRENIAL SYNCRETINISM: Regardless of whether Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed are or were mere avatars of syncretinistic thinking, our interpretations of what they were about are certainly syncretinistic, according to the needs and perspectives of each of us. What we believe about them is often what we idealize that we ourselves should be about.
REASONING RELIGION AWAY: We cannot escape religion or spirituality; nor may we express any moral choice apart from humble deference or respect, at least on some level, for The Unifier. Intuitively, but not measurably, Nature, holding no explanation for its own existence, can hardly exist as being “closed” to such Super Nature.
REASONING RELIGION AWAY:
CONSERVER: All which is subject to feedback sensation may manifest only in a state of measurably conserved, continuously fluxing, asymmetrically directed, balance. But, what is IT, which unites all that is conserved? Is a Unifier necessarily or reasonably implicated, insofar as all that is manifested may be manifested only in respect of laws of conservation?
UNIFIER: All particular forms obey one general conservation; all express perspectives of one Unifier. So, is such Unifier, even in analogical sense: relevant, intuit-able, subject to propitiation, formulaic, random, dumb, inanimate, measurable, involved, sensate to feedback, appreciative, caring, artistic, emotional, conscious, willful, purposeful, and/or intelligent?
RELEVANCE: Regardless, WE express appreciation, art, emotion, will, purpose, and intelligence --- all of which we balance in respect of the unifying Conserver of Being’ness.
REASONED BELIEF: Regarding our state of being, what sort of notion or combination of notions may reasonably account for or explicate about our state’s fluxing parameters and asymmetrical directions --- is it: (1) some unifying formula of nature; (2) propitiation required in respect of some supernatural, caring Will; or (3) fluxing layers of random and indifferent chance? Regarding our common state, what may be reasonable, in common, to believe?
SENSES OF GOD: With respect to any given time and place, what is reasonable for one to believe about Being’ness-In-Itself (to which one may relate only analogically)? Perhaps, what is reasonable to believe is affected by the creative purposes one, then and there, wishes to fulfill.
PURPOSE: As for what should be one’s purposes, one must be receptive to feedback, even as one looks within one’s self. It may be for each of us to function as “Senses of God” --- for bringing sense out of chaos. In such respect, so may we seek Enlightened Empathy.
MORALITY WITHIN CHAOS: Each of us, in deference to Being’ness, has no choice but to express perspectives and interpretations of moral choices. For us, wisdom may not abide in making moral choices which are “correct in themselves.” Rather, wisdom may abide in moral choices which serve one’s reach to fulfill or create temporal, artistic, meaningful, representative perspectives of the infinity and eternity of Being’ness. We have no moral choice but to receive, as best we may, such insights, intuitions, and perspectives as may be represented or filtered to us, through The Unifier.
IS GOD INDIFFERENT, OR EVEN-HANDED: What seems contradictory to me may be reconciled and balanced in Holistic Will. Regardless, it is beyond me to reason that Holistic Will is Indifferent. I cannot measure how Holistic Will, in seeking fulfillment within limits of conservation, may care. Yet, I have no choice but to express choices, appreciations, and responses to conserved feedback. To seek fulfillment, what therefore should I do? How should I ascertain, if not by being observant and intuitive about my general surroundings and by being receptive to such divine guidance, insight, inspiration, and intuition as I may feel inclined to appreciate? If each of us is a perspective of God, I must appreciate at least a part or perspective of what God appreciates. What, then, should we do, collectively, as God’s eyes?
PERRENIAL SYNCRETINISM: Regardless of whether Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed are or were mere avatars of syncretinistic thinking, our interpretations of what they were about are certainly syncretinistic, according to the needs and perspectives of each of us. What we believe about them is often what we idealize that we ourselves should be about.
REASONING RELIGION AWAY: We cannot escape religion or spirituality; nor may we express any moral choice apart from humble deference or respect, at least on some level, for The Unifier. Intuitively, but not measurably, Nature, holding no explanation for its own existence, can hardly exist as being “closed” to such Super Nature.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Perennial Syncretism
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Perennial Syncretism
Apart from trivialities, perhaps all we can know is that all things are possible, subject to conservation of an ineffable Will, which necessarily balances and respects conservatism, asymmetrically.
Such Will can never be reduced to one complete, unifying perspective or known description. Rather, it depends for balancing its expression upon competing perspectives, purposes, and interpretations of information and purpose.
Will is always in balance, although no perspective of it is ever complete or immune from flux or cooption.
Each perspective or spirit of Will tries to fulfill itself by reducing, interpreting, or learning how to put all of Will to its service. Yet, Will cannot be synthesized or perfectly reduced to the service of any single perspective. Although Nature is always in balance, Nature is not amenable of providing knowledge or a theory of everything which is complete, consistent, and coherent.
Will is not mere matter or Nature. Nor does matter, for its own sake, have purpose. Subservient to matter, all experiment, learning, and purpose could never be fulfilled — else how then could Will exist? There is no non-trivial final judgment, end of time, or completed quest. Even were one’s perspective of universe to expand into cold, oblivious separation of matter, such would not necessarily end purposes of Will, as expressed in universes of alternative perspectives. Neither matter nor potential matter comprise or complete the sum of existence, but are only associated byproducts of a conservation of asymmetrical expressions of Will.
Going beyond oneself, perhaps beyond our universe, one comes to question whether conservation of matter and energy is a property of reality, or only a property necessary to perspectives and perceptions of relations to reality. Will could not embody or define any perspective were not every perspective subject to constraints for conserving or sustaining definitions.
But, no one perspective of Will seems representative of any intrinsically more meritorious soul, spirit, or God. Each of us is but a perspective of a same, unifying Will, which Itself is not reducible to any unifying, complete perspective. Being superior to matter and energy, such Will is not reducible to derivative knowledge of Nature. Being without perspective in Itself, such Will, while immortal, is not like an objectively intelligible God.
The only immortal intelligence consists in the ever fluxing, reincarnating, transposing expression of Perspective — with which each sentient Identity is imbued. "God" consists in each mortal’s subjective (not objective) ideals about Will. Each perspective shares a subjective, godlike purpose, in Solidarity (common Identity) with all other perspectives. Existence is never without at least one intelligent, mortal perspective.
For Will, in Itself, there is no ultimate, final, linear judgment or victory. Still, there come to be patterns of morphogenetic karma, as each perspective seeks continuously to fulfill itself, in a never ending quest.
It seems unnecessary or unlikely that there be some balanced contest among competing supernatural, immortal Spirits. Perhaps, the purpose of each perspective is more then merely to play the game of existence, as pawns. Perhaps, we, by vicarious relation, also play, as perspectives of "God." If so, to what persons or purposes should I serve up my loyalty, to scaffold my karma, in order to conserve or to seek to fulfill my never ending quest within the ongoing morphogenesis and evolution of forms of life?
We fill in what we want to believe about people and purposes. What we believe affects what they tend to become. Competing trends always respect some sort of balance, however finite in time. When a balance stabilizes over time, interests may come to identify with it. As powers balance against each other, persons depending upon such powers may give, elect, or morph in Identity, to stand for each needed offsetting icon of balance.
Each of us is ever embarked upon his or her own experiential learning curve, and each of us tries to find and inspire loyalties for those persons or purposes with whom or with which we can be comfortable.
In the face of constant churning demands, there is no stable, sustainable, identifiable "best" mode of government or of loyalty.
No matter the person a democracy, republic, or state may promote, represent, or embody in respect of its interests, each such person will always be in a relationship of morphogenetic "conspiracy" among balancing counterparts.
To relate each idea is to entail and conserve all that is necessary to its appreciation. During any manifestation, for one to sustain one ideal or perspective is to sacrifice or forego all others. To will one thing is to not will its contrary. To will one thing is balanced by not willing that which would preclude it. To imagine or scaffold one’s karma in this universe is to inhibit one’s fluxing into another.
Ultimately, all non-trivial knowledge may be dependent upon conservation in Will or spirit, rather than upon skill or learning about Nature or matter. Spirits may be mere fluxing hierarchies or perspectives of Will. There may not be any fixed, complete, or hierarchical basis for non-trivial knowledge. In respect of what is non-trivial, it may be that knowledge is trumped by spiritual intuition.
Nature consists of that matter and potential matter which constitutes, forms, and morphogestates in respect of conservation among expressions of Will. The existence of any one particular, relational perspective of Will implicates an infinity of others. Yet, each perspective requires for its sustenance an interpretation of "nature" that conserves that which sustains it (conservation of matter and energy).
Among ultimate forces, symmetry is cracked. Perhaps, the crack does not consist in natural forces, but in supernatural expressions of spirit that give incomplete, balancing, conserving expressions to an otherwise disinterested Will. Such Will may not assign everlasting judgments of merit to mere fluxing expressions of mortality. But, it may imbue mortals with a persistent, shared morality (enlightened empathy), in perpetual quest for fulfillment.
Perennial Syncretism
Apart from trivialities, perhaps all we can know is that all things are possible, subject to conservation of an ineffable Will, which necessarily balances and respects conservatism, asymmetrically.
Such Will can never be reduced to one complete, unifying perspective or known description. Rather, it depends for balancing its expression upon competing perspectives, purposes, and interpretations of information and purpose.
Will is always in balance, although no perspective of it is ever complete or immune from flux or cooption.
Each perspective or spirit of Will tries to fulfill itself by reducing, interpreting, or learning how to put all of Will to its service. Yet, Will cannot be synthesized or perfectly reduced to the service of any single perspective. Although Nature is always in balance, Nature is not amenable of providing knowledge or a theory of everything which is complete, consistent, and coherent.
Will is not mere matter or Nature. Nor does matter, for its own sake, have purpose. Subservient to matter, all experiment, learning, and purpose could never be fulfilled — else how then could Will exist? There is no non-trivial final judgment, end of time, or completed quest. Even were one’s perspective of universe to expand into cold, oblivious separation of matter, such would not necessarily end purposes of Will, as expressed in universes of alternative perspectives. Neither matter nor potential matter comprise or complete the sum of existence, but are only associated byproducts of a conservation of asymmetrical expressions of Will.
Going beyond oneself, perhaps beyond our universe, one comes to question whether conservation of matter and energy is a property of reality, or only a property necessary to perspectives and perceptions of relations to reality. Will could not embody or define any perspective were not every perspective subject to constraints for conserving or sustaining definitions.
But, no one perspective of Will seems representative of any intrinsically more meritorious soul, spirit, or God. Each of us is but a perspective of a same, unifying Will, which Itself is not reducible to any unifying, complete perspective. Being superior to matter and energy, such Will is not reducible to derivative knowledge of Nature. Being without perspective in Itself, such Will, while immortal, is not like an objectively intelligible God.
The only immortal intelligence consists in the ever fluxing, reincarnating, transposing expression of Perspective — with which each sentient Identity is imbued. "God" consists in each mortal’s subjective (not objective) ideals about Will. Each perspective shares a subjective, godlike purpose, in Solidarity (common Identity) with all other perspectives. Existence is never without at least one intelligent, mortal perspective.
For Will, in Itself, there is no ultimate, final, linear judgment or victory. Still, there come to be patterns of morphogenetic karma, as each perspective seeks continuously to fulfill itself, in a never ending quest.
It seems unnecessary or unlikely that there be some balanced contest among competing supernatural, immortal Spirits. Perhaps, the purpose of each perspective is more then merely to play the game of existence, as pawns. Perhaps, we, by vicarious relation, also play, as perspectives of "God." If so, to what persons or purposes should I serve up my loyalty, to scaffold my karma, in order to conserve or to seek to fulfill my never ending quest within the ongoing morphogenesis and evolution of forms of life?
We fill in what we want to believe about people and purposes. What we believe affects what they tend to become. Competing trends always respect some sort of balance, however finite in time. When a balance stabilizes over time, interests may come to identify with it. As powers balance against each other, persons depending upon such powers may give, elect, or morph in Identity, to stand for each needed offsetting icon of balance.
Each of us is ever embarked upon his or her own experiential learning curve, and each of us tries to find and inspire loyalties for those persons or purposes with whom or with which we can be comfortable.
In the face of constant churning demands, there is no stable, sustainable, identifiable "best" mode of government or of loyalty.
No matter the person a democracy, republic, or state may promote, represent, or embody in respect of its interests, each such person will always be in a relationship of morphogenetic "conspiracy" among balancing counterparts.
To relate each idea is to entail and conserve all that is necessary to its appreciation. During any manifestation, for one to sustain one ideal or perspective is to sacrifice or forego all others. To will one thing is to not will its contrary. To will one thing is balanced by not willing that which would preclude it. To imagine or scaffold one’s karma in this universe is to inhibit one’s fluxing into another.
Ultimately, all non-trivial knowledge may be dependent upon conservation in Will or spirit, rather than upon skill or learning about Nature or matter. Spirits may be mere fluxing hierarchies or perspectives of Will. There may not be any fixed, complete, or hierarchical basis for non-trivial knowledge. In respect of what is non-trivial, it may be that knowledge is trumped by spiritual intuition.
Nature consists of that matter and potential matter which constitutes, forms, and morphogestates in respect of conservation among expressions of Will. The existence of any one particular, relational perspective of Will implicates an infinity of others. Yet, each perspective requires for its sustenance an interpretation of "nature" that conserves that which sustains it (conservation of matter and energy).
Among ultimate forces, symmetry is cracked. Perhaps, the crack does not consist in natural forces, but in supernatural expressions of spirit that give incomplete, balancing, conserving expressions to an otherwise disinterested Will. Such Will may not assign everlasting judgments of merit to mere fluxing expressions of mortality. But, it may imbue mortals with a persistent, shared morality (enlightened empathy), in perpetual quest for fulfillment.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Boltzman Brains and Monkey Driven Robots
The NYT is more interesting for its science and science fiction than for its political opinions.
Today, I came across two articles that seem interesting, at least to me.
1. 1. From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?th&emc=th
"A different, but perhaps related, form of antigravity, glibly dubbed dark energy, seems to be running the universe now, and that is the culprit responsible for the Boltzmann brains."
"The expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, making galaxies fly away from one another faster and faster. If the leading dark-energy suspect, a universal repulsion Einstein called the cosmological constant, is true, this runaway process will last forever, and distant galaxies will eventually be moving apart so quickly that they cannot communicate with one another. Being in such a space would be like being surrounded by a black hole."
"Rather than simply going to black like "The Sopranos" conclusion, however, the cosmic horizon would glow, emitting a feeble spray of elementary particles and radiation, with a temperature of a fraction of a billionth of a degree, courtesy of quantum uncertainty. That radiation bath will be subject to random fluctuations just like Boltzmann’s eternal universe, however, and every once in a very long, long time, one of those fluctuations would be big enough to recreate the Big Bang. In the fullness of time this process could lead to the endless series of recurring universes. Our present universe could be part of that chain."
"... one of the central orthodoxies of cosmology is that humans don’t occupy a special place in the cosmos, that we and our experiences are typical of cosmic beings. If the odds of us being real instead of Boltzmann brains are one in a million, say, waking up every day would be like walking out on the street and finding everyone in the city standing on their heads. You would expect there to be some reason why you were the only one left right side up."
"But nobody knows whether dark energy — if it dies — will die soon enough to save the universe from a surplus of Boltzmann brains. In 2006, Dr. Page calculated that the dark energy would have to decay in about 20 billion years in order to prevent it from being overrun by Boltzmann brains."
""If you are reincarnated, why do you care about where you are reincarnated?" he asked. "It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be touching in ordinary science. Can we be reincarnated?""
""People are not prepared for this discussion," Dr. Linde said."
DLANO SAYS, "DUH."
*****
2. From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15robo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
"Idoya cannot talk but her brain signals revealed that after the treadmill stopped, she was able to make CB walk for three full minutes by attending to its legs and not her own."
"The body does not have a monopoly for enacting the desires of the brain."
*****
NOW, DLANO ASKS:
Suppose a robot were constructed to be receptive only to mimic one way signals from a distant monkey’s brain. So long as the signals were one way, so that neither the robot nor the monkey were empowered to relate feedback between themselves, it would seem that the robot could never experience or sense consciousness.
Now, suppose feedback were suddenly to evolve or become allowed between the signals, however incomplete or discontinuous such feedback may be. Then, it would seem the robot may achieve consciousness and perhaps even reach incomplete rationalizations about cause and effect.
Now, suppose the monkey were to open a channel for simultaneous viewing of the effects of its mental nerve signals upon the behavior of the robot. The monkey may thus come to intuit or appreciate some cause-effect associations of the robot.
Thus, may the monkey come to intuit that its choices may likewise depend for their complete cause-effect analysis upon feedback choices made by some Idealized Monkey (God?) superior to it?
Further, suppose the monkey were eventually, either by chance or design, to allow itself, however incompletely, to be viewed by the robot. Thus, the robot may come by stimulus-response to associate its involuntary behavior with certain actions by the monkey. May the robot thus strive by "superstitious association" to intuit which of its behaviors seem pleasing to the monkey? May the monkey thus strive to train the robot to engage in such behaviors as may please the monkey? Is "That Which Is Pleased" something more than merely the robot or the monkey?
Above all, what sort of living, evolving, mathematical-array-of-feedback-determining-functions may be seeking fulfillment (or "smiling down") during this entire process? Should we believe (or deduce) that Something (or some array) seeks feedback fulfillment, or should we believe that our universe is completely pre-set in respect of forces which are dis-interested in feedback?
In my opinion, one’s focus of working-belief at any given instant should depend upon one’s focus of purpose at such instant.
(Luke, channel the Boltzman Monkey!)
Today, I came across two articles that seem interesting, at least to me.
1. 1. From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?th&emc=th
"A different, but perhaps related, form of antigravity, glibly dubbed dark energy, seems to be running the universe now, and that is the culprit responsible for the Boltzmann brains."
"The expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, making galaxies fly away from one another faster and faster. If the leading dark-energy suspect, a universal repulsion Einstein called the cosmological constant, is true, this runaway process will last forever, and distant galaxies will eventually be moving apart so quickly that they cannot communicate with one another. Being in such a space would be like being surrounded by a black hole."
"Rather than simply going to black like "The Sopranos" conclusion, however, the cosmic horizon would glow, emitting a feeble spray of elementary particles and radiation, with a temperature of a fraction of a billionth of a degree, courtesy of quantum uncertainty. That radiation bath will be subject to random fluctuations just like Boltzmann’s eternal universe, however, and every once in a very long, long time, one of those fluctuations would be big enough to recreate the Big Bang. In the fullness of time this process could lead to the endless series of recurring universes. Our present universe could be part of that chain."
"... one of the central orthodoxies of cosmology is that humans don’t occupy a special place in the cosmos, that we and our experiences are typical of cosmic beings. If the odds of us being real instead of Boltzmann brains are one in a million, say, waking up every day would be like walking out on the street and finding everyone in the city standing on their heads. You would expect there to be some reason why you were the only one left right side up."
"But nobody knows whether dark energy — if it dies — will die soon enough to save the universe from a surplus of Boltzmann brains. In 2006, Dr. Page calculated that the dark energy would have to decay in about 20 billion years in order to prevent it from being overrun by Boltzmann brains."
""If you are reincarnated, why do you care about where you are reincarnated?" he asked. "It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be touching in ordinary science. Can we be reincarnated?""
""People are not prepared for this discussion," Dr. Linde said."
DLANO SAYS, "DUH."
*****
2. From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15robo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
"Idoya cannot talk but her brain signals revealed that after the treadmill stopped, she was able to make CB walk for three full minutes by attending to its legs and not her own."
"The body does not have a monopoly for enacting the desires of the brain."
*****
NOW, DLANO ASKS:
Suppose a robot were constructed to be receptive only to mimic one way signals from a distant monkey’s brain. So long as the signals were one way, so that neither the robot nor the monkey were empowered to relate feedback between themselves, it would seem that the robot could never experience or sense consciousness.
Now, suppose feedback were suddenly to evolve or become allowed between the signals, however incomplete or discontinuous such feedback may be. Then, it would seem the robot may achieve consciousness and perhaps even reach incomplete rationalizations about cause and effect.
Now, suppose the monkey were to open a channel for simultaneous viewing of the effects of its mental nerve signals upon the behavior of the robot. The monkey may thus come to intuit or appreciate some cause-effect associations of the robot.
Thus, may the monkey come to intuit that its choices may likewise depend for their complete cause-effect analysis upon feedback choices made by some Idealized Monkey (God?) superior to it?
Further, suppose the monkey were eventually, either by chance or design, to allow itself, however incompletely, to be viewed by the robot. Thus, the robot may come by stimulus-response to associate its involuntary behavior with certain actions by the monkey. May the robot thus strive by "superstitious association" to intuit which of its behaviors seem pleasing to the monkey? May the monkey thus strive to train the robot to engage in such behaviors as may please the monkey? Is "That Which Is Pleased" something more than merely the robot or the monkey?
Above all, what sort of living, evolving, mathematical-array-of-feedback-determining-functions may be seeking fulfillment (or "smiling down") during this entire process? Should we believe (or deduce) that Something (or some array) seeks feedback fulfillment, or should we believe that our universe is completely pre-set in respect of forces which are dis-interested in feedback?
In my opinion, one’s focus of working-belief at any given instant should depend upon one’s focus of purpose at such instant.
(Luke, channel the Boltzman Monkey!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)