Really! Nothing Is ‘Real’
Another example of the ‘neo-snake-oil salesmen’ peddling you trendy pabulum and neo-Babylon confusion. My current project Mathesis Universalis http://mathesis-universalis.com will bring an end to this menagerie of nonsense and subtle programming.
I could write a book on this.
Don’t believe everything put forward in this… set of perspectives. This is a work in process so stay tuned… updates are coming very shortly.
I’m happy that he allows for more than 5 senses as this is a common error made by science and philosophy up to this time. I’ve taken issue with it elsewhere numerous times. Also I’m pleased that he is allowing for Neuroplasticity (Dr. Jeffrey M. Schwartz http://www.jeffreymschwartz.com/ has been leading this new model for over 10 years.)
Up to @04:27 I take issue with two important assumptions he makes:
1) That sensory information is the only way we ‘register’ reality.
2) He is a physicalist pure through. If he can’t measure and quantify it, then it doesn’t exist for him… This leads to what is known as causal ambiguity (among other things).
http://psychologydictionary.org/causal-ambiguity/
@04:57– He says that memory is stored all over the brain. This is incorrect. The effects of the phenomena of memory are manifested in various areas of the brain. There is no sufficient and necessary proof that memory is stored there! They PRESUME it to be stored there, because they can not allow or imagine anything non-physical being able to store any kind of knowledge.
@05:09– “How many memories can you fit inside your head? What is the storage capacity of the human brain?” he asks.
In addition to the presumption that memories are stored there, he then ignores the capacity of other areas of the body to imprint the effects of memory: the digestive tract, the endocrine and immune ‘systems’,… even to cell membranes (in cases of addiction, for example)!!!
@05:23– “But given the amount of neurons in the human brain involved with memory…” (the first presumption that memories are stored there) “and the number of connections a single neuron can make…” (he’s turning this whole perspective on memory into a numerical problem!) which is reductionism.
@05:27– He then refers to the work of Paul Reber, professor of psychology at Northwestern University who explained his ‘research’ into answering that question. here’s the link. I will break that further stream of presumptions down next.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/
(the question is asked about middle of the 1st page of the article which contains 2 pages)
Paul Reber makes a joke and then says:
“The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space would be a problem. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive.”
“Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes). For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three million hours of TV shows. You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300 years to use up all that storage.”
These presumptions and observations are full of ambiguity and guesswork. Given that we are not reading a thesis on the subject, we can allow him a little slack, but even the conclusions he has arrived at are nothing substantial. More below as he reveals his lack of knowledge next.
“The brain’s exact storage capacity for memories is difficult to calculate. First, we do not know how to measure the size of a memory. Second, certain memories involve more details and thus take up more space; other memories are forgotten and thus free up space. Additionally, some information is just not worth remembering in the first place.”
He not only doesn’t know to measure memories (which he admits), he cannot even tell you what they are precisely! He offers here also no reason for us to believe that memory is reducible to information!
@05:50– “The world is real… right?” (I almost don’t want to know what’s coming next!)
And then it really gets wild…
@05:59– With his: “How do you know?” question he begins to question the existence of rocket scientists. He moves to Sun centric ideas (we’ve heard this one before) to show how wrong humanity has been in the past.
He seems to ignore or not be aware of the fact that that many pre-science explorers as far back as ancient Alexandria knew better and had documented this idea as being false. This ‘error’ of humanity reveals more about dogma of a church/religion/tradition than of humanity/reality as it truly is.
@06:29– “Do we… or will we ever know true reality?” is for him the next question to ask and then offers us to accept the possibility that we may only know what is approximately true.
@06:37 “Discovering more and more useful theories every day, but never actually reaching true objective actual reality.”
This question is based upon so much imprecision, ignorance, and arrogance that it isn’t even useful!
First of all: we cannot know “true objective actual reality” in all of its ‘essence’, because we must form a perspective around that which we observe in order to ‘see’ anything meaningful. As soon as a perspective comes into ‘being’, we lose objectivity. (ignorance, assumption)
He doesn’t define what ‘reality’ for him is. (imprecision)
He doesn’t explain what the difference between ‘true’ and ‘actual’ might be. (imprecision, assumption)
Theories are NOT discovered, rather created (implicit arrogance). They can only be discovered if they were already known/formulated at some time.
Also; theories do not stand on their own; rather, they depend upon continued affirmation by being questioned for as long as they exist. We DO NOT store knowledge in our answers; rather, in our questions.
[continued…]
You Are Significant In Your Insignificance!
You Are Significant in Your Insignificance!
That’s what they’re selling you with this graph. This is a ruse used very often by hucksters and snake-oil salesmen. They offer you the sugar with their ‘bitters’.
Problem: The ontological scope of the graph does not account for all of the aspects of being human (that we are aware of at this time). Of course you’re supposed to know that.
“We didn’t mean it that way.” they’ll tell you…
How many unsuspecting people believe this sophisticated form of lying? Now, see it with ‘new eyes’.
There Is Only Now
New Theory Suggests That We Live In The Past Of A Parallel Universe
There Is Only Now
Here they confuse the issue… Badly!
More psyence mumbo jumbo to get you confused. If you would have said this before publication, you’d have been called a ‘nut job’ or ‘wacko’. But as you see, dogma does change.
They have time and space all whacked out and call people who have better explanations wacko!
The idea of a parallel universe does have uses. For example when we decide something or imagine how something may be different. We construct them in order to compare outcomes (or other aspects) with each other.
The problem with the article, for me, is that today’s science use them to reduce possibility and novelty to outcomes (or other aspects) that must preexist in some form!
They want everything to be non-personal 3rd. person ‘its’ running around interacting from some set of initial conditions! That’s one of the reasons why these parallel universes need to exist for them.
Otherwise they would have to account for some creative or imaginative process which would require a thinking being and not some 3rd. person ‘it’.
Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?
Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way. The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.
I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.
Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.
With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!
The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!
It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.
Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).
Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.
Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?
…
Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)
A Message From Our Sponsors: Shell – It’s a Small Worm After All
(The Rothschild Family) 1 1/2 Minutes of Psyence Pysense.
Can science change the world? Film-makers from around the globe explore what it takes to have an idea that could change the world.
Marielle Woods aims to prove it can, with a tongue-in-cheek look at how a simple worm farm potentially connects to bio-fuels. One idea can spur another idea, creating a chain of events that could one day help ‘make the future’ (before it gets here!).
[Update: notice his wanton disregard for the consequences of his actions and views…]
Universal Contradiction Helps Sort Out Quantum Mechanics!
Here we go again! Psyence at its ‘best’!
I wonder; if we do have parallel universes, then where is the coordination of quantum events being arbitrated/managed/coordinated? What functions as a substrate?
Isn’t the idea of a set of parallel (NOT multiverses which is something quite different!) begging the question?
Even Set Theory warns us of a contradiction that also arises, should we take this idea seriously.
Reductionism par Excellence
Quick! I need my street address! In which universe do I look?
If I look in the one I think I’m in I could be wrong, because I just made a decision on which one to look at! 😦
The good ol’ bunk-o-meter pegged full on this one!
We reduce possibility to predictability (and justifiability) and don’t even notice the change!
Complexity At the Cost of Being Simple
Complexity At the Cost of Being Simple
There are grievous problems with complexity ‘science’. Some of those problems are apparent here. I will note a few of them.
Reductionism at @13:00 is completely annoying. Epiphenomenological aspects of the problem are completely missing when you reduce into pure binary! It’s like taking you and your emotional life (with its incipient impact on your immune system) and reducing it down to DNA!
“There are way more problems than there are solutions.” @17:00!Sure! When you peel away the contextual embedding of any problem (via reductionism), then you’ve just committed a sort of lobotomy!
The definition of NP at @23:00 while correct, reveals how misguided this theory is. Not all choices are guesses, and correct answers aren’t always ‘lucky’.
Check out the response one receives from the system (algorithm) at @25:11.Did you notice something’s wrong or what?
@26:51 Does anyone notice who is supplying the criterion for the value of ‘correct’? The algorithm is being falsely attributed with properties it can only be endowed with and not arrive at on its own!
@30:00 The rules to Tetris are known by both (algorithm and human) however, the proof of a truth value cannot be computationally arrived at in NP, yet the proof – via a human being AND the skills necessary to ‘prove’ anything can do it in P! It should be obvious that we are going about the whole thing in the wrong way by now!
@31:00 the P<>NP Problem is described. The problem is meaningless and yet you’ll get a Millenium Prize for solving it! (Even sane and not sane find themselves in the balance! Whoa!) If you continue listening to the justification, you might want to be near a bathroom.
@32:27 Check out how NP is being determined to be ‘more’ than P! “Nobody in their right mind…”, “Obviously insane…”,… so naturally NP must be more than P!
Sounds reasonable? I don’t think so…
@32:37 Watch the disappointment: “…very annoying…” and I wonder why? The question is meaningless! Other phrasings of the P<>NP Problem are nothing special and are completely obvious: “You can’t engineer luck.” (Excuse me, but isn’t that the definition of luck in the first place?) and “Solving problems is harder than checking them.”
@34:17 “What could we possibly say… this is all kind of weired…” I don’t know anymore either and I sure hope you don’t tell me! Are we at the end of the lecture already?
@35:53 Now we are getting to the ‘meat of the potato’. If we just “believe in… have faith in…” P<>NP, then Tetris is within NP-P! Wait a minute? That doesn’t sound like any proof to me… perhaps it’s an axiom? We’ll see. It sure looks like begging the question, but I want to be convinced so I’ll just have to wait.
@36:43 He then moves on to a ‘proof’ that looks more like a set of definitions! NP-hard and NP-complete are correctly defined, but they do not prove anything! Tetris and chess act like a definitions, as well!
@40:33 Now he wants to talk about reductions. Wait, weren’t we talking about them already? Let’s take a look…
Yes, we stand upon giants [Authoritarianism]@46:15(Karp’s 3-Partition) and don’t need to think about it anymore and just reconfirm that all NP-complete is reducible to each other! You find some problem that was defined by a “giant” to be a member of your classification and then show that yours is at least as hard @48:47.
If we happen to find a better solution to a member of NP-complete, then either the whole house of cards falls down or we simply reclassify (by reduction) it to P! Now believe it or believe what you want, okay?
There will be a time when we have to revisit mathematics and do a house cleaning of this ‘cuddle muddle’.
Heurist.me (Carey G. Butler) 