Everybody is out there in order to cheat everyone else. Why? It largely comes out from a lack of trust in themselves. Always in doubt of themselves. Self-respect at its lowest points.
Society demands a lot. High expectations, as a result everyone feels under par. As if they do not amount to anything, therefore they hide their inner self from other people in fear of being exposed. They hide even from (and especially) their own self. They feel they have to cheat their way out in.
Instead of being themselves, they pretend to be somebody else. A trend, a mode of behaviour which is aptly taken up by media of whatever form, which bombard the public with unreal, idealized images of certain individuals, celebrities and the like, perpetuating an image of inadequacy in the individuals at large, hugely exploited for senseless financial gains, undermining further individuals self-esteem and their development of empowered personalities.
A reciprocal relationship where their short-sighted, petty financial gains and the drive of individuals towards empowerment act as incompatible forces. Their incessant greed for more monies counteract the development of empowered personalities in individuals.
The more their gains the deeper their readership disorients into meaningless personal states.
Monday, 15 September 2008
Thursday, 4 September 2008
Human being. A beast that has to be tamed?
Subconscious. What is the subconscious? Or more likely what do people think that subconscious is? Even more, is the idea of subconscious universal or it changes from place to place, culture from culture or even from era to era? Would the changes in time and place matter? Can the subconscious really assume psychological content? Be evil or good? Harbour feelings, hates, animosities or even love, compassion, altruism?
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
'Smart' laws? Built along the lines of co-operation instead of conflict as the driving force in individuals relationships?
Chaos attracting basins constantly test norms, regulations, laws.
Co-operation and not conflict as the primary drive in an individual, govern relationships with other individuals? And this to be taken into account in devising 'smart' laws to deal with human interactions?
Quantum mechanical states and the act of observation that decoheres the superposition of states into a single state, transfered into the context of human interactions and be used to direct the actions of the individual in dealing with problems faced in the course of his/her life, seeking solutions?
The observer influencing the kind of the single state that is instantiated by the individual under observation?
The laws are based on the assumption that human individuals are in conflict and not in co-operation. That comes from the acceptance of competition as it is portrayed in the darwinian theory.
How would law-making be different if co-operation instead of conflict is recognised as the primary drive in the acts individuals engage into? Certainly that will follow what is assumed actually drives the lives of individuals. If we assume that either co-operation or conflict is the main drive within an individual.
We should take both cases and see what might happen. Each case separate, either conflict or co-operation. How it would be if an individual assumes conflict, to deal with a situation and how it would be when it assumes co-operation to provide solution for the same problem.
What differ are the variables and parametres each approach would consider prevalent in any given situation. If it assumes conflict, it would consider different variables and parametres than when it assumes co-operation.
There we go to the quantum mechanical states and decoherence. As any situation in the world exists in a superposition of states, both states of either conflict or co-operation, co-exist simultaneously and what will be instantiated by the individual observed, depend on the act of observation.
And there comes the observer. According to his/her prevalent stance, co-operation or conflict, decoheres the superposition of states in the observed individual, in the same state as the observer. The observed individual assumes a similar stance as the observer and abides to the same parametres and variables connected with either conflict or co-operation.
If it is conflict the observer's prevalent stance then the decoherence effected, leads likewise to a state characterized by conflict in the observed. A clash is imminent, in whatever way the psychosynthesis of the observed individual use to deal with. Fight or flight.
If it is co-operation, the prevalent stance of the individual observer, decoherence will likewise lead the observed individual to the single state defined by co-operation.
Law-making and collapse of quantum mechanical superposition of states? Laws engineered alongside the doctrines of quantum theory? Concentrate on the parametres and variables prevalent in co-operation than in conflict? Social engineering towards co-operation and not conflict?
I gather that co-operation is more amenable than conflict in a society.
Co-operation and not conflict as the primary drive in an individual, govern relationships with other individuals? And this to be taken into account in devising 'smart' laws to deal with human interactions?
Quantum mechanical states and the act of observation that decoheres the superposition of states into a single state, transfered into the context of human interactions and be used to direct the actions of the individual in dealing with problems faced in the course of his/her life, seeking solutions?
The observer influencing the kind of the single state that is instantiated by the individual under observation?
The laws are based on the assumption that human individuals are in conflict and not in co-operation. That comes from the acceptance of competition as it is portrayed in the darwinian theory.
How would law-making be different if co-operation instead of conflict is recognised as the primary drive in the acts individuals engage into? Certainly that will follow what is assumed actually drives the lives of individuals. If we assume that either co-operation or conflict is the main drive within an individual.
We should take both cases and see what might happen. Each case separate, either conflict or co-operation. How it would be if an individual assumes conflict, to deal with a situation and how it would be when it assumes co-operation to provide solution for the same problem.
What differ are the variables and parametres each approach would consider prevalent in any given situation. If it assumes conflict, it would consider different variables and parametres than when it assumes co-operation.
There we go to the quantum mechanical states and decoherence. As any situation in the world exists in a superposition of states, both states of either conflict or co-operation, co-exist simultaneously and what will be instantiated by the individual observed, depend on the act of observation.
And there comes the observer. According to his/her prevalent stance, co-operation or conflict, decoheres the superposition of states in the observed individual, in the same state as the observer. The observed individual assumes a similar stance as the observer and abides to the same parametres and variables connected with either conflict or co-operation.
If it is conflict the observer's prevalent stance then the decoherence effected, leads likewise to a state characterized by conflict in the observed. A clash is imminent, in whatever way the psychosynthesis of the observed individual use to deal with. Fight or flight.
If it is co-operation, the prevalent stance of the individual observer, decoherence will likewise lead the observed individual to the single state defined by co-operation.
Law-making and collapse of quantum mechanical superposition of states? Laws engineered alongside the doctrines of quantum theory? Concentrate on the parametres and variables prevalent in co-operation than in conflict? Social engineering towards co-operation and not conflict?
I gather that co-operation is more amenable than conflict in a society.
Sunday, 23 March 2008
What are we? Filling the void with matchsticks.
What are we?
A void, a vacuum, an emptiness that we hopelessly try to fill in with a myriad of activities crammed tight in the tiniest of spaces in respect with the vastness of the void we try to fill in.
Our every day lives is packed with activities, be that the jobs we do to finance our ways of living, the entertainment methods we choose, our enjoyment, our social lives.
But if we stray, accidentally or not, even for a second from the fervor that our activities bring forth, our minds wander, into the void that surrounds us. We are immediately filled with unease, we find ourselves lost within its unyielding emptiness. Primal angst engulf us.
A void, a vacuum, an emptiness that we hopelessly try to fill in with a myriad of activities crammed tight in the tiniest of spaces in respect with the vastness of the void we try to fill in.
Our every day lives is packed with activities, be that the jobs we do to finance our ways of living, the entertainment methods we choose, our enjoyment, our social lives.
But if we stray, accidentally or not, even for a second from the fervor that our activities bring forth, our minds wander, into the void that surrounds us. We are immediately filled with unease, we find ourselves lost within its unyielding emptiness. Primal angst engulf us.
Monday, 17 March 2008
Curb not, embrace anger. Instabilities triggered by emotions induce bifurcations to new attractors.
In the "Mind and Brain, Chaos and Quantum Mechanics" publication, in the chapter dealing with the non-linear synapse, page 22, it is mentioned that:
"Such non-linearities make it possible for unstable fluctuation at the synaptic vesicle or ion channel level within a critically poised neuron, to precipitate cellular instability and subsequent global neurosystem bifurcation."
What drew my attention, was the precipitation of cellular instability and the subsequent global system bifurcation. As a result of the ensued bifurcation the system's phase space is explored and a new attractor emerges; along the lines mentioned elsewhere in the paper, namely in the Electrodynamics chapter, page 18:
"... falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."
Leaving aside the case for the stimulus eliciting the response and concentrating on the matter of the instability precipitated by the unstable fluctuation at the synaptic vesicle or ion channel level, as well as, the non-linearities as being responsible, for a later use.
It occurred to me, that instability is a common feature in the lives of human individuals, triggered and driven by the emotional aspects of our character. Our whole being is in turmoil, when we are grappled by our emotions, being triggered by unstable fluctuations, in whatever way these can be imagined. It is what kick starts a bout of emotional outbursts. Fluctuations presented as changes in the usual patterns of activities, encountered in every day life. Even slight, minute differences, are enough.
Such fluctuations have also been refered to as
"... the fluctuating energy level that is responsible for varying physical and mental states.."
Emotions, their significance obvious as they are described as
"Emotions are evolutionary adaptations, as they enhance an organism's ability to experience, reproduce and evaluate its environment and thus increase its likelihood to survive and reproduce, by providing the simplest plans for evolutionary most common actions needed,..."
and as well
"Our emotions are a valuable source of information. Our emotions help us make decisions. Studies show that when a person's emotional connections are severed in the brain, he can not make even simple decisions. Why? Because he doesn't know how he will feel about his choices."
We rely heavily on our emotions to guide us in life, being the source of information, but not only. It is foremost, because of the ability conferred to us, to create new information.
Therefore, it is not a matter of
"Take measures such as anger management training to tame your beast!"
.... a person void of emotional content? Sanitizing ourselves from the most valuable tools we have at hand, our emotions? What leads, what induces states on a par to schizophrenia?
"People diagnosed with schizophrenia usually experience a combination of positive (i.e. hallucinations, delusions, racing thoughts), negative (i.e. apathy, lack of emotion, poor or non-existant social functioning), and cognitive (disorganized thoughts, difficulty concentrating and/or following instructions, difficulty completing tasks, memory problems)."
.... experience apathy, lack of emotion, poor or non-existant social functioning. It is not our emotions that are at fault, but the inability, the unwillingness to learn how to handle what our emotions bring forth.
Instead, it sounds more promising to do what this website proclaims:
"Give your feelings, good or bad, full rein and you will be bursting with energy."
Therefore our goal should not be to curb our emotions but instead to learn from them, to take advantage of the possibilities they open to us, to create new attractors. As emotional engagement brings about instabilities in our being, and the instabilities bifurcations, bifurcations to new attractors, which equates to learning. Learning which provides solutions to problems we are asked to deal with.
So after we recovered from, or fresh out of an emotional outburst, we should take stalk and capitulate on what we learned out of it. Identifying the new attractors which have been created as a results of the induced bifurcations.
Any other way or ignore and continue on, our lives are left with an emotional baggage to carry along with its whatever sinister implications, for us and the lives of the individuals around us.
Should embrace our chaotic lives.
"Such non-linearities make it possible for unstable fluctuation at the synaptic vesicle or ion channel level within a critically poised neuron, to precipitate cellular instability and subsequent global neurosystem bifurcation."
What drew my attention, was the precipitation of cellular instability and the subsequent global system bifurcation. As a result of the ensued bifurcation the system's phase space is explored and a new attractor emerges; along the lines mentioned elsewhere in the paper, namely in the Electrodynamics chapter, page 18:
"... falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."
Leaving aside the case for the stimulus eliciting the response and concentrating on the matter of the instability precipitated by the unstable fluctuation at the synaptic vesicle or ion channel level, as well as, the non-linearities as being responsible, for a later use.
It occurred to me, that instability is a common feature in the lives of human individuals, triggered and driven by the emotional aspects of our character. Our whole being is in turmoil, when we are grappled by our emotions, being triggered by unstable fluctuations, in whatever way these can be imagined. It is what kick starts a bout of emotional outbursts. Fluctuations presented as changes in the usual patterns of activities, encountered in every day life. Even slight, minute differences, are enough.
Such fluctuations have also been refered to as
"... the fluctuating energy level that is responsible for varying physical and mental states.."
Emotions, their significance obvious as they are described as
"Emotions are evolutionary adaptations, as they enhance an organism's ability to experience, reproduce and evaluate its environment and thus increase its likelihood to survive and reproduce, by providing the simplest plans for evolutionary most common actions needed,..."
and as well
"Our emotions are a valuable source of information. Our emotions help us make decisions. Studies show that when a person's emotional connections are severed in the brain, he can not make even simple decisions. Why? Because he doesn't know how he will feel about his choices."
We rely heavily on our emotions to guide us in life, being the source of information, but not only. It is foremost, because of the ability conferred to us, to create new information.
Therefore, it is not a matter of
"Take measures such as anger management training to tame your beast!"
.... a person void of emotional content? Sanitizing ourselves from the most valuable tools we have at hand, our emotions? What leads, what induces states on a par to schizophrenia?
"People diagnosed with schizophrenia usually experience a combination of positive (i.e. hallucinations, delusions, racing thoughts), negative (i.e. apathy, lack of emotion, poor or non-existant social functioning), and cognitive (disorganized thoughts, difficulty concentrating and/or following instructions, difficulty completing tasks, memory problems)."
.... experience apathy, lack of emotion, poor or non-existant social functioning. It is not our emotions that are at fault, but the inability, the unwillingness to learn how to handle what our emotions bring forth.
Instead, it sounds more promising to do what this website proclaims:
"Give your feelings, good or bad, full rein and you will be bursting with energy."
Therefore our goal should not be to curb our emotions but instead to learn from them, to take advantage of the possibilities they open to us, to create new attractors. As emotional engagement brings about instabilities in our being, and the instabilities bifurcations, bifurcations to new attractors, which equates to learning. Learning which provides solutions to problems we are asked to deal with.
So after we recovered from, or fresh out of an emotional outburst, we should take stalk and capitulate on what we learned out of it. Identifying the new attractors which have been created as a results of the induced bifurcations.
Any other way or ignore and continue on, our lives are left with an emotional baggage to carry along with its whatever sinister implications, for us and the lives of the individuals around us.
Should embrace our chaotic lives.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Intuitions. Should we be afraid or trust our intuitions? Building up a case for trust.
- intuition based on information, informed intuition. Like a computer program to which you provide, feed the data in, tweak the parametres and start the program. You have programmed into it, the variable parametres which you regard as crucial for the outcomes you seek.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Chaos attracting basins constantly test norms, regulations, laws.
In page 231 of James Gleick book "Chaos, making a new science" in the footnote describes how to emulate a Mandelbrot set
"A Mandelbrot set program needs just a few essential pieces. The main engine is a loop of instructions that takes its starting complex number and applies the arithmetical rule to it. For the Mandelbrot set, the rule is this: z-> z(square)+ c, where z begins at zero and c is the complex number corresponding to the point being tested. So take 0, multiply it by itself, and add the starting number; take the result-the starting number-multiply it by itself, and add the starting number; take the new result, multiply it by itself, and add the starting number."
Iterations at the heart of the Mandelbrot set that reveal stunning worlds and if the iterations continue unabated the points plotted can not escape the pull of the set, balanced between competing attractors.
What can this tell us about our lives? The worlds we create and we live in? The same principles apply, as well. The iterations, that give rise to the mathematical objects of the Mandelbrot sets, do happen in our every day lives as well. Certainly they can not be formulated mathematically, rigorously or not, but they 'live', they are inherent in the ways we spend our lives, the many tasks we repeat daily on and on, in and through the simple rules that govern our daily acts, the communities, the corporations we are part of, all the systems we have built up to now and continue to build.
We can not define them, they do not have a rigid form, escape our reasoned intuitions but nevertheless they are there.
In the same page continues,
"A complex number is written with two parts: for example, 2 + 3i (the address for the point at 2 east and 3 north on the complex plane)."
And if the notion of a complex number does not have a meaningful counterpart in our lives, the plotting of that number, the point represented with the 2 east and 3 north coordinates, do have. It represents the state we are in, the state we have acquired by virtue of the system which we are part of. And our coordinates, our complex number, is determined by the rules that define the system and confine it, at the same time. The rules be that norms, regulations, laws or whatever other prescriptions exist that define the boundaries and therefore the extents of our state in the system we belong to.
In page 232, the footnote continues,
"To break out of this loop, the program needs to watch the running total. If the total heads off to infinity, moving farther and farther from the center of the plane, the original point does not belong to the set, and if the running total becomes greater than 2 or smaller than -2 in either its real or imaginary part, it is surely heading off to infinity-the program can move on. But if the program repeats the calculation many times without becoming greater than 2, then the point is part of the set."
And there is the crunch, as continuously experiment and test the system we are part of, that defines the state we are in, testing its tolerance will determine whether a certain norm, or rule or any other prescribed guideline, is heading into infinity or not, whether it belongs into the set or not. If it belongs into the set it will allow the iterations to continue, it will continue to be balanced under the influence of the existing competing attractors. If it is not it will be lost for ever, away into infinity and into nothingness. It is not part of the set.
Chaos rules our lives, the systems we built and defines what norms, what regulations, what laws are applicable. That have a chance at all. Whatever falls under the influence of the attracting basins survives, whatever is not, perishes and is banished. And this applies to every human system built, at whatever level. The norms, the regulations, the laws are constantly tested and if they fall outside the influence of the attracting basins they do not stand a chance of surviving. They perish, languish into oblivion, vanish for ever. And what finally determines the attracting basins? To which each norm, each regulation, each law should be attracted to?
The human individual defines the attracting basins, as it is the entity that makes them up and spawn such systems. The single individual is more susceptible to ideas. Ideas that constantly test the norms, the regulations, the laws and is the one that can freely generate new ideas, unbiased, unhindered by the self-preservation angst organisations suffer. Organisations are rigid structures unable to adapt as quickly as the human single individual can. History bears witness as countless norms and laws have perished as they journeyed to infinity and oblivion as they were not part of the attracting basins and countless more keep perishing and will perish as the human kind draws closer to its goal.
"A Mandelbrot set program needs just a few essential pieces. The main engine is a loop of instructions that takes its starting complex number and applies the arithmetical rule to it. For the Mandelbrot set, the rule is this: z-> z(square)+ c, where z begins at zero and c is the complex number corresponding to the point being tested. So take 0, multiply it by itself, and add the starting number; take the result-the starting number-multiply it by itself, and add the starting number; take the new result, multiply it by itself, and add the starting number."
Iterations at the heart of the Mandelbrot set that reveal stunning worlds and if the iterations continue unabated the points plotted can not escape the pull of the set, balanced between competing attractors.
What can this tell us about our lives? The worlds we create and we live in? The same principles apply, as well. The iterations, that give rise to the mathematical objects of the Mandelbrot sets, do happen in our every day lives as well. Certainly they can not be formulated mathematically, rigorously or not, but they 'live', they are inherent in the ways we spend our lives, the many tasks we repeat daily on and on, in and through the simple rules that govern our daily acts, the communities, the corporations we are part of, all the systems we have built up to now and continue to build.
We can not define them, they do not have a rigid form, escape our reasoned intuitions but nevertheless they are there.
In the same page continues,
"A complex number is written with two parts: for example, 2 + 3i (the address for the point at 2 east and 3 north on the complex plane)."
And if the notion of a complex number does not have a meaningful counterpart in our lives, the plotting of that number, the point represented with the 2 east and 3 north coordinates, do have. It represents the state we are in, the state we have acquired by virtue of the system which we are part of. And our coordinates, our complex number, is determined by the rules that define the system and confine it, at the same time. The rules be that norms, regulations, laws or whatever other prescriptions exist that define the boundaries and therefore the extents of our state in the system we belong to.
In page 232, the footnote continues,
"To break out of this loop, the program needs to watch the running total. If the total heads off to infinity, moving farther and farther from the center of the plane, the original point does not belong to the set, and if the running total becomes greater than 2 or smaller than -2 in either its real or imaginary part, it is surely heading off to infinity-the program can move on. But if the program repeats the calculation many times without becoming greater than 2, then the point is part of the set."
And there is the crunch, as continuously experiment and test the system we are part of, that defines the state we are in, testing its tolerance will determine whether a certain norm, or rule or any other prescribed guideline, is heading into infinity or not, whether it belongs into the set or not. If it belongs into the set it will allow the iterations to continue, it will continue to be balanced under the influence of the existing competing attractors. If it is not it will be lost for ever, away into infinity and into nothingness. It is not part of the set.
Chaos rules our lives, the systems we built and defines what norms, what regulations, what laws are applicable. That have a chance at all. Whatever falls under the influence of the attracting basins survives, whatever is not, perishes and is banished. And this applies to every human system built, at whatever level. The norms, the regulations, the laws are constantly tested and if they fall outside the influence of the attracting basins they do not stand a chance of surviving. They perish, languish into oblivion, vanish for ever. And what finally determines the attracting basins? To which each norm, each regulation, each law should be attracted to?
The human individual defines the attracting basins, as it is the entity that makes them up and spawn such systems. The single individual is more susceptible to ideas. Ideas that constantly test the norms, the regulations, the laws and is the one that can freely generate new ideas, unbiased, unhindered by the self-preservation angst organisations suffer. Organisations are rigid structures unable to adapt as quickly as the human single individual can. History bears witness as countless norms and laws have perished as they journeyed to infinity and oblivion as they were not part of the attracting basins and countless more keep perishing and will perish as the human kind draws closer to its goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)