Excruciatingly Large Things

Daniel Rourke's new website is:

MachineMachine.net


29th Sceptics' Circle Coming Thursday: Submit!

→ by Danieru
UPDATE: The Circle has been posted: Go here...

Message to sceptics:
I claimed you didn't exist,
Prove me wrong Thursday!
Now accepting submissions to The 29th Meeting of The Skeptics' Circle. Please send me links to articles of sceptical origin, whether written, read or remembered by Wednesday at the very latest.

In addition I'd like to throw open the submission process and ask for Huge Entity readers to write some sceptical Mu Haikus for the occasion. These 5-7-5 chunks of Mu can comment on any topic you deem worthy of scepticism.

Send your articles and Haikus to danieru at huge-entity dot com or alternatively post them in the comments section of this post. Roll on Thursday!

Categories: , , , , ,

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Feed Issues & NEW Comments Feed!

→ by Danieru
Apologies to those of you suffering Feed related issues at the moment, especially Bloglines subscribers.

Please ensure you are subscribed to:

feeds.feedburner.com/TheHugeEntity - MAIN FEED

UPDATE: Subscribe to my new Comments Feed to follow all ongoing conversations at The Huge Entity. Here it is:

feeds.feedburner.com/HugeEntityComments - COMMENTS FEED

Keep subscribing...

Categories:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Exploding Pig Friday

→ by Danieru




UPDATE: The origins of these photos...

Source: LinkFilter.net!
Categories: , , , , ,

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Evidence for 'Backward Evolution' Directly Observed in Humans

→ by Danieru
I was struck today by news that a rare genetic defect seems to be turning back the evolutionary clock in humans. The similarities between people carrying the defective gene and a certain, ape-descended, politician are quite astounding.

See what you think:
The idea that evolution can run backward isn't new; some scientists say there have been confirmed cases of it in animals. But it's also a controversial subject, and considered hard to prove in any given case...

...the mutation - known to run in one Turkish family - might offer scientists an unprecedented glimpse into human origins.

"This syndrome interestingly exhibits prehuman features" and represents "possible backward evolution,"... As such, it "can be considered a live model for human evolution." - link

Some extended claims of this research are compared below with actual utterances from our alpha-male subject. The results offer us further insight into the fragility of the human condition:

'Backward' humans: "...could not count from one to ten." - link

Bush comparison: "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."


"I would like to thank all you Canadians for your warm welcome at the airport. Especially those of you who waved (Pause) with all 5 fingers." - link
'Backward' humans: "...were not aware of time and space. For instance, they did not know where they live (which country, which village, which city)." - link

Bush comparison: "Wow! Brazil is big."

"But we've got a big border in Texas, with Mexico, obviously - and we've got a big border with Canada - Arizona is affected."
- link
'Backward' humans: "...were unaware of year, season, day, and time." - link

Bush comparison: "This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America had collapsed."
- link
'Backward' humans: "...were mentally retarded..." - link

Bush comparison: "I understand small business growth. I was one."

"I know that the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully."

Commenting on the name of a reporter's son: "Can you imagine if my name had been Mungo Bush?"
- link
Could it be that this genetic devolution has already occured and is prevelant in subjects such as the infamous ape George W. Bush? The President himself appears to have pre-prepared for this discovery:
"Keep good relations with the monkeys." - link
'Backward Evolution' is not just a metaphor for the current state of the US Science-Education system. The apes are already amongst us...

Categories: , , , , , , , , , , ,

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Hyper-Real Wikipedia and the Evolution of Mu-lacra

→ by Danieru
The internet has become a vast system for the evolution of conceptual memes of information. Mankind's evolved tendency to relish rumour, to gravitate towards gossip becomes viral in the hyperreal communities of cyberspace. As raw information becomes the only commodity worth coveting in the globalised melting pot we call society Wikipedia has transmogrified into the internet's hive-mind equivalent. Encyclopedias cower at the mere mention of this monolith of knowledge; intellectuals who have made careers on the personal acquisition of clever sounding nonsense burn their textbooks and commit themselves to a life of burbling vowel sounds not yet attached to a semantic referent. Meanwhile the Wiki-universe blossoms forth all manner of intelligent hyper-banter and the internet masses await the day when all human knowledge is just a Boolean search string away from their grasp...

Could the Wikipedia community be a symbol for something greater than the sum of its component parts? Is it possible to discover future truths about the very nature of cultural identity from assessing how it is affected by Wikipedia and internet systems like it?


Superseding Identity

The Huge Entity's recent 'Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...' feature called into question the very nature of your personal identity, but mentioned very little about identity in a self-referential context. Past examinations of such concepts have often lead me towards assessing the Simulacrum:
"...a copy of a copy which has been so dissipated in its relation to the original that it can no longer be said to be a copy. The simulacrum, therefore, stands on its own as a copy without a model..." - See more on Simulacrum here
and the ancient Eastern Philosophy of Mu:
"...a word which can be roughly translated as "without" or "have not". While typically used as a prefix to imply the absence of something, it is more famously used as a response to certain koans and other questions in Zen Buddhism, intending to indicate that the question itself was wrong..." - See more on Mu here
But oftentimes I come across theories and concepts which wripple with a sense of 'Mu' the referent 'Simulacrum' fails to explain. What is the label for an entity or idea which began as nothing and in the process of its examination became real through its own fictional-identity? Notions diametrically opposed to simulacra - 'Mu-lacra' perhaps?

Wikipedia has come to supersede its referent, in that much of what appears amongst its pages would never have been printed in an old-school encyclopedic compendium. In this regard Wikipedia is a simulacrum of its former ideal-self - an entity beyond the boundaries of which knowledge loses strict definition in cyberspace. Indeed news events can be followed in the pages of Wikipedia as they unfold in the real world! Any quick glance at the Wikipedia Front Page will show you this...

As the internet becomes the closest data-referent to 'reality' the Wikipedia hive-mind has the potential to evolve towards a state of hyper-reference - it not only contains all information regarded as purposeful to a common understanding of reality, but much information which is purposeful exactly because it lacks any reference with reality. These 'Mu-lacra' take forms not possible in pre-internet cultures, and on occasion only achieve hyper-reality through the shear breadth of their non-existence.

I believe that the internet is slowly changing the way the modern human brain perceives identity. This change encompasses not just our personal individuality, but the structure of knowledge itself and it is in communal data systems, such as Wikipedia and the equally hyperreal Flickr, that my original question can find a foothold...


What exactly is this Mu-lacra nonsense?

There is a category of entities that refer to utterly hyper-real concepts. Many of these concepts, once relegated to flourish in small, close-knit communities, find infinite nourishment in the data-rich soils of the internet. Below I have drawn up a list of such constructs which have made themselves known to me through Wikipedia's Unusual Articles page. Examine them carefully and consider for a moment in what ways the hyper-reality of these entities is due entirely to the viral, hive-mind-like nature of cyber-culture:
  • Suicide Squid is the name of a fictional comic book superhero. He is in fact so fictional that not only does he not exist, but neither does any comic book about him. He was accidentally created in April 1991 when Mitsuhiro Sakai, upon being asked in the internet newsgroup rec.arts.comics (r.a.c.) for his opinion on developments in the series Suicide Squad, asked what those developments were but typed "i" instead of "a" in "Squad".
  • The zeroth item is the initial item of a sequence, if that sequence is numbered beginning from zero rather than one. This kind of numbering is common in computer systems, and so hackers and computer scientists often use zeroth where others might use first, and so forth.
  • The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a satiric parody religion aimed at theistic beliefs, which takes the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.
  • The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the subject of a satirical website created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. On the site, Henderson facetiously professes belief in a supernatural Creator entity that resembles spaghetti and meatballs and suggests that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism should be taught in science classrooms.

But it doesn't end here. The above list is but a sub-set of Mu-Lacrum in a greater collection of Mu-Lacra. Here are some more examples of non-entities which found meaning before/outside of internet culture, but which now find deeper significance in the pages of Wikipedia:

(hover for a brief explanation)

This list of course could, and indeed will, go on indefinitely...

What I find interesting here is not that these concepts simply exist (indeed all popular cultures and organised Religions could be said to be based on original non-entity memes such as these), but the way in which Wikipedia, in referencing them, has brought their in-existence deeper clarity. Were it not for the community lead nature of Wikipedia, and similar 'Web 2.0' systems, the above knowledge would have been passed off as close to worthless - certainly no professional encyclopedia editor would have allowed such ideas to be printed - an action akin to the devaluation of the 'higher forms' of knowledge all encyclopedia editors must wade through in pursuit of referential perfection. And yet here they reside, available for all at the merest click of a button.

Could Wikipedia at its broadest boundaries be a metaphor for the future of human society? Take away our cultural memes and humanity would quickly revert to the simple cultures seen in our monkey and ape relatives. It was the evolution of language which bound humanity into a shared consciousness - a cultural brain which did more thinking than any individual identity could do alone. And now, at the start of a cultural revolution as wide sweeping as the internet, humanity, I believe, faces its next evolution towards shared awareness. Language took the self sufficient tribal strongholds of the African savannah and exploded their potential into the many multifaceted cultures we see around us today. If Mu-lacra continue to be absorbed so readily into the hive-mind of cyberspace what does this suggest for the nature of human realities yet to be realised?


Memetic Potential

We are still at a stage where referencing these memetic, viral non-entities allows us to recognise their distinction from objective truth. Over the next few years as the internet becomes ever more a totality of culture rather than simply a referent the lines bordering reality, hyper-reality and pure imagination will dissolve around us. I would go so far as to suggest that many generations from now cyber-entities once labeled 'human' will find it impossible to distinguish what was past-real, what is present-hyper-real and what will never be real in the seething masses of datum the internet will have become. Present day archeology and anthropology commit themselves to the study of past-human groups which had no substantial cultural changes for many thousands of years. Future such Mu-ologies will be so deeply embedded in these interweaving cyber-realities that history itself will have to be forgotten in order that the present have any identity. The pace of cultural evolution in this 'imagined' future will be so great that any entity still capable of assessing broad sweeping patterns of consciousness will have to commit themselves to tracking change as it happens. The future of Wikipedia, and systems like it, will be to log, conceptualise and realise reality in real-time. No-one within the cyber systems destined to encompass this world will be able to see anything but Mu-lacra-like concepts buzzing around their digital heads.


Foaming Fantasies

If this all appears but a nonsense to you, the foaming fantasies of an internet non-entity, reflect for a moment on the distinction between your life as you read this and the life you had, say, 15 years ago. In this article I have used various references which had no existence then. If I transport myself back to that time - the body and mind of a 9 year old the conceptual shell awaiting my imaginary re-entry - many of the links above would have been unthinkable jokes. That a simple typing error on a community message board could spawn into existence an imaginary comic-book parody (Suicide Squid) is one thing for my pre-pubescent mind to grasp - that this imaginary comic book was still referenced 15 years later, and had its own article on the most popular communal encyclopedia in the world is quite another!

Project yourself 15 - 20, even 30, years from now my friends and imagine, if you will, a world as magnificently hyper-real as the one outlined above. If you can imagine it, even in corporeal, mysterious forms, I suggest that not only could it happen but that ever more greater events will conspire to eclipse its merest possibility. The internet is the closest thing humanity has yet to a global hive-mind. Enjoy the freedom it still allows, for in all likelihood its structure, many years hence, will be as much as part of you as the thought you have just attained that The Huge Entity is a reeling website of insanity.

The era of Mu-Lacrum is upon us!


Further Reading

The past articles below expand on some of these ideas further and may fill in the conceptual gaps obvious in the above post:
And for you Flickr fans please check out my very own Simulacrum Group-Pool for images of simulacrum, hyper-real photography and simulated weirdness.

Let The Huge Entity be your brain's hyperreality playground.....

Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Sweet Crude Eternity

→ by Danieru
"Oil is an organic material - every organic thing on our planet will be oil in future... It's like life after death."

Russian artist Andrei Molodkin

Via BBC News
Categories: , , , , , , ,

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

A Scanner Darkly Exegesis

→ by Danieru

The Book: Know : Encounter : Own
"My books and stories are intellectual and conceptual mazes. I am in an intellectual maze in trying to figure out our situation (who we are and how we look into the world, and world as illusion, etc.), because the situation is itself a maze."

- Philip K. Dick, Exegesis

The Man: Explore : Endure : Applaude
"But I have never had too high a regard for what is generally called "reality." Reality, to me, is not so much something that you perceive, but something you make. You create it more rapidly than it creates you."

- Philip K. Dick, The Android and the Human in Philip K. Dick : Electric Shepherd, ed. Bruce Gillespie

The Movie: SOMA : Schizoid : Trailer (QT)
"If two people dream the same dream it ceases to be an illusion; the basic test that distinguishes reality from hallucination is the consensus gentium, that one other or several others see it too..."

- Philip K. Dick, The True Stories of the Three Stigmas of the Five Break-Ins of Philip K. Dick by Paul Williams

Categories: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Slime-Mould-Mechanization and
The Anthropomorphic Apocalypse

→ by Danieru





The day of the Anthropomorphic-Machine has ended.

Welcome to the Era of Slime-Mould-Mechanization!

Via New Scientist & The Nonist!
Categories: , , , , , , , , ,

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
A Huge Entity presentation on the nature of identity...

Featuring short musings from the most original minds in the blogsphere.

Contents

12B ll ~ 2Bby Cutie Programmer
2Living in a Multiverseby Reality Carnival
3 The Tipping Pointby BPS Digest / Mindhacks
4Burden of Proofby Backwards City
5A Reflexive Everythingby Hyperaware Consciousness
6Our Baryonic Natureby Posthuman Blues
7Compared to the Cosmosby Church of the Churchless
8A Mind Program Called Egoby Quantum Bicommunication
9Pushbutton Automationby DunneIV
10As 'You' Like Itby The Nonist
11Mu Machineryby The Huge Entity



UPDATE: This presentation has now ended

(and you still don't exist...)

View ALL the articles on one page here:

Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist

Join the Excruciatingly Large Forum for more discussion on your non-existence...

Thanks to everyone who took part and to all the readers who made this feature so worthwhile. The posts will be available indefinitely from here and from the numbered menus at the bottom of each article. I have also given the posts a special 'Reasons-Why' tag for super-easy perusing.

Browse here for a better conception of your very non-existence...

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »

We hope you enjoyed reading this feature as much as we enjoyed writing it. Watch this space for regularly updated Excruciatingly Large Things...


Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Eleven Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
Mu Machinery

by Daniel Rourke
The Huge Entity

The machinery concerned with human experience is a bundle of cells so intricate in its complexity that it took over 13 billion years for evolutionary processes to manifest its structure. We each maintain that the actions performed in the perceived moment are ushered in by a consciousness born of this bundle of cells - but we'd all be very very wrong in this regard. 'You' are metaphorical snowflakes my friends, the fragile nature of your being melts effortlessly to nothing. Thus:

Take a normal everyday mirror and cast its photon rebellion onto your rarely understood face. Stare into those eyes, regard that absence of being beyond. Keeping your eyes fixed on the reflection move your head from side to side. See how your eyes stay resolutely focused at one position? Your head is in motion, yet perpetual blur does not arise. Your brain issued a series of magnificent commands so distantly removed from your conscious experience as to be utterly distinct. How does that work? It was not 'you' who kept those eyes so absolute. 'You' had no idea of the complexity involved in every muscle spasm, every minute motion, every perspective shift and reflected instance. 'You' are the nothing in the equation of your soul. The eyes tell no lies.

Science too alludes to the unnerving quality of mankind to place itself in dominions we are barely aware of. Rene Descartes would have us believe that the human mind is anything but irreducible:

"There is a vast difference between the mind and the body, in that the body...is always divisible, while the mind is completely indivisible." - Descartes' Meditations
Here we find not only one of the most famous (attempted) scientific analyses in the history of philosophy, but a reflection of the state of Western scientific enquiry ever since: that the human mind somehow transcends the world of nature, gaining access to the objective realities beyond its boundaries. True, today this distinction has been displaced almost in its entirety, but its seductive power still lingers in our social consciousness. V.S. Ramachandran, in his captivating book Phantoms in the Brain, sums up the problem succinctly:
"Philosophers have argued for centuries that if there is any one thing about existence that is completely beyond question, it is the simple fact that 'I' exist as a single human being who endures in space and time. But even this basic axiomatic foundation of human existence is called into question by the Capgras sufferer." - link
A Capgras sufferer maintains the delusion that family members or close loved ones are impostors. Thought to be caused by damage to the emotional response centres of the brain, the instinctive identity the sufferer ascribes to these acquaintances is lost, usually forever. In extreme cases Capgras patients have been known to believe themselves to be an imposter. Their emotional conception of their very being has so been shifted by mere damage to the brain that identity itself is rationalised out of existence.

In this, albeit extreme case of reality disruption the fragile snowflake of selfhood begins to boil away before us. How is one to persist - confident in the knowledge that your very being is so weakly maintained? You shouldn't be so surprised:
"Consciousness is often not only unnecessary; it can be quite undesirable... Right at this moment, you are not conscious of how you are sitting, of where your hands are placed, of how fast you are reading, though even as I mentioned these items, you were. And as you read you are not conscious of the letters or even of the words of the syntax or the sentences and punctuation but only of their meaning..." - Julian Jaynes, The origin of consciousness...
Such a vastness of your world is built in ways beyond your reckoning that it appears that your 'you' is not yours at all! There is no doubt that the machinery of the brain uses its 13 billion years of evolution to devastating effect, but 'you' have nothing but a window seat on the reality that machinery suggests. In every waking moment more information bypasses your perception than a lifetime worth of conscious awareness. And yet nothing can have its advantages. In Mu we trust:
"A good painting is one that makes us sense the cosmos, even if it shows only a single persimmon." - Kobayashi Kokei
If consciousness lives in the shadows of reality surely in nothing we can find the greatest darkness; a breadth of absence far more dazzling than any matter of existence. As the quote above suggests that minutely focused pinprick of conscious awareness is capable of attaining universes packed full of infinite beauty in a merest detail.
"...the world which stands over against us as something thoroughly objective is transformed into a world of signs within us, is grasped by us as a significative world...

...The true absolute does not merely transcend the relative. If it did, it could not avoid being a mere negation of it and, on the contrary, would become relative, too. Hence I have argued that the true absolute must face its own absolute negation within itself." - Nishida Kitaro
The simulacrum of selfhood, of identity, is so much greater in its non-existence than in its perceived 'absoluteness'. The concept of nothingness, or 'Mu' in the Eastern conception, stands for the impossibility of reality and its absolutely self-contradictory identity (zettai mujunteki jikodoitsu). 'You' lack identity because the mere assumption of identity warrants a 'Mu' response. There simply is. A mass seething eternal everything which bears no greater purpose than your imagined self, yet signifies the many multifaceted intricacies that simulacrum of self has the ability to interrelate with. The sooner you lose that illusion of identity the sooner the ultimate reality will make itself known:
"The Zen exercise of learning archery is extremely explicit on this, advising the archer not to think of himself as drawing the bow and releasing the arrow, but releasing himself from the consciousness of what he is doing by letting the bow stretch itself and the arrow release itself from the fingers at the proper time..." - Julian Jaynes, The origin of consciousness...
The mirror reflects not you my friend, the mirror is you - and you, as in the all eternal omniscient self-contradictory you, are Mu....
"I remember as I walked back from the monastery to my quarters in the Kigen' in temple, seeing the trees in moonlight. They looked transparent... and I was transparent too." - Nishida Kitaro

Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »


Written by

Daniel Rourke
The Huge Entity



Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Ten Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
As 'You' Like It

by Jaime Morrison
The Nonist

don't take this personally but your depth of sensation, though perhaps impressive echoing as it does in the enclosed space of your own mind, is stunted. comically so in fact. your five senses, on which you rely totally, are capable of offering you only the tiniest subset of the total information available for you to process. your mind unceremoniously filters out large segments of this already reduced sensory payload immediately upon arrival and interprets the fractional amount of data remaining. this mind of yours is a dynamo of hubris, presumptuously drawing all manner of conclusion with only the most circumstantial evidence. were it a prosecutor its case would be thrown out. and yet this mind of yours has the audacity to tell you what "reality" is and what "you" are. 

this might be a bit embarrassing if "you" actually existed.

but i do exists! and how dare you insinuate otherwise?!

well, then, by all means prove it. you have the floor.

look at me! i'm tearing a phone book in half! i'm going over niagara falls in a barrel! i'm stomping on an ant! yeah, i'm crushing an ant under my heel. ask him whether i exist or not!

ah yes. that machine which is your body... it would seem a great ally when seeking to prove your existence - but then we're not really talking about your bones and spleen and nostril hairs here are we? or do you consider your physicality to be interchangeable with your "self"?

well, not exactly...

good. because while you are running for office and reading poetry and murdering a stranger in an alleyway, your body is busy with other matters, like keeping your blood oxygenated, doling out nutrients, and making sure you don't walk into any blazing fires; that kind of thing. truth be told, your body is probably not all that interested in the trifles "you" are. your body's got work to do. "you" probably just get in the way more times than not. 

but here i am! right here in front of you. isn't that proof enough?

you are not solid and discrete you realize of course? but rather a near-infintely divisible collection of processes and smaller units. likewise what you consider your body is just such a smaller unit in processes larger than yourself. in trying to prop up your physicality as proof of anything you may as well call a carbon molecule, a dust mite, a bacteria colony, some oxygen, and a pool of bile to the witness stand. none of them would be able to prove that the "you" we are referring to exists.

i think! if i think then i am!

that is an oddity isn't it? with all the work your brain is doing to coordinate the many functions and processes at work in your body, with all the attention it must pay to just keep you from killing yourself it's a wonder it has any space to spare for, well, "you." if we're being totally honest we must admit that whole swaths of what the "self" is up to in the ol' noggin is not strictly necessary on a biological level don't we? so maybe your onto something. perhaps the degree to which your concerns diverge from the biological imperative of your physicality influences the degree to which "you" exist?

ha! see?

of course by that logic suicides would be the pinnacle of existence and they are, well, dead...

listen, arguing that something does not exist presupposes that existence itself exists as a viable option. if that's the case and things can indeed exist then why not "me"?

ah. you've got me there haven't you smarty pants? o.k. i'll admit it the question of existence is a semantic one, or at least that's what my dynamo of hubris tells me. it's a language game. which is to say that though engaging in a discussion on the subject may be interesting, the conclusions arrived at change exactly nothing.

for example if a think tank of ontologists, neurologists, anthropologists, and poets fed their notions into a computer the size of a football stadium, capable of a zillion terra flops per second, and that computer managed to prove beyond mathematical doubt that "you" did not, could not, exist... well, you'd still have to frantically search out a bathroom after a large coffee and cinnabon in the mall's food-court tipped your bowels decidedly toward full.

so what are you saying? i do exist?

no. what i'm saying is that you should relax and stop worrying about it because whether you "exist" or not makes zero difference one way or the other. you're still obliged to wake up each morning and navigate the shared delusion we've agreed to call reality. there's no getting around it. call the experience whatever "you" like.

Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »



Written by

Jaime Morrison
The Nonist



Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Nine Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
Pushbutton Automation

by JK
DunneIV

There is a mystical “I” awakening. It is being stirred by events unseen and of uncertain origin. When it wakes up what will it be?

Inexistence is a nice concept. It works in that soporific marketing kind of way because inexistence is more user friendly than its more anal sister named Existence – given a choice, people dig the bliss and carelessness of inexistence more. Existence asks of its multitudinous rapt egos that they be engaged and aware. But anymore, engagement and awareness are “tasks” to be doled onto tiny gadgets running algorithms and automated signals sent by servers via radio and rapidly focused light. Thus I submit, that at an ever quickening pace, the Ego is now and will be forever more, an automated AI, adding layer upon complexifying layer everyday, hectoring the skin of life and callousing Existence's ability to recognize her brother: Inexistence, hidden, mired behind a cloud of tough, translucent flesh. We are becoming supernatural through the silent seduction of the nascent I's cries.

It is for our inexistence that I write these randomized, pontificating thoughts in order to contribute something, anything to this “World Wide Web” we came of age in continual contact with. We are striking out into it because, at our cores, we do not exist fully, but seek communion with something as equally empty nonetheless. We are not noticed, yet are, only when we take the time to notice the other for ourselves. And we, ourselves, do not notice when we do not take the time out of our “existences” to care about the general act of “noticing” the fact that ultimately, innumerable unknowable others do as well. Thus many do not care about their necessary existence because they seek to not be noticed in and of this perceived chaos that lurks in the darknesses everywhere. For, we find, that there is nothing for us “supernaturals” to warrant being noticed for! So we hide. To exist fully in the open, devoid of inhibition and perpetually brimming with energy, is to knock yourself out of existence so to speak.

I am at a club in the cobblestoned past of a cellar that now houses Drum and Bass DJs on Saturday nights. It is dark and the marijuana and beer I have consumed, the people I have seen grimace and pose, the telltale mode of police state security through a billion lenses and miniature glowing personal screens has made the place a node for the virtualscape underworld. There are lapping tails and braying claws on the periphery. In the center there are automatons with occasional facial illumination as they check. They check they check they check. I see them check as they bob to the ever enveloping cadence. So I, like a pupil of a professor who yawns in front of class, check mine too – bobbing in time. I proceed to fire up a conversation with someone in Chicago then text a joke to someone's cellphone 5 miles away. And yet the immediate darkness persists.

The glows of various human faces lit up by uniform devicery becomes more clear and lucid as more people pile into the venue made of brick and deep blue neon. Like an ooze of a swimming luminescent jellyfish, the humans communicate into and out of networks, networking their brainwaves with the dude who stands in front of two record players – texting their thoughts elsewhere as their voices and senses have been muted. Images of flatly illuminated faces come and go, some bearing teeth like a warbuilt chimp–potential brutality, like the sounds of the launching bullets embedded within the music the body involuntarily sways to. Others still illuminated here and there by a virtualworldly LED blue, only to flash out of existence once again – with an unheard soundfile as its been swallowed by vibrations of the bigger and more powerful speakers in its vicinity. Indeed, inexistence. For $1.99 a sound and ten bucks to get in.

You cannot talk but you can text. You also need your personal and paid-up artifact to make you glow when you're amidst a noise, a net, you cannot network, let alone swim your way out of if you wanted. You are ensnared. Is this the user-friendly universe built upon the notions of packaging and traveling and refueling our coffeecards that we've been waylaid into accepting as a default limitless future? Is this the world of pushbutton automation where out dreams are but a click away? Is the universe a place now that it is represented by variously themed menu schemes? Or does it, like ourselves, not exist either, its conventional understanding of which having been “automated” out of any high soaring human relevance whatsoever?

Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »



Written by

JK
DunneIV



Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Eight Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
A Mind Program Called Ego

by Thomas Herold
Quantum Biocommunication

Someone gave me a book from a famous Indian author entitled 'Who Cares?'. In this book Ramesh Balsekar explains the mystery around the ego and why it's all an illusion. Reading this book inspired me to read more and I followed up my reading with a book on the science of mind.

That topic brought me finally to Quantum Physics and I slowly began to understand a bit of what had happened in my life (for more details on my story check out my site Quantum Biocommunication). There is only one mind, the experience of a separated mind is an illusion caused by a mind program called ego.

The ego is a sub program in the mind that separates our entity from all the rest. This is necessary otherwise we could not make any experiences. It is a program that starts building in the early days and is "supposed" to end before or with our physical death.

The illusion is experienced because our attention is focused on the stream of the ego. The moment attention finds its way back to source where it ultimately comes from, you are no longer separated as the source is the only entity that has no limits whatsoever. There can be no "I" anymore. There are studies from William A.Tiller and Benjamin Libet and Fred Alan Wolf on consciousness.

Several experiments are indicating that a signal from outside is processed in the brain before we are conscious about it. On a quantum level a wave function is collapsed and the result is a particle in time and space and therefore gets represented as reality in the consciousness.

That brings us to the topic of free will. Ultimately there is a free will of course. But this free will does not come from the ego and the consciousness - it arrives from the source. The source is making the decisions. And because we are the source we do make the decisions. But don't mix this up with your ego state. Remember your ego state is an illusion. However because you create the illusion you experience it as real as long as your attention is directed towards your ego and your daily consciousness.

Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »

Written by

Thomas Herold
Quantum Biocommunication


Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Seven Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
Compared to the Cosmos

by Brian Hines
Church of the Churchless
BrianHines.com

Like you, my goal every day is to make something of myself. A successful, knowing, active, loving, happy thing. The problem is, on the scale of the universe the value of each of us is vanishingly close to zero. Rounded off to any reasonable number of decimal places, we’re nothing.

We are small. Very, very small. Check it out for yourself. Each of us is one of six billion people on a planet circling one of 200 billion or so stars in the Milky Way galaxy, which is one of 100 billion or so galaxies in the observable universe, which many physicists believe is but one of a near-infinity of alternative realities in the multiverse.

Well, on the positive side this means that my problems also are nothing. However, being totally nothing never has been high on my life’s to-do list. Like the cartoonist said, “No, I don’t want to live forever, but I damn sure don’t want to be dead forever, either.” So here’s my recommended approach to the Being Next to Nothing problem:

Forget about being something more. Become something less. A lot less. Janis Joplin, along with countless mystics, tells it like it is: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

There’s a big world to explore between us and absolute Nothing. Take this trip down to quantum spacetime foam. And beyond. That’s easy to do in virtual reality. The trick is making it happen in real reality. It’s the adventure of a lifetime, the only thing for a nothing to do, really.

Just watch out for the Total Perspective Vortex that Douglas Adams warned about. It’ll blow your mind. Which, given the anxious, confused state of my own psyche, I consider to be a good thing...

Explore the themes of nothingness and oneness further in my book about the life of Plotinus, 'Return to the One'.

Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »

Written by

Brian Hines
Church of the Churchless
BrianHines.com


Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Six Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
Our Baryonic Nature

by Mac Tonnies
Posthuman Blues
Mactonnies.com

Astronomers are learning that the vast majority of the universe's matter takes a form that eludes casual analysis. We've found that we're an anomaly; if there's such a thing as a "galactic federation" or universal hive-mind, our baryonic nature might preclude membership.

Perhaps we're the outcasts, cosmic untouchables whiling away the millennia in the stale galactic margins.

So I write from a perspective of profound isolation - existing, but only barely. And hoping the dark matter gods deign to materialize in our skies...

Explore more galactic ideas in my book After the Martian Apocalypse from Amazon!

Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »

Written by

Mac Tonnies
Posthuman Blues
Mactonnies.com


Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Five Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
A Reflexive Everything

by Daniel Poynter
Hyperaware Consciousness

'You' do not exist, and you don't love Family Guy, lip syncing monkeys and free Internet porn. If you exist in the traditional Western way - dualistic and distinct from your environment/body - then you should be able to draw distinctions between yourself and environment both in space and time. This can not be done. Where do you end and where does not-you begin?

Therefore, 'you' do not exist. What you think exists, your ego, is an illusion built on ephemeral foundations, maintained linguistically (identifying with your speech and inner monologue), legally (democratic individualism; "I have a say in government.") and capitalistically (identifying with what media/products you consume; as well as "I own this wealth.").

When do we come into being? Richard Taylor in his 'Metaphysics':

"There is, for example, no moment of birth; birth is itself a process that takes time... Having noted this, one is then invited to work back to some imagined 'moment' at which existence itself began. But existence of what? An ovum? a zygote? bonded genetic material? fused nuclei? life? a blastula? an embryo? a person? what? And the next thing to note is, whichever of these one selects, its coming into existence is also a process, and not something that is achieved in a 'moment.' The beginnings of a particular ovum, for example, are nebulous and in no sense located at a point in time." - (pg 121)
Where are your physical boundaries? Even if you are a materialist in the mind/body debate and identify with your nervous system, the nervous system is not pristine. Molecules are always coming and leaving the supposed 'surface' of the nervous system and of the supposed 'surface' of the body. Such a surface is at best fuzzy, and at worst and most likely, arbitrary.

Your ego does not exist. The real you is a reflexive everything. *All is one*. Don't let these clichés disgust you.

Many clichés are beautifully fundamental. It's just that people with no comprehension of these phrases's beauty misuse them. And so, these insights into the very nature of Being are gradually made ugly through their repetitive misuse. *All is one*.

Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

« - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »



Written by

Daniel Poynter
Hyperaware Consciousness


Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Labels:

External Link

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Four Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

→ by Danieru
Burden of Proof

by Gerry Canavan
Backwards City

More Reasons Why You, The Reader, Don't Exist

1. Unitary consciousness is an illusion.

As Daniel Dennett explains at length in Consciousness Explained, what you mistakenly think of as a single voice of consciousness inside your head is actually a massive series of independent, diverse, subconscious, and often conflicting impulses that combine into the false impression that someone is actually behind the wheel. But there is no one driving; there is no "you."

In fact, in many cases the choices you "make" and the sensations you "experience" are ex post facto rationalizations for reflex actions you have already taken. By the time your brain realizes the pan is hot, you've already moved your hand away. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of dreams, which appear to take place over minutes or even hours but in fact don't actually occur at all. Your dreams are, in reality, narratives you make up after the fact to explain the otherwise random impulses of the REM dreamstate.

You never actually dream -- you just imagine that you did upon waking. Or consider the corpus-callosotomy, in which the corpus callosum that separates the two hemispheres of the brain is surgically divided. When the two hemispheres can no longer communicate, they both exhibit characteristics of independent personality, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as split brain. Some neurologists believe the different hemispheres exhibit the split-brain characteristics even when the corpus callosum is intact; we just don't notice, because only the left brain can talk.

2. Continuity of consciousness is an illusion.

You think of your brain as something that's a part of you and yet not-you. Not so. In the sense that we conventionally speak of personality, of personal identity, there is no such thing. The idea that you have anything like a soul, that there is any aspect of your mental existence that is independent of your material brain-state, is a medievalist's delusion. There is only your brain. And as your brain changes, you change, without your even noticing.

Tomorrow, in seven years, in seventeen years, when you are seventy, your brain will be different and thus you will be different -- but nevertheless you will insist that you are in some essential sense the same person you are now. You will be, as usual, wrong. The only connection between you and that person will be that you have the same name, maybe own some of the same junk, and misremember similar memories. But it will not be "you," because the same "you" do not exist from hour to hour, much less from day to day or year to year.

Are you the same person when you are in a good mood as you are when you are in a bad mood? The same person in and out of love? How about before and after lunch? The tumor that will subtly alter your personality, making you unrecognizable to your friends and family and completely changing the way you experience the world, may already be growing in your cerebral cortex.

    3. The burden of proof.

    Okay, you think you exist, now prove it.


    Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

    « - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »


    Written by

    Gerry Canavan
    Backwards City

    Labels:

    External Link

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    Three Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

    → by Danieru
    The Tipping Point

    by Dr. Christian Jarrett
    Mind Hacks
    BPS Digest

    "That's not like you to behave like that!". How many times have you heard that exclamation? It's nonsensical of course, because 'you', in the sense of a consistent, predictable, reliable personality, do not exist. Like treacle moulding itself around all in its path, your personality is embarrassingly malleable, dictated not by who you are, but by where you are, who you're with, and how you've behaved in the past. The erroneous belief that you have a pervasive personality that exists beyond the current circumstances you find yourself in, has been dubbed the 'fundamental attribution error'. As Malcolm Gladwell, put it in his book 'The Tipping Point':

    "...when it comes to interpreting other people's behaviour, human beings invariably make the mistake of overestimating the importance of fundamental character traits and underestimating the importance of the situation and context... The reason that most of us seem to have a consistent character is that most of us are really good at controlling our environment..." (p.162-3; ISBN: 0-349-11346-7).
    There's an empowering twist to this message. Imagine awaking from a torpor having forgotten how your friends and family see you. Perhaps, unchained from everyone's expectations for how you ought to behave, you could be whoever you liked.

    Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

    « - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »


    Written by

    Dr. Christian Jarrett
    Mind Hacks
    BPS Digest


    Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Labels:

    External Link

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    Two Reasons Why 'You' Don't Exist...

    → by Danieru
    Living in a Multiverse

    by Cliff Pickover
    Reality Carnival
    Pickover.com

    In our own region of the universe, we've already developed computers and the ability to simulate lifelike forms using these computers and mathematical rules. I believe that one day we will create thinking beings that live in rich simulated ecosystems. We'll be able to simulate reality itself, and perhaps more advanced beings are already doing this elsewhere in the universe. Huge supercomputers would have the capacity to simulate not just a tiny fragment of reality, but a substantial fraction of an entire universe.

    What if the number of these simulations is larger than the number of universes? Could we be living in such a simulation? Astronomer and philosopher Martin Rees suggests that if the simulations outnumber the universes, "as they would if one universe contained many computers making many simulations," then it is likely that we are artificial life. He notes that this theory allows for "virtual time travel," because the advanced beings who create the simulation can rerun the past. Rees says in his essay "In the Matrix" ( a.k.a. "Living in A Multiverse"),
    "Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get a sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes."
    Astronomer Paul Davies in "A Brief History of the Multiverse" has remarked similarly,
    "Eventually, entire virtual worlds will be created inside computers, their conscious inhabitants unaware that they are the simulated products of somebody else's technology. For every original world, there will be a stupendous number of available virtual worlds -- some of which would even include machines simulating virtual worlds of their own, and so on ad infinitum."
    I discuss these and many related ideas in my book

    The MÖBIUS STRIP: Dr. August Möbius's Marvelous Band in Mathematics, Games, Literature, Art, Technology, and Cosmology

    Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

    « - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »


    Written by

    Cliff Pickover
    Reality Carnival
    Pickover.com


    Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Labels:

    External Link

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    One Reason Why 'You' Don't Exist...

    → by Danieru
    2B ll ~ 2B

    by Christopher Willcock
    Cutie Programmer

    The universe has no neurons. A true statement? What sigh and what groan -- what lark upon high draws this little reckoning?

    A universe exists and certainly a scientist within. A conceptualizing scientist -- the calculating machine; objectively speaking and no more than capable -- creating calculating machines of greatly comparable complexity.

    In mathematics, the zero is a word-member of mathematical language referring to the mathematically defined state null. The actualized word 'null', in agreement with the mathematical usage of the zero, is as yet not the void in itself -- the linguistically defined absence of a lexical descriptor and all other things. The universal nil when derived wholly from itself remains a lacuna in all experiential quantification.

    This guideline is indicative of a universe in which the nil is not evidentiary but exists as a virtual object in agreement with it's apprehensible actualized existence. Reflection on this state is best approached as toward a state intrinsically devoid of activating information; wherein everything has been removed from everything. Examples include the instructions implied by a blank instruction tape entering a Turing Machine and the sound contained on a blank compact disc being played through a stereo system.

    The description of such universal congruence requires a condition of existence, itself reliant on the apprehensible unconditioned which presents itself to a faculty of expression.

    If the observable universe contains this body and the body is part of the universe; containment indeed is a limit of the body of mankind. And what other can there be?
    "Than fly to others that we know not of?" - Hamlet, Shakespeare
    What accomplished may observe such a thing as no calculating machine may draw upon? Things proscribed have little merit and things measured insignificant appeal. Herein lays not weight -- but wonder! Where does the descriptor end and the functor begin?

    Browse other reasons why 'You' don't exist:

    « - 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10 - 11 - »


    Written by

    Christopher Willcock
    Cutie Programmer


    Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Labels:

    External Link

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    On the Nature of the Bicameral Mind

    → by Danieru
    "O, what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet is nothing at all..."
    Excerpt The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

    Categories: , , , , , , , , ,

    Labels:

    External Link

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    The Evolution of Religion and the Loss of Oneness

    → by Danieru
    In our semantically governed, symbolic understanding of reality we often maintain that true-identity is possible, that the whirling sensations called 'you' somehow cease at the surface of your skin, all else being distinct. Of course the Buddhist conception of reality has superseded this idea for millennia:
    "According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is untenable. All things and events, whether material, mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence. To possess such independent, intrinsic existence would imply that things and events are somehow complete unto themselves and are therefore entirely self-contained. This would mean that nothing has the capacity to interact with and exert influence on other phenomena.... In a universe of self-contained, inherently existing things, ...events would never occur." - The Dalai Lama, quoted from New Scientist
    I am often struck by how quick Western science is to absolve humans of their natural status. In matters of religion, or more specifically, the evolution of religion, science tends to send me into a quiet rage. Yet the tides are beginning to turn:
    "When we see a complex structure, we see it as the product of beliefs and goals and desires. Our social mode of understanding leaves it difficult for us to make sense of it any other way. Our gut feeling is that design requires a designer - a fact that is understandably exploited by those who argue against Darwin...

    ...Religious teachings certainly shape many of the specific beliefs we hold; nobody is born with the idea that the birthplace of humanity was the Garden of Eden, or that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, or that martyrs will be rewarded with sexual access to scores of virgins. These ideas are learned. But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems. They are part of human nature." - Paul Bloom, "Is God an Accident?"
    Paul Bloom is a proponent of 'the byproduct explanation' of religious evolution, which in simple terms claims:

    "...religion is... an accidental byproduct of stuff that is part of human nature." Religion, in this account, didn't arise because it served any purpose, but because the human brain is amenable to certain supernatural ideas. - link

    [see also 'Religion Explained' by Pascal Boyer]

    Could it be said that from this perspective religion is just the model which human evolution built to understand an underlying, naturally occurring component of reality? For instance; in his study of neurological damage in his own patients V.S. Ramachandran often makes beautiful leaps of logic to assess his findings. His book Phantoms in the Brain is one of the most engrossing analyses of the human condition I have come across, and yet when religion rears its ugly head Ramachandran resorts to the glorification of it as a unique aspect of human evolution.
    "Religion is a uniquely human trait..." - link
    It is just my opinion, but this same error can be seen time and time again in the works of eminent scientists and philosophers of mind. But if one extends 'the byproduct explanation' of religion to its broadest horizons the seedling of nature can once again be seen protruding from the human mind. No one would argue that religion is not a response by the human brain to grasp a oneness with the universe, as the quote from The Dalai Lama above would suggest. Yet in matters of a scientific conception of religion the loose ends of logic continue to flap in the wind for me. Surely animals, with undoubtedly a lesser degree of mental capacity than us, have greater access to the universe in indefinable instinctive terms. Their minds do not need to rationalise desires, emotions, feelings of identity. Indeed for many creatures I would suggest these abilities would be a disadvantage to their survival (for more on this see my recent MetaTalk question here).

    I have no doubt that the various models ascribed to religious doctrine or spiritual union with creation are uniquely human traits - no animal has an evolutionary reason to have acquired such subjective nonsense. But I find it difficult to believe that the sense of oneness it takes Buddhist monks decades to attain; the rapturous glory the Christian gains from their union with Jesus; the mental infinity arising from the brain of the epilepsy sufferer are uniquely human. That oneness, rapture, seizure, hallucination - whatever you want to call it - is something that animal kind has full access to AT ALL TIMES! In rationalising the universe humanity had to lose its natural propensity with the cosmos. Evolution forged us a rational brain to perceive objective truths, and as a consequence we lost the ability to just be 'at one' with our surroundings. Religion then, and all other irrational systems of acquiring models of existence, are evolutions' mediocre attempts to cope with the infinite peace we lost.

    The universe is vast, incredible and awe inspiring for all the same reasons it ever was. It's just that with this brain, this perceptive reflexive consciousness, humanity is somehow unable to just accept that glory instinctively anymore.

    When I was a few years younger I mourned this loss. In the religious, spiritual and social concepts I had come across in all my life nothing managed to build for me an understanding of reality I was happy with accepting. These days though I smile gleefully to myself. In the realms of physics, biology and philosophy broad vistas of objective glory stretch ahead of me. To each side of my remaining instinctive vision I catch glimpses of a reality so beautiful in its depth, its intricate infinities, that it took 13 billion years of gradual acquisition for anything to remotely come into focus.

    The loss of that oneness is a small price to pay for the knowledge that the concept of God is nothing more than an echo of laughter rebounding in the depths of reflexive consciousness. Religion and the spiritual mind are for me mere evolutionary idiosyncrasies that nature has not yet had time to fully be rid off. Never fear that your existence is meaningless, for in this infinite universe you are the evolutionary pinnacle of a glory yet to be fully realised...

    Related past posts to explore:

    Categories: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    Jesus and Mo

    → by Danieru

    Categories: , , , , , , , , ,

    External Link

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    A pair of penis-fencing flatworms

    → by Danieru
    The Huge Entity never shies away from the raw, sexual power exhibited by hermaphroditic animalia. And so today, in true excruciating form, I present to you:

    Penis-Fencing Flatworms

    There is a high probability that at least one person who reads this has been, or will be, infected with a form of flatworm at some point in their life. Who'd have known their procreation rituals could be this ruthless?

    Enjoying nature before it enjoys you...

    Thanks Ellen!
    Categories: , , , , , ,

    External Link

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    Right - Left Brains and Blue - Green Realities

    → by Danieru
    "Scholars have long debated whether our native language affects how we perceive reality -- and whether speakers of different languages might therefore see the world differently. The idea that language affects perception is controversial, and results have conflicted...
    ...Many of the distinctions made in English do not appear in other languages, and vice versa. For instance, English uses two different words for the colors blue and green, while many other languages -- such as Tarahumara, an indigenous language of Mexico -- instead use a single color term that covers shades of both blue and green. An earlier study by Paul Kay and colleagues had shown that speakers of English and Tarahumara perceive colors differently: English speakers found blues and greens to be more distinct from each other than speakers of Tarahumara did, as if the English "green" / "blue" linguistic distinction sharpened the perceptual difference between the colors themselves. The present study essentially repeated the English part of that earlier test, but also made sure that colors were presented to either the right or the left half of the visual field -- something the earlier study hadn't done -- so as to test whether language influences the right half of our visual world more than the left half, as predicted by brain organization." - link
    I find language fascinating in this context. It suggests that much of human reality is a composition of linguistic symbols - that in a genetic difference of just a few percent the evolution of language forged a massive chasm of perception between us and our related simian cousins. But things didn't stop there. As humans formulated new languages and new methods to transpose those languages into a mutually-shared false-memory (through writing) yet greater chasms were exposed.

    You think these differences are a consequence of people living on opposite sides of the Earth from each another? Think again:
    "...even artificial classification systems, such as gender, can be important. To an English speaker, the idea that words can arbitrarily be considered male or female or neutral is peculiar. It makes no sense that words like "bra" and "uterus" can be masculine while "penis" can be feminine. What's more, there is no agreement between languages. The word "sun" is neutral in Russian, feminine in German, and masculine in Spanish. Some psychologists argue that these inconsistencies suggest gender is just a meaningless tag. Boroditsky disagrees. To construct sentences in these languages, she says, you end up thinking about gender - even if it's arbitrary - thousands of times every day.
    To test how this affects the way people think, she presented Spanish and German-speaking volunteers with nouns that happened to have opposite genders in their native tongues. "Key", for instance, is feminine in Spanish and masculine in German, and "bridge" is masculine in Spanish and feminine in German. Boroditsky asked the volunteers to come up with adjectives - in English - to describe these items. German speakers described keys as "awkward", "worn", "jagged" and "serrated", while Spanish speakers saw them as "little", "lovely", "magic" and "intricate". To Germans, bridges were "awesome", "beautiful", "fragile" and "elegant", whereas Spanish speakers considered them "big", "dangerous", "solid", "strong" and "sturdy"." - New Scientist article from 2002 - "You are what you speak"
    It's times like these I wish I'd paid attention in my Philosophy of Language classes. Good job then that I currently live in Japan, a daily study ground for matters of diverging minds. Enjoy your linguistically resolved subjective experiences, wherever you may be. I'm off to study some Japanese...

    Categories: , , , , , , ,

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

    The Time Traveler's Handbook: Ancient Insults

    → by Danieru
    Your scientific theory has been proven. A monolithic, almost incorporeal time-machine sits in your lab awaiting further attention. Trembling with the tension of 13 billion temporal years yet to travel you dial in your exact time coordinates, pack your tuna sandwiches and reach for your trusty Time Travelers' Handbook!

    Space and time just wouldn't be the same without it...

    Chapter I - Ancient Insults

    1. Destination: The Fertile Crescent, 2,350 - 1,000 BCE
      Insult: YHWH (Yahweh)
      Origin: The Tetragrammaton, or Jewish name for God, has long been proclaimed a taboo. Its utterance is one of the highest forms of insult, mainly to God himself:

      - "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain." (Exodus 20:7)

      - "And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Exodus 23:13)

    2. Destination: Europe, The Middle Ages
      Insult: 'I bite my thumb at thee!'
      Origins: Often misquoted from the Shakespeare (the actual quote, from Romeo and Juliet is 'Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?'), the myth has arisen that this Middle Ages slur relates to wars ravaging Southern Europe at the time. Prisoners taken by local armies would be offered the chance to earn their freedom by eating a fig from a mule's anus. As the captors taunted their captive, offering them this degrading method of escape, they would bite their thumbs.

    3. Destination: Easter Island, 1,700AD - Present Day
      Insult: 'Your Grandmother's flesh sticks between my teeth'
      Origins: An ancient Easter Island (Rapa Nui) insult which came to symbolise much of the island's tragic history. When the resources of Rapa Nui had been utterly exhausted the warring Chiefdoms resorted to cannibalism to survive. The insult still wields clout today, a remnant of Rapa Nui's ancient, grisly downfall.


    Categories: , , , , , , , , , ,

    Bookmark using any bookmark manager!