Cloudscape

Buy and Sell

2009-12-16T17:03:49+01:00

Usually, people only recognize beauty if they are told by others that it is there. This does not mean that they experience it: they merely recognize it as a fact. Many people have become so estranged from beauty that they can no longer experience it, and it is a mere concept, more of social than of experiential value — something to be shared with others but not felt, as a mere piece of information — like a merchandise.

Legal Fraud

2009-12-16T16:59:25+01:00

Not only falsification, but any deception to exploit others should be counted as fraud — and not all deception involved lying. False, ambiguous, inaccurate, incomplete or equivocal information given in commercial, political, or therapeutic contexts should be seen as fraud, and, depending on the compromise caused to others, should therefore be punishable just as any other, less subtle forms of fraud, with the most severe form of punishment being prison sentence — indiscriminate of status.

Yet, deception and even falsification is seen routinely in propaganda or advertisement and is even taken for granted. People know that politicians and businessmen are trying to defraud them. They merely don't see it as fraud because they see it as normal.

Law of the Strongest

2009-12-16T16:54:31+01:00

The law isn't there to protect people but to protect those who write it, that is, authorities in general and the government in particular. Because of this, laws usually have a back door accessible to powerful people, be it through money or authority, and if they do not, than they otherwise find a way to either suppress charges or manipulate trials. Some of the most important crimes, including theft, murder, kidnapping and even torture, are both justifiable for the government, even if they aren't meant to avoid other harm. The only difference is that they have different names, as a way of covering up the fact that it is still a crime (eviction, execution, incarceration, interrogation). To make any distinction between the average and powerful criminals is in itself criminal as it is discrimination based on power.

Particle Bundles

2009-12-14T02:42:00+01:00

Perhaps elementary particles can behave both like waves and particles because they are actually waves that consist of particles. These waves of particles can appear to be at two places at the same time because they are effectively in several places at once. On the other hand, the particles themselves are not.

The Splitting of Humanity

2009-12-12T19:52:25+01:00

When we see what humans have achieved, we are inclined to overestimate the abilities of the average human. The truth is that the average human never achieves very much. Humanity has always been divided in two groups, one that created change, and another that merely underwent it, be it that they profited from it or suffered it.
Despite the fact that we show more genetic similarity than most species, the psychological differences among humans are far greater than in any other species, because as our intelligence is multiple times greater, so the range in intelligence is likewise multiplied.
The creative and the passive have lived in increasing separation as civilization evolved, because civilization unlocked possibilities that the creative were more willing to seize than the passive. Among these possibilities were those that would further set them apart, such as those of knowledge, art, spirituality — things that allowed them to further improve themselves, whereas the passive remained largely unimproved. Those that choose to change evolve ever faster, while the passive remain normal. As the separation between the two groups increases, the two become more and more socially isolated, which further increases the differences between them through sexual selection.
Even now, the differences between these groups increase, and this trend will accelerate the further technology evolved. Right now, the only methods of self-improvement we have are more or less natural, learning being the foremost, and these differences are but subtle. If, however, we will one day be able to improve ourselves through nanotechnology, biotechnology and informatics, the differences between the passive and creative will become so dramatic that the two will split up into two altogether separate species.
Any form of self-improvement will require work, even it is effected through technology, for although technology may improve our abilities, it can't do the work for us of dealing with those abilities. Intelligence requires consciousness, and to improve one's intelligence, it is therefore inevitable that one's consciousness becomes expanded in the process, at least, if the right brain half is included in the process.
The expanded consciousness brought about by an increase of intelligence invariably causes upheaval, and it takes time, effort, patience and endurance to deal with this upheaval. This is one reason why passive people will be unlikely to wish to improve their intelligence, with the result that they are left behind on the evolutionary ladder as a separate species while the self-transcendant group will by far surpass them in intelligence.
The rift between the apathetic and the self-transcendant will grow until humanity is torn apart in two. It is only a matter of time. As and when this happens, this will cause tensions between the two groups, and there is no telling where this will lead.

Perception through Association

2009-12-12T14:32:30+01:00

In some way or other, we perceive everything through some sort of association with something we already know, even if it is but a very basic aspect of it. If this association is too close, it will be so similar that our mind will label the experience as irrelevant, because it is already used to it. If the association is too distant, it will seem so extraneous that our mind will be unable to understand it, because it has never seen anything the like. If there is almost no association whatsoever, the mind will be completely unable to register it, because if it did register such sort of information, it would go mad.

We limit our consciousness to a relatively narrow range because if we did not, we would be overwhelmed by the overflow of information. Schizophrenics are people who fail to filter information in this way. Much of the information processed in our subconscious mind is hallucinatory, because we need this hallucinatory information to be able to project ourselves into future situations. Because the mind cannot tell hallucinations apart from reality in any other way, it simply excludes whatever information that is most alien to it. If we were aware of all the information that is processed in our mind, we would be completely dissociated from reality.

Because we perceive everything through associations with something else, we will also, at least partly, perceive beauty in something by associating it with beauty we already know. The perception of beauty spreads from an original perception thereof and then spreads onto other perceptions as we learn to appreciate variety.

We do not perceive the beauty of things by themselves, but in their context. Beauty is formed through complexity, and therefore through variety. Something can but contribute to the complexity of the whole if it adds to its variety, that is, if it is original. Everything can be infinitely beautiful, but to be perceived as beautiful to us, it must be neither too mundane nor too alien to us.

Something only becomes beautiful through the combination with something else. The smallest possible element of something we can perceive has no substance by itself because it is but uniformly itself. Everything is relative, and so nothing can have any substance without being compared to something else.

The Self-Destruction of Excesses

2009-12-12T22:22:42+01:00

Either too much yang or too much yin will break down into nothingness, and so nothing can still be gained from them unless they are recombined with their opposite. Until then, their energy is lost.

If all space is filled, it is empty of space. If all space is empty, it is filled with space. If there is too much of either it destroys both its opposite as itself.

The world is like an infinite drawing of black and white ink. Whether you start from a black paper or a white paper, when you begin, the paper is still empty, and if too little or too much of either is used, it will return to this state of emptiness, whether it be black or white. Too little of either, and there is nothing to begin with at all.

Complexity cannot be achieved except through a combination of either, and without complexity, there is but vacuum. Wherever there is complexity in the universe, this pattern is met, because all complexity comes down to this pattern in some way or other, that is, the pattern of opposites combined into one. There cannot be complexity without this pattern because it is synonymous to complexity. By far the most complex structure in the universe we know is the biosphere, and it constantly interchanges emptiness and fullness, down to the very atomic level of our own bodies.

Too much fullness is like an explosion, too much emptiness is like a vacuum. Both can kill you. If you are in a state of either too much fullness or too much emptiness, seek for its opposite, and only for its opposite. At this point, do not focus on protecting what there was in excess, for as long as it is not combined with its opposite, it will inevitably destroy itself no matter what, and no matter how you focus on protecting it, it will not avail anything. If it is not supported through this combination, it will collapse, and so the only way to retain it is to pay no attention to retaining it and concentrate instead entirely on its opposite. The more excesses are fed, the faster they will destroy itself.

Anything will collapse if there is too little of its opposite. If opposites are not combined, the only way that balance can be restored is through disintegration.

Falsehood Addiction

2009-12-10T19:21:29+01:00

I hypothesize that mythomania is an addiction, similar to alcoholism or other drug addictions. All addictive drugs increase dopamine, and so, according to my hypothesis, does lying. Lying involves imagination, and imagination involves dopamine. When imagining something, we produce dopamine, because dopamine improves our associative thinking and therefore our creativity.

When we are lying, we produce dopamine, and the better we are able to lie, the more dopamine we produce. The better they become at lying, the more dopamine we produce when lying. By learning to lie, mythomaniacs train themselves to produce more dopamine. Eventually, in training themselves to become better liars to produce more dopamine, they bring themselves so far as to believe their own lies. In trying to produce as much dopamine as possible while lying, they become addicted to lying.

Unconscious

2009-12-10T18:52:13+01:00

There can be two reasons why we slip into unconsciousness: either because we lack the will to direct our consciousness, or because we lack the gentleness to enjoy it. Whenever you slip into unconsciousness, analyze which of both it is most, so that you can know in what direction to evolve.

Symmetrical Differentiation

2009-12-09T05:22:52+01:00

A zygote differentiates into an embryo and then into a fetus through epigenesis, a process in which certain chemical reactions within different cells turn certain genes on or off. At one place, the embryo will turn on genes for the hands, at another for the lungs, and so forth.
This process happens gradually. The cells first differentiate into an entire system. The cells of this system then differentiate into an organ, and the cells of the organ then differentiate into tissues. When the cells form into a system, all cells in this system are still identical, and the same counts for the cells in the organ as it is first formed.
It would be far too much for the cells to take if they were to give exact specifications for every cell descended from them. Instead, they leave their daughter cells to tell what their daughter cells what to do, which may include in turn telling their daughter cells to do.
It's like the hierarchy of an army. The general cannot give instructions to every soldier, but he can give instructions to the lieutenant generals. Every rank is supported by their superiors. The totipotent stem cells are the generals. The pluripotent and multipotent stem cells are the higher-ranking officers, the oligopotent stem cells are the sergeants, the unipotent stem cells are the corporals, and the non-stem cells are the soldiers.
In this way, the differentiation of the human body works like a fractal, and our DNA is nothing more than the code for a series of intertwining fractals: the operations of the fractal's function is repeated for every cell throughout differentiation, and every operation is a detail of the former. In this the body can be said to be a vastly more complex version of the Mandelbrot set, except that the function of the body's fractals is not just a few characters, but billions of characters long. Of course, there is more to differentiation than those billions of characters, but there is also more to the Mandelbrot set than those few characters, that is, the entire field of complex mathematics.
Who knows, if we had a perfect physics engine, there would be a mathematical function for the human body just as there is for the Mandelbrot set. With the right code, we could actually calculate a simulation of the entire human body. Genetics is but biology's informatics, and like informatics, genetics obeys mathematics, even though those mathematics are subject to the chaos of nature, just as informatics may be subject to the chaos of random number generators.
As the systems and then the organs forms, certain of its cells will lie more toward the outside while others will lie more on the inside. This will result in interacts with the environment which will trigger chemical reactions which will in turn cause differentiation. As the outermost layers of cells differentiate, they will release signaling molecules to other cells which will in turn cause them to differentiate, so that a chain reaction is caused. The same counts for the innermost layers, which will interact with chemicals in the blood vessels. It is also possible that physical pressure, either from the amniotic fluid or the blood, is a cue in differentiation.
Moreover, as the cells differentiate, they will form blood vessels which in turn allow the interaction with blood, which may in turn trigger differentiation, including the formation of angiogenesis, so that, again, a chain reaction is caused.
At the time the zygote becomes a morula, it still doesn't know what cell will become what organ. Even when the morula becomes a blastula, all cells in the inner cell mass are still epigenetically identical, that is to say, all cells have activated the same genes. The only differentiation that has happened so far is that between the inner cell mass and the trophoblast, a single-celled membrane. It is easy for the cells of the blastula to tell if they should differentiate into a trophoblast: they're the cells that lie on the outside. However, at this point, the embryo still can't tell where its head or where its feet will be, and at this point it may be anywhere. When the blastula becomes a blastocyst, it is the endometrium which causes the first signal that breaks the embryo's symmetry: the inner cell mass becomes attracted by signaling molecules secreted by the endometrium. Meanwhile, intercellular communication between the trophoblast and the inner cell mass will cause the two to become detached from one another, so that all cells are gathered near the endometrium.
However, the inner cell mass is still a mass of identical cells. It now knows inside and outside and front from rear, but it knows neither left and right nor up and down. This time, it is the pulse of the mother's blood vessels that delivers the embryo from this dilemma.
Upon implantation, the embryo connects to the mother's circulatory system through arterioles that will later be replaced by the umbilical cord. This is by far the most crucial step in the whole process of differentiation. Up till now, where the head would be could just as well be where the arm would be, because the embryo is symmetrical. Now, suddenly, everything becomes fixed. Below the arteriole, where the pulse is strongest, will be the head, which needs most oxygen, and which will be directed downwards throughout the embryo's and later the fetus' development.
This crucial stage is concurrent with gastrulation: as the embryo connects to the mother's circulation, it will determine the shape of the embryo. The flow of the blood gives the embryo the form of a bean and eventually forms it into a gastrula. At this point, all of a sudden, the base of the body is now fixed, and the cells already know into what systems they are to differentiate. At this point, three germ layers are formed: the ectoderm, the mesoderm and the endoderm. The ectoderm, the outer layer, will later forms the integumentary system and the nervous system, the mesoderm or middle layer will form the bones, muscles, circulatory and excretory systems and the endoderm or inner layer will form the respiratory, digestive and endocrine systems.
The rest is child's play. Now the embryo is no longer symmetrical, it can use its own asymmetry to orient itself. The head and arms will form at the lower end of the embryo, the legs and genitals will form at the other end, and the rest in between. Once it knows where the extremities will be, it has but to align each body part in the mesoderm next to these extremities, upon which it aligns the body parts in the endoderm next to the body parts in the mesoderm.
The embryo can tell which side is up and which is down either through the pulse of the mother, which is weaker when it curves back up to the upper end of the embryo, or, possibly, through a form of gravitropism, or orientation in response to gravity. Gravitropism is normally caused by organelles, so it could certainly be caused in a single cell. Gravitropism has only been observed in plants, but the gravitropism that would take place in an embryo is a different kind than that which occurs in plants. Plants need gravitropism to know in which indirection to grow. Embryos would need gravitropism merely to know what genes to activate, which is a far less complex procedure.
As the fetus grows, it could be that gravity has another important role: because of gravity, more blood and therefore more nutrients collects in the lower part of the fetus, which is the head, which furthers its development. A large part of the fetus' mass is comprised of the head. The head needs to develop faster than the rest of the body because it has no time to fully develop before parturition, and if it does not grow as fast as it can, its fontanels will be too weak upon birth to provide sufficient protection to the brain. The position of the fetus may promote this exceptionally rapid development.
The fetus' is only positioned with the head downward in animals in a standing position, such as humans. In quadripeds, it is positioned to the rear. It is possible that, in this way, the standing position of humans contributed to the evolution of human intelligence. When man started to walk upright, this caused the fetus to lie with the head downwards, so that the brain became more developed. Only when the fetus leaves the womb, the rest of the body starts to overtake the head in growth, and eventually, most of the body's weight is in the lower half. Another similar hypothesis posits that, as the human adopted a standing position, the brain needed to increase its formation of blood vessels, which would be correlated to increased intelligence.
Another animal which spends much of its time in a standing position is the meerkat, which is known for its intelligence and even possesses a primitive language.
Once the embryo knows which side is up and which is down, it can soon tell which way is inside and which is outside: the inside is the the side which receives the embryo's own signaling molecules. The outside is the side which receives the mother's signaling molecules. As the embryo forms a gastrula, the extremities of the embryo nearly touch. Where they touch, there is a high level of interaction which tells the embryo exactly where to place what organs.
At the innermost side of the extremities, the arms and legs will form. At the outermost side of the lower extremity, the head will form, and at the outermost side of the lower extremity, the genitals will form. It might seem paradoxical that the genitals form on the outermost extremity, and not on the innermost side, but keep in mind that at this stage, the embryo will grow in fetus position. Later, as the baby stands, the genitals will appear in front. Even in a fetal photograph this is hard to tell, however, because of the glutes, the muscles of the buttocks, which make legs appear more posterior than they really are: the leg really begins at the acetabulum. It might be more intuitive if one considers that the embryo starts out as female, and that, in addition, it starts out as being similar to other animals.
Yet, the question remains how so many different body parts can form from the same genome. However, our body parts might not actually all be as different from one another as they seem.
We can observe symmetry throughout our bodies, but it could be that there is far more symmetry in our bodies than there seems. Sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle.

Most body parts have a symmetrical twin, that is, there is either an identical or very similar organ on the other half of the body. Symmetrical twins include the arms and legs, the lungs, the brains, the muscles, the kidneys, the ovaries/testicles, the eyes, and so forth. The body partly uses the same DNA for these organs, even if there are differences: for instance, the right and left brain halves have different cytoarchitectures, and the left lung is different than the right lung.
There is no reason for the genome to use two times nearly the same DNA for each of these lungs, and neither would this be possible, for in this case the lungs would have to evolve separately, which would dramatically reduce the change that it would happen at all: it is unlikely enough for a positive mutation to happen. For the same positive mutation to happen two times in the same generation is practically impossible. The same counts for the brain halves, no matter how differently they might work. It is obvious that the genome uses the same DNA for the base of these organs and then uses separate DNA for their differences.
I theorize, however, that symmetrical twins are not the only form of symmetry to be found in the body. We have already seen relatively great differences between obviously symmetrical organs, such as those between the brain halves. Perhaps there are symmetrical organs with even greater differences, differences that are so dramatic that the symmetry between them can no longer be discerned — that is, unless one is looking for them.
For instance, such symmetries can be observed in the digestive tract. This is most apparent in the intestines, especially in the colon, which lies around the small intestine in a symmetrical "M" form. It seems that the colon was originally connected to the rectum at the site of the appendix, as it is at the side of the sigmoid, but, as this made the colon useless, the ascending colon became detached from the rectum.
It is generally believed that only positive mutations are passed on to next generations, while negative mutations are soon eliminated from the species. However, if a mutation is only mildly negative, it may still have a chance of being passed on for long enough for the mutation to come to its use through another mutation, in combination with which it becomes positive. It appears that the colon arose in this way.
The small intestine is basically a more or less symmetrical mass. The stomach seems to be a larger version of the duodenum, and the combination of the two forms a symmetrical S. In fact, the digestive system was originally nothing more than a single (symmetrical!) tube, which in lower organisms such as earthworms, is still the case.
Because higher organisms require so much more energy and therefore nutrients, however, this no longer sufficed, and so the intestine had to curve so as to become long enough to filter enough nutrients. Apparently, the intestines curve in a series of S's. The first S is that of the esophagus from the mouth into the stomach, which is more obvious in fetus position. The second S is that of the stomach and duodenum, and after this, the S's succeed one another rapidly up till the cecum. The acceleration of this succession of S's suggests that, like many systems in our body, it uses the Fibonacci series: in this case, the ratio of the length of each S seems to approximate the ratio of the numbers from the Fibonacci series.
The spleen appears to be the symmetrical analogy of the liver: both filter the blood, both degrade red blood cells, and, in the fetus, both produce red blood cells for some time. Both are contiguous to the digestive system. The liver is larger than the spleen, and the duodenum is proportionally smaller than the stomach.
The galbladder seems to be the symmetrical analogy of the fundus, the uppermost part of the stomach, which has apparently split up from the duodenum.
The pancreas appears to be a symmetrical analogy of the thymus, both of which are endocrine glands. The pancreas is roughly at the same distance from the diaphragm as the thymus. The pancreas lies above the aorta while the thymus lies above the heart, which is basically a mutated section of the aorta. The esophagus lies behind the heart whereas the duodenum lies above both the aorta and the pancreas, but because of how it curves, it was possible that it has twisted its way from behind the aorta to its position before the pancreas. In this way, the pancreas was able to connect with the digestive tract, so that, in addition to being an endocrine gland, it could also become an exocrine gland.
Originally, this connection was an abnormal, congenital fistula, although the fistula did not fully penetrate into the medulla of the pancreas and so the pancreas remained functional. Later, the Brunner's glands in the duodenum at the locus of this fistula mutated and became overgrown, a mutation favored by the fusion of blood vessels with those of the pancreas.
The most obvious symmetry in our body is between the left and right halves of our body, but to a lesser extent, there is also symmetry between the upper and lower halves of our body. For instance, our legs are analogous to our arms. In octopuses, which are some of the most ancient marine animals, this symmetry is particularly striking. Perhaps our entire body is symmetrical not only between the left and right halves, but also between the upper and lower halves.
We have already discussed this symmetry in the intestines, as well as in the pancreas and thymus. Another possible analogous symmetry may be that between the kidneys and lungs. It may seem far-fetched, but if one looks closely, significant similarities can be found between the two, both in structure and function.
As regards function, the lungs collect oxygen-poor blood rich in carbon dioxide and take the carbon from the blood while filling it with oxygen, while the kidneys collect oxygen-rich blood rich in waste compounds and take the waste compounds from the blood while filling it with carbon dioxide.
As regards structure, the pelvis of the kidneys are similar to the bronchia of the lungs, and both are connected to the outside of the body. Even the microscopic structure of the organs are similar: the Bowman's capsules are similar to the alveoli, the main difference being that the glomerulus is inside the glomerular capsule, whereas the alveolar arterioles are outside the alveoli. The collecting tubes are similar to the bronchioli. Furthermore, the lungs and kidneys are the only organs in the abdomen that occur in pairs.
The adrenal glands are likely to have split up from the pancreas as the kidneys shrank in relative size. The ureters are analogous to the bronchia, the bladder analogous to the pharynx.
The face and genitals are the most innervated places on the body, in particular the lips and glandes, but that is apparently as far as any obvious analogies go between the head and hips. This does not mean that there are no other analogies at all, but that they are very ancient. The more subtle the symmetrical analogy, the more ancient it is.
However, the pelvis is possibly analogous to the scapulae and cranium. In early embryonic stages, the cranium is fused to the scapulae, and the scapulae are similar to the ilia of the hips. The ischium, meanwhile, shows similarities to some of the facial bones. The sacrum, which consists of fused vertebrae, may be analogous to the neck, and the coccyx may be analogous to some of the cranial bones. In that case, the ischium would originally be connected to the coccyx in the embryo, and the bones in the hip would form a bowl, as would the bones of the skull and shoulder blades.
Proof of these symmetrical analogies could be found in developing embryos based on Haeckel's principle: the embryo goes through the same development as the species has in the past. If the body really uses these symmetrical analogies in differentiation, it should be observable during differentiation itself.

The Internal Parent

2009-12-09T02:54:57+01:00

Overprotective parenting increases risk of neuroses and psychosis by stinting the development of the ego. Because overprotective parents care too much for their child, they prevent the child from learning how to care for itself. Caring for oneself is not a matter of skills as this does not require any skills at all: it is a matter of self-respect. Without ego, there is no self-respect because it seems that there is then no self to respect.

Compulsive education may have the same effect, because it replaces any innate drive to learn with force. The pupil comes dependent on this force because in its presence, its curiosity cannot grow. The pupil asks the question in the place of the pupil, rather than having them ask the question themselves.

The school must learn the pupil to become their own teacher, for only then can they truly grow afterwards. If the pupil has not learned to teach itself after it has been taught, then the teaching was in vain. Even to remember is to teach, for if we don't think of something we have learned now and then and thereby rehearse it, we will eventually inevitably forget it, be it in a matter of years or decades.

Similarly, the parent must learn the child to be their own parent. In a way, the parent is to transfer their own parenthood into the mind of the child. We all are our own parents: our ego is our internal parent.

The Symbolism behind the Four Classical Elements

2009-12-08T18:51:09+01:00

The four classical elements, while originally denoting elements from which the world was made, may actually be symbols for the elements of our own mind. Our subconscious may communicate its state of mind in dreams through these four elements. Not only that, but we may also communicate back with our subconscious in the same way, that is, by using the four elements in hypnosis.

Our mind is familiar with the characteristics of each, and so will use these as symbols of its own characteristics, for instance, in dreams. This is why we often describe emotions through comparison with sensations. It is even possible that the philosophers that proposed the four classical elements had actually been influenced by the subconscious awareness of the four elements in their own mind, and projected these onto the world.

For instance, fire will create sensations of warmth, brightness and motion and so arouse impressions thereof, thus whenever it later has the impressions of warmth, brightness and motion, this may elicit the subconscious memory of fire, which may express itself in art, language, dreams and hallucinations or pseudohallucinations. On the other hand, the opposite is also possible. During suggestion or hypnosis, one may arouse the feelings associated with fire through images of fire, causing them to feel more energetic.

For the most part, water symbolizes emotion, air symbolizes cognition, earth symbolizes action, and fire symbolizes volition. However, each element may also symbolize an aspect of another, that is, any of the elements may symbolize feeling, thought, deed or will, but each will do so in their own way, such that their association still hold. For instance, fire may also symbolize emotion, but in this case in the form of desire, that is, emotion that wants something (ie volition).

(A)symmetry

2009-12-08T18:16:18+01:00

Symmetry is mechanical, imperfection organic.

Horizon of Possibilities

2009-12-08T18:14:41+01:00

Civilization is a very dangerous place, and at the same time, it at the same time it is also a very auspicious place. It may turn one into a genius or into a ghost, into a saint or into a demon. It offers far more possibilities than nature alone ever could, from the most terrible to the most beautiful.

Charity Follow-Up

2009-12-08T05:27:57+01:00

If charities found a way to follow up the change brought about by each donation and reported it back to the donator, donations would increase hundredfold.
The best way in which this could be done would be to allow one to donate a sum for a very particular project of the charity's goal, so that they can still make a difference at all as individuals. Right now, when someone makes a donation to charity, it usually contributes to a very large and general project rather than one which is small and specific, so that the contribution is of proportionally smaller significance. Any contribution loses its significance if it only becomes part of a much greater contribution.
Hypothetically, this could also form the basis of an anarchistic society in which such donations supplant taxes.

Animal Sentience

2009-12-08T19:40:29+01:00

The killing of a human, even humans of exceptionally low intelligence and therefore of proportionally low sentience, is considered the worst possible crime, yet the killing of other animals which scientists have confirmed to be highly intelligent, and certainly appear to be more sentient than many humans (such as those that are mentally retarded), deserve no trial. Mental retardation can sometimes reduce IQ to below 20. If people who are profoundly mentally retarded are protected by law, it only seems reasonable that dolphins, as well as elephants and some primates, should also be protected by law, yet there is no international law that protects them.

This has nothing to do with ethics. This distinction is made purely out of our instinctive urges to preserve the human race. Animals of near-human sentience should have the same rights as humans, all the more as there are many people whose intelligence is barely above that of some animals. Our need to preserve our own race is so strong that we will keep even people in permanent vegetative state alive, yet most people see the killing of sentient animals as being as innocent as a sport.

We have invented law at least partly to protect ourselves, and not just out of respect for others. Someone who kills humans is a threat to humans and may therefore also be a threat to ourselves, but if someone kills animals, even highly sentient animals, this does not pose a threat to us.

We have no instinct for the preservation of nature as we have an instinct to preserve our own species, and any respect we do show for nature comes forth from our own sentience. A respect, as has been shown, that dolphins, one of the most sentient species in the world, actually share, as evinced in the risk they are willing to take to save humans. The only other species that is known to possess such levels of empathy, high enough to spontaneously save a being of another species, are humans.

We are inclined to underestimate other sentients because, unlike ourselves, they have no civilization. This is not because of their lack of intelligence, however, but rather because of their lack of efficient manipulatory appendages — that is, hands. Aside from our intelligence, our hands are the most important thing that set us apart from other animals, and while they may seem to be less significant than our intelligence, this is actually quite misleading.

One is inclined to assume that our civilization proves our intelligence, but it is important to remember that our neocortex has no longer changed in morphology in the past hundred thousand years, as our civilization, rather than furthering its evolution, made it unnecessary to our survival.

It would not be fair to compare the complexity of dolphins' lives to that of our own, as dolphins have never had the chance of achieving the complexity of environment as that in our civilization. Rather, because our brain as it is now isn't very different from what it was before civilization was formed, we should compare it to how complex our lives were before we formed civilizations. Comparing our own way of hunting with theirs, it would seem that theirs is more complex. It is our ability to use tools that at this point really distinguishes us from dolphins.

Consider how dolphins organize their hunting, surrounding gigantic shoals, dispersing them and driving them to the surface. This isn't as simple as doing the same with a herd of terrestrial animals, a feat that any pack of wolves can manage. The fish in shoals are enormous in number, and in shoals of Atlantic herrons can number up to 3 billion. As a result, shoals act as very complex systems, and it isn't possible to pick fish out of the shoals until they have been dispersed numerous times, neither is a single fish enough. The shoal has to be of just the right size so that it is enough for the entire group, but not so large that it becomes impossible to catch any. If a smaller group escapes, it is lost.

To disperse a shoal as a singleton predator is one thing, but to surround a large shoal in a group is another entirely. Hunting in this way is comparable in complexity (though not in danger) to a high-profile military operation, the significant difference between the two being that this particular operation is in 3D.

This seems like a minor detail, but it multiplies the level of complexity involved. For a pack of hunting wolves, the only directions from which to choose are left and right. To a group of dolphins, it is far more complicated. Every move has to be carefully coordinated, and this requires a high degree of cooperative and language abilities.

Because of the disparity in brain morphology, it is hard to compare dolphin to human intelligence, but the most relevant finding is probably the number of synapses in dolphin cortices: dolphins have 0,87 · 10¹⁴ cortical synapses, compared to 1,3 · 10¹⁴ in the human cortices (Encyclopedia of Marine Animals, page 147). The estimates of the latter cipher vary, however, and the estimates of the cortical synapses in dolphins would likely also vary if more research went into it. However, based on these ciphers, dolphins would have 67% the number of synapses humans have. This does not mean that they would have 67% of our intelligence, but rudimentary as it is, this would probably be the best approximation we have so far.

We seem to be biassed against animal intelligence because out of instinct we want to be special, despite ever more research pointing to the contrary. If our image of the intelligence of animals changes, however, so should our ethics about deciding about their lives. Ethically, the killing of animals of near-human sentience is tantamount to homicide.

Substrates

2009-12-07T18:25:30+01:00

Often, different scientists have come to the same discoveries simultaneously. This shows that these discoveries were not only made by the scientists themselves, but by the scientific community as a whole. Their discoveries were based on discoveries that were already there, and they merely built further on those discoveries. Not long before they were made, and so it is also for most other discoveries, another discovery was made that would prompt them, be that discovery one of scientific or technological nature.

Everything in a system grows from the same substrate that determines that system. This substate will be all the more uniform the more it is connected, and this substrate becomes more and more connected as it grows. Only if one can get far ahead of this substrate can one achieve something of particular significance.

Wisdom is like a landscape that emerges as the seas of ignorance retreat. Where a plateau is reached, the same discoveries will be made several times or nearly so. Only the mountains make a true difference.

Progress

2009-12-07T17:52:23+01:00

The past is theoretical. Only the future is practical.

Reciprocal Fear

2009-12-07T17:49:29+01:00

Let not your light fear your darkness, and let not your darkness fear your light.

Lies and Bias

2009-12-05T19:15:35+01:00

An inclination to lie to others is correlated to an inclination to lie to oneself, that is, bias. Bias is a lie we tell ourselves in order not to hurt ourselves. If one will lie to others not to hurt them, one will also be quicker to lie to oneself in order not to hurt oneself. Both yourself and others deserve to know the truth, even if it hurts you, even if it hurts them. The only excuse for lying is to prevent someone from causing harm to others.

Unless one has either an inferiority complex or a superiority complex, the mind does not make any distinctions between the ego's pain and shared pain, and so, if one avoids others' pain one will also avoid one's own pain. One should not avoid pain, however: one should only avoid harm. Harm isn't always painful, and pain isn't always harmful.

Complex Needs

2009-12-04T05:12:26+01:00

The more complex an organism, the more complex its needs. Many bacteria can grow practically anywhere on practically anything, while humans need to grow in the womb and later with the care of the mother in a stable and nourishing environment, able to live only on a varied diet.
The same is true for mental needs as for physical needs. Why is it, then, that we give more attention to mentally handicapped people than to gifted people, although the support required by the former is far less complex?

Opposing Opposites

2009-12-03T22:31:29+01:00

Apart from the way it is experienced, no experience in itself is of lesser or greater value than any other, and yet some seem to preclude one another, so that one's life seems either to be limited to either of both, or limited to less of both.
It seems that we have to choose between diversity of experiences and depth of experiences, not because there is no time for both, but because some experiences are apparently mutually exclusive.
To experience opposites, one is apparently forced to switch to opposite moods, but as one does, one is closes oneself to any other mood. Only when one can detach from moods and instead feel moment after moment can one apparently experience opposites without having to close yourself to either of both.
Opposite experiences often attenuate one another through their contradiction. The only way one can combine these opposite experiences without a loss in depth of either is by becoming detached from both. Through detachment, one can experience several things at the same time.
To detach from an experience while at the same time not becoming indifferent to it, however, is in itself a combination of opposites, namely, that of nearness and distance: one the one hand, there is intimacy with one's experience, and on the other, there is objectivity from one's experience.
No way of experiencing something is absolute, and in this realization one may achieve the objectivity one needs to experience opposites without having them oppose one another. Ironic that it should be through detachment that things can be combined.
If one is aware of how all things are part of that whole, one may unite all things within oneself.

See also:

Positive and Negative

Reconciliation

Root of Evil

2009-12-03T15:40:48+01:00

Any vice will become a virtue through detachment. Vanity turns into pride, greed turns into ambition, anger into fervor, and so forth. It seems that all vice is caused by attachment. The beauty of this is that through detachment, vice still retains its original energy, but it is counterbalanced by its opposite, so that there detachment. In this realization, there can be no attraction towards vice, as whatever beauty it has, there remains once it is combined with peace, but it is then enabled to grow.

But attachment is also a form of ignorance, or rather, it is caused by it: attachment is caused by the unawareness of its own destruction. One might, however, know that one causes destruction but not actually be aware of it. No one could cause another destruction while being fully aware of it, for in being fully aware of it it would be as though they were doing it to themselves; but neither could they do it to themselves in that case, for to be fully aware of that destruction, they would also have to be fully aware of the creation that could oppose it, and so could not but choose for the latter, for the beauty of creation, if one is fully aware of it, is far more attractive than destruction. Any attraction of destruction falls away in the full awareness of creation.

With the words "creation" and "destruction," I mean to denote "good" and "evil" without the ring of judgment.

See also:

Positive and Negative

Problems

2009-12-03T15:03:00+01:00

What we see as problems are but steps in a process. As progress occurs it is inevitable that it encounters stumbling blocks, so rather than seeing those as undesirable, we can see them as a sign of progress. Ironically, even setback can be a step in growth. It may help us to achieve permanence, for as we seek to recover what we have lost, we will also learn to longer retain it. Setbacks are caused when we are confronted with a matter of a level fo complexity for which we were not prepared because we are inexperienced with it, and so to deal with them requires us to learn to deal with more complex situations, so that we ourselves become more complex.
Life as we know it today was made through mass extinctions, and weren't it for these. Extinctions make life more complicated, and therefore require living things to become more complex. In the same way, all problems give us the opportunity, and even force us, to become more complex in our way of thinking or acting, and, in the very long run, even in our genes. The only problem that does not further progress in some way is total destruction.
Problems can barely be avoided during progress, but they can be minimized, so that we can make the smallest possible sacrifice for the greatest possible results. Yet to find this way is in itself a problem to solve.
There is almost always progress, and there is most progress when there is apparently most adversity, when there are most problems. Problems are but thresholds we seek to overcome in achieving progress.
How we define progress, however, depends but on what we take for granted. If we take nothing for granted, nothing is ever lost, and so we can only gain. Our original state is nothing, yet second after second we manage to overcome this state and sustain ourselves.
Every second is a second we have gained from death, or from nothingness, and yet, when at some point through these seconds we no longer gain as much as we used to, we see this as a problem, although we have still gained.
Perhaps it is better is we see no real problems but see but steps in a process. This is, of course, a purely emotional and therefore relative viewpoint, not a general and absolute truth. It is not more true than any else, but simply more useful. It is but a healthier outlook on life, both for our growth and our state of mind.
Despite my apparent optimism, I am actually quite objective in my way of thinking. There is, however, a difference between one's way of thinking and one's way of viewing something, and I attempt to achieve the most productive possible view — but that is not necessarily an optimistic one.

Positive and Negative

2009-12-03T15:41:18+01:00

Anything that is negative may be said to have its negativity caused either by the excess of one aspect or the lack of its opposite. The aspect that is in excess could otherwise just as well be positive, however, if only it were in balance with its opposite. Thus, rather than reducing what is in excess we should increase its opposite.

Perceive of negativity not as the presence of something but the lack of something, so that nothing that exists is in itself negative, while perceiving only the presence of something as positive.

You can change something either by creating or destroying it, but either is in fact a conversion. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be converted. When we create something, we but convert energy from chaos to more complex levels. Everything is energy with a certain complexity, and can be converted so that its complexity grows. Thus, do not seek to destroy chaos, as this will only create more chaos. Instead, convert chaos into more complex energy. Destroying energies that create chaos is good. But converting those energies is better. Of course, this is only relevant for emotions, and not for practical matters.

Even in all negative things there is energy that can be used, and, if combined with its opposite, may become positive. For instance, craving is longing that is out of balance, with too little will and too little peace. But this will can be used, and can become positive if it is combined with peace. Craving is positive in that it may help us to achieve something, but is also negative in that it may cause disruption. In that it is both creative and destructive. If craving is combined with peace, it becomes longing and so mostly creative. In this way, nothing in itself needs to be negative.

See also:

Root of Evil

The Monster of Prejudice

2009-12-03T18:00:52+01:00

No one should be trusted, and by far least of all ourselves. All of us, even those who believe they do not, seem too often too think that we know the truth, and this thought only keeps us from finding the truth. Yet, in the end, time and time again we find that we have to change our views, only to make the same mistake again when once again, we are certain that, this time, our view must be the right one.

No one is safe from bias, and I can only assume that I am biassed as well. Even people who believe to have an open mind appear to be subject to bias. Leonardo Da Vinci wrote that "Man's greatest deception is his own opinion," yet in a letter to Gabrielle Picollomini also wrote: "We are all exiles living within the frames of a strange painting. Those who know live grandly. The rest are insects." thus, calling anyone who did not hold his view "insects."

Bias is a monster that no one can escape from. It catches us from behind and twists its way into our brain without our knowing. Without our knowing, because we simply do not want to know. We need bias lest we'd go mad, because that is how infinitely weak we are. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in opinions. We turn opinions into gods and worship them, because they give us safety, or the illusion of safety, safety from the unknown, which is our greatest fear, perhaps our only real fear, perhaps what all our fears come down to. If we do not know, then anything might happen, and so we pretend that we do know. But how can we possibly know that there is not something we do not know that contradicts what we thought we knew? We can only make assumptions and act on those assumptions, not because they are the truth but because it is our only choice, as those assumptions are the closest we have to the truth; it's the best we have. Because some assumptions seem to be closer to the truth than others, not because they are true. Some paths merely seem more favorable paths to follow, though we never know what lies ahead their bends.

An enlightened mind can live in assumptions, and find peace in those assumptions. That is enough to them, to assume and yet not know the truth, and feel that they do not know the truth, though that feeling racks them with uncertainty. They live on and act on those assumptions, though they always remain open to the possibility that things might be different than they would assume. They assume things because they have no choice, because they need assumptions to coordinate decisions, but ultimately are detached from actual opinions. To them, beliefs are a purely practical matter, and anything else are merely thoughts and ideas, akin to feelings. They seek the truth but do not expect to reach it, only hope, though uncertainly, to come closer to it than they have before by nuancing what they assumed earlier. They live in uncertainty yet are able to endure that uncertainty and live with it.

When a sentient can bear to live without opinions, as those opinions fall away they reveal a panorama of infinite possibilities, which were otherwise blocked by the opinions that stood in our way. This panorama may bring one wisdom, as well as imagination, but also, if one cannot bear to see its light, much, much suffering. If we cannot endure that panorama, it may drive us mad. For some of those possibilities are infinitely beautiful, some infinitely horrifying.

Once you can see the horizons of possibilities and one's sight is unobstructed by opinions, it will inspire you to fear and awe. It will shake your every thought with uncertainty as you realize that, trapped within your own thoughts, you can never know whether or not you are deluded.

A thought cannot verify itself, as it takes another thought to verify it, but that thought itself requires verification from yet another thought and so forth. You cannot escape from the precincts of your own thoughts. Your thoughts are like a maze. You can see but to the end of your corridor, but you can never see the maze as a whole. When you become aware of how you are thus trapped in your own thoughts as in a cage, you can never again trust yourself. It will shake your every thought with doubt. Your mind will tremble with mystery. The lesser questions will fill you with indecision. The average questions will fill you with doubt. The greater questions will fill you with terror. You will live in an agony that you can but manage by accepting that you are ignorant, and accepting whatever may be, even though you cannot know what it is.

One may get lost in those infinite possibilities. If one imagines every possibility one can think of, knowing that one cannot know whether it is true or not, one may become able to imagine them so vividly that they produce strong emotions in oneself; so strong, in fact, that it may no longer seems to matter whether they are likely to be true or not. The merest possibility becomes enough to make them relevant because they feel so real. This may, in turn, give rise to delusion. The irony is that through this openness, one may both achieve both wisdom and madness.

To anyone but the enlightened mind, this state of openness would be blinding, tormenting, maddening. Any that are not prepared for it tears apart with uncertainty at what lies ahead, and it drags them down into fear, apathy and indecision. And that is why we flee, flee into ignorance and bias, so that we can safely "know the truth," without having to worry about it. Only if we can be detached from truth, and do not actually need to know it, if it is something we long for but do not crave, can we safely live in the thought that we never truly know the truth, and can only guess at it and live in that guesswork, guessing that if one then happens, it will, perhaps, lead to something else — as a purely practical guideline and not as a glorified conviction. They can be led astray by errors of judgment, but not by bias. To be such an enlightened mind is to live in constant uncertainty, and to accept that uncertainty no matter how it hurts.

Cheats on the Boardgame

2009-11-30T12:39:22+01:00

There have been thousands of researches into global warming, and for some reason, they all contradict one another. This may mean three things about part of these researchers: either they're careless, they're biased, they're frauds. According to recent research 2% of scientists admit having falsified data, while as much as 34% of scientists admitted having omitted data contrary to their assumptions. Since we cannot know which of the three it is, and we can hardly do our own research all by ourselves, the best thing we can do is to combine the results from all these researches and take the average from their results. It's surreal that we can trust scientists so little that we have to resort to such primitive methods, but it's the best we can do. If the disparity in these results shows us anything, then it is that we should not be too quick to trust researchers. Either how, we can best trust the results that have been replicated the most.

Look up graphs of global temperature, gather a large number of them together, study them carefully and compare them. You will find some sources that claim the last ten thousand years have been exceptionally warm, others that say the last ten thousand years have been exceptionally cool. You will find some sources claiming that the Middle Ages have been warmer than now, others that claim that it is warmer now than in the Middle Ages.

Furthermore, you will find sources that place today's temperature on graphs of the past millions of years, and you will find graphs that show only the past hundred-and-fifty years, so that in either case you cannot tell if man was the cause.

You will also find sources that compare solar activity with temperature claiming it to prove that the increase in solar activity causes the increase of temperature, but either minimize or ignore the deviations in temperature, while you will also find sources that show only temperature, while ignoring solar activity.

And finally, you will find sources comparing temperature with carbon dioxide concentrations. Some will selectively choose periods in which the increase of temperature follows the increase of carbon dioxide as a proof that carbon dioxide is the main cause of temperature increase, while other sources will selectively show periods in which the increase of carbon dioxide increases temperature, claiming this to be proof that carbon dioxide does not increase temperature at all.

If, like these scientists, you are biased, then you will choose whichever source you want to believe and ignore all others. If you are a seeker of truth, then you will search a compromise between these sources. The truth is most likely to lie somewhere in between, as it usually does. The world is not doomed to turn into inferno, nor is everything perfectly fine.

The average, most replicated results are most likely to be correct, while the extremer, rarer results are the most likely to have been influenced by bias. This is a direct accusation of the scientists that brought these results, and I believe that they should be given any credence (or, for that matter, a license). I write this to warn anyone who does research on any field whatsoever to consult different sources, and conclude that their evidence is correct only if there are no other sources presenting evidence to the contrary. Meta-analysis is highly useful. Some meta-analyses calculate averages between the data of different studies, which likely provide the most accurate and reliable results.

Studies that combine data from different studies indicate a relatively mild increase of temperature — not high enough to portend doomsday, but high enough to be a reason for concern, in that it will have a major impact on the diversity, richness and beauty of the biosphere, and therefore as well as on the quality of our own lives.

Either how, all studies thus far have reveal that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) are responsible for the increase of temperature, even the studies that claim the opposite. Some studies have been able to minimize the increase of temperature due to AGGs with the popular "3 watts per square meter" number, but none have come to an actually low number — 3 watts per square meter is actually quite a lot if one does the math, enough to cause an increase in global temperature of 0,9 kelvin (see article below).

That they arrived at this number, without realizing its significance, shows that it is likely to be correct, as these results are not distorted by bias towards the idea of global warming.

See also:

Holocene Extinction Event

Heat as Energy Source

2009-11-28T02:59:39+01:00

Perhaps heat could itself be a source of energy. Heat could be collected in ferromagnetic metals which could then be brought to irradiate their thermal energy through magnetic refrigeration, upon which the process would be repeated. This released heat could be used to boil water or another fluid with a lower boiling point to rotate a turbine. This is not a perpetual energy machine because the energy is collected in the form of heat from the environment.

Emotion and Reason

2009-11-28T01:49:53+01:00

Emotion and reason should know their place. Emotion should not be reasoned about and reason should not be based on emotion. They can, nonetheless, be connected.

Ego et Alter

2009-11-24T15:52:09+01:00

Whatever is best for your own growth will eventually also be best for others' growth, for the two are bound. Everything comes from within and therefore begins within, including the love of others: you can only love others by first loving yourself. In time, whatever grows within will also grow outside you.

Eventually, everything we feel will find some kind of expression if we let it, but if we feel nothing, then nothing can be expressed. We can but give what we have; we must give what we can to ourselves as well as others, not only for ourselves, but also so that we would still be strong enough to be able to to give to others.

A balance between caring for others and caring for oneself will bring most growth to both oneself and others. Do not give to others unless it is out of love, and do not accept from others what they would give unless it is out of love.

Anything you do that benefits others will also benefit yourself, as it allows you to grow through compassion; but so too, anything you do that benefits yourself will also benefit others, as compassion for others begins with compassion for oneself; there must be compassion inside you first so that you might then express it, and compassion can only grow through itself, so that you need to give yourself compassion in order for your compassion to grow.

Mind Networks

2009-12-04T21:19:59+01:00

Some futurists predict that, just as evolution was able to create conscious brains, we might, by emulating evolution, be able to create conscious computers. Since evolution has already done this, there seems no reason to assume that we can't. Evolution has no intelligence. We do, and because of this, we are able to evolve billions of times faster than anything else in nature. Moreover, since there are already conscious computers, all we need to do is to reverse-engineer it.

It may seem far too much work for us to decode every signal in our brain, but we must remember that our computers can already do a lot of work for us. The USNO-B1.0 catalog, for instance, cataloged a billion stars in 3 billion observations — far too much for a human, but not for a computer. Likewise, we might one day be able to program a computer that will decode the signals of the brain for us.

Some futurists go so far as to say that we will be able to build computers that will be similar enough to our brain that we might be able to transfer our consciousness into it, a process called "uploading" or "mind transfer." The most important issues with this today, however, are philosophical: what causes consciousness, and therefore, how can we know how to transfer it?

It seems, somehow, that our consciousness is spread across all our neurons, and the continuity of that consciousness seems to be formed through the connections between them. Somehow, it therefore has to be possible through some technology to channel consciousness from one conscious computer (such as the brain) into another, since our own brain possesses this very technology. Somehow, our brain can channel our consciousness through a great number of neurons at the same time, even though those neurons are wide apart, so that our consciousness can be present in a great number of neurons at the same time.

Yet, if we connected a computer to our brain, like one neuron is connected to another, our consciousness would apparently be left behind in our own brain: while we could be conscious of information the computer would interchange with our brain, we could not be conscious of any information in the computer itself. Thus, if we would connect a billion computers with our brain, it would apparently not be possible to be conscious of all information being processed in all these computers, since not all this information could be contained in our brain. Or would it?

We are ourselves little more than this, billions of computers which are our neurons, connected to form our brain. How can we be conscious of the information processed in all those computers at once? How can we be conscious of our entire brain? If our brain could not be conscious of a billion computers connected to it, how does our brain manage to be conscious of the billions of computers within itself? How is one neuron conscious of the information being processed in other neurons? Most of these neurons aren't even directly connected. It appears that an indirect connection is enough.

If an indirect connection is enough, then if our brain would be connected to a network of billions of computers, like one neuron is connected to a network of billions of other neurons, would that also be enough to become aware of those billions of computers and every bit of information being processed in them, even though our own brain would have no direct connection with them, nor contain that information?

When two conscious computers (such as brains) are connected and then disconnected, what determines which way the consciousness of the two computers goes anyway? Or does it remain in both? If consciousness is determined by connections, then what determines when there is a connection anyway? As said, most neurons are not directly connected. Why is an indirect connection enough? Does consciousness permanently spread to another computer as soon as it connects with it, even if the connection is itself not permanent, and will the consciousness remain in both computers even when the two are disconnected (though neither of both can still be self-conscious of the part of their consciousness ? And if not, then in which of the computers will it end up, and why?

Either how, if our brain were connected to a computer which imitates our brain, then whatever is connecting the consciousness between our neurons will also connect the consciousness between the brain and computer, even though we don't understand how it works.

The only thing we therefore need to do to is to make a computer similar enough to our own brain; how similar it needs to be is hard to say, but suppose that we made a computer more and more similar to the brain step by step, and tried to connect it to our consciousness all the while, we might eventually make the right step.

The irony is, however, that even if our consciousness would flow into the network of computers, our brain would itself still believe that this would not be the case, and because of this, there could be no objective way of knowing whether it would work; the only way you could find out would be to try it for yourself.

Once connected to the network, it is unlikely that the brain would still have a consciousness of itself, because that would mean that, by analogy, our neurons would also have a consciousness of their own, and, what is more, so would any combination of neurons. Yet, of the infinitely many possible combinations of neurons I could be, I happen to be conscious of the entire brain, or, more accurately, I am the entire consciousness of the brain. This apparently proves that consciousness automatically spreads across the entire computer it is in, like gas spreads over the entire space it is in.

Also, as soon as the brain would connect to a network, any information it would process would be part of a greater processing of information, so that it would have little or no meaning of itself. Because of this, the brain would cease to be an individual, as it would be part of something greater.

Again, note that by the word "computer," I may also refer to the brain, and the network of computers with which the brain would connect could include other brains plugged in to the network. In fact, through this network, all brains in the world could be connected.

If a brain were then disconnected from the network, the same thing would happen as there would happen if a neuron was disconnected from the rest of the brain: a separate consciousness would form in the brain, but the original consciousness, which had once been in the brain, would now remain in the network, as the network is far greater. After all, we do lose neurons from time to time, yet our consciousness remains in our brain, rather than being lost with the neuron. The question remains what happens to the consciousness of people with split brain, in whom the corpus callosum has been severed. Probably, the consciousness of these people ends up in the dominant brain half, and a separate consciousness is formed in the other. It can be seen as an extreme case of dissociation.

Once connected to the network, the body would still be valuable and should not be disposed of, so that issues such as those met in "uploading" are avoided: if the brain's consciousness were simply duplicated into another computer, then the consciousness would not be transferred into the computer because the two are not connected.

The idea of uploading goes from the principle that consciousness is caused by patterns, but this principle (by some called "patternism") causes problems. For instance, suppose that rather than one, two duplicates of the pattern are made, upon which the original is destroyed. According to patternism, the consciousness should now transfer into the duplicate — but which of the two? The consciousness cannot be transferred into both duplicates, since the two cannot interact, much as the consciousnesses in people with split brain cannot interact, thus the consciousness should be transferred into one of the two. But if consciousness is determined by patterns, then the transfer cannot be random, as this would mean that it would be determined by randomness and not patterns, and in that case, the consciousness might as well be transferred to an entirely different brain. There must be something which determines to which of the two duplicates the consciousness is transferred, as the determination of consciousness would otherwise be acausal. If it would have no cause, it would have no reason to be what it is, rather than something else, which is unscientific.

Consciousness is caused by patterns, but location is one aspect of those patterns. Producing a copy of one's brain elsewhere does not produce a complete copy of its patterns.

Another problem would be that this would mean that consciousness is not bound to anything physical, as it would automatically be transferred across the distance between the the original and duplicate, which once more poses the problem of acausality. Also, being non-physical, the consciousness could then also instantaneously travel an infinite distance. However, if the universe is infinite, there should already be an infinite number of duplicates in the universe because of ergodicity, meaning that we should already be transferred from one duplicate to another at random. Since there are an infinite number of duplicates, probabilities would break down (every probability would be infinity by infinity, therefore, undefined), and since everything still happens according to well-defined probabilities, this cannot be the case, unless the universe is finite.

Whatever causes consciousness, it cannot be patterns. However, it does seem that consciousness, although not caused by it, is determined by connections. But why can only the connection between one neuron and another make use conscious, and not the connection between one atom and another? In other words, why can only the patterns of our neurons produce consciousness, and not the patterns of random atoms? Why does consciousness attribute a specific meaning to those patterns, rather than one entirely different?

Perhaps consciousness could be compared to the interpretation of a book, the book we are reading being our brain. Though it is possible to write a book out of random strings of letters, such books could not have any meaning, even if a meaning were attributed to every string of letters. In order for it to be possible for a meaning to be attributed to it, there has to be a pattern in it.

If, in trying to decipher a book written in an unknown language, we would attribute a meaning to every string of letters, there would only be one, or at most a few, possibilities for most words, since most words will be repeated throughout the book in different contexts, each of which eliminates certain meanings. The longer the book is, the more words and phrases will be repeated, and so the fewer possible interpretations there are. If the book is of virtually infinite length, then only one interpretation makes sense.

Perhaps consciousness is an interpretation of patterns, and not so much the patterns themselves; ie, consciousness is the translator, the pattern is the language. If consciousness were patterns, after all, there would have to be a universal language for consciousness, as there would otherwise still be infinitely many ways in which the same patterns could cause different consciousnesses.

But if consciousness is the interpretation, then this should actually be the case: every pattern would be interpreted by consciousness in infinitely many ways, and therefore there should be infinitely many consciousnesses beside those of living beings, as there are, after all, infinitely many patterns in nature. Most of these consciousnesses, however, would be simple, random, meaningless, and irrelevant. Many of these patterns could also overlap, and almost all of these patterns could have multiple meanings.

Either how, these consciousnesses would be irrelevant to us, as we could never observe them. Moreover, they would have no connection to reality, nor a will of their own. They would be just like the dead matter that causes their consciousness.

Most patterns would produce a very chaotic kind of consciousnesses, and any pattern that would produce consciousness that has any order would have been organized for this purpose (through evolution), possibly with the exception of very rare coincidences. Therefore, the only consciousnesses with a will of their own would be consciousnesses that would have been organized with a goal (such as keeping the organism alive). All the rest would be little more than a whirling soup of random qualia.

I wrote my hypothesis of a brain connecting to a network as though I expect that people will do this overnight, but I actually think this will be a gradual process, in which people will gradually expand their consciousness both through informatics and neurology. As this happens, both elements will continue to grow, and we will keep having use of both.

I do not expect there will be a world in which we all be computers, as some say, but I do expect that computers will be part of us — as will our organisms — and that, through computers, we may all become part of one another, united into one superorganism. This does not, however, mean that we should lose our individuality to do so, as the fact that we could connect with one another fully does not mean that we would have to do so.

Marihuana and Psychosis: Proposition for First Conclusive Study

2009-11-24T14:40:18+01:00

There has long been controversy about whether or not marihuana causes psychosis. The correlation that has been found between marihuana and psychosis is indisputable, but it is unclear whether marihuana causes psychosis or vice versa.

It is probably a bit of both: marihuana use can be out of a need to flee from reality, meaning that beside marihuana, the person will also seek other ways of fleeing from reality, which is basically synonymous to psychotic diathesis. It can also be because of isolation, or to find distraction from stress. Stress, isolation and a tendency to flee from reality happen to be the three most important factors of psychosis. At the same time, however, marihuana may also cause a person to flee even further from reality, become even more isolated, and because of this, eventually go through even more stress.

As a result of this, the increased risk of psychosis caused by heavy marihuana use is probably not as high as anti-drug activists are inclined to believe, but also not as low as marihuana users are inclined to believe. Studies indicate that the risk of psychosis in marihuana users is 2 to 8%, compared to 1% in the general population — an increase of 100 to 800 percent. If the correlation is bidirectional, the risk of psychosis would increase with heavy marihuana use, but not by 800 percent.

It may seem hard to find out by how much the risk of psychosis is really increased by marihuana, since there is no way one can subject a random sample of the population to heavy marihuana use and see what happens, but there can be another way:

The researchers should ask not for subjects who are already using marihuana, but for subjects who claim to be interested in using marihuana but have never used it. The subjects would then be split in two groups, both of which would be subject to regular drug tests. In one group, the control group, subjects that are found to have used marihuana are eliminated from the study. In the other group, subjects that have found not to have used marihuana will be eliminated from the study, though not before the end of the follow-up. To prevent the study from manipulating the subjects' behavior, all subjects would be paid the same amount of money at the end of the study, even if they were eliminated at an early stage. At the study's conclusion, it is important that the user group (that is, the group where all non-users have been eliminated) is subdivided into separate groups according to how heavily they used marihuana, and the percentage of psychosis be mentioned for each subdivision. This study would last for at least years and at most decades.

The Unification of Man and Machine

2009-11-22T18:58:34+01:00

As machines become more advanced, more and more humans lose their jobs as machines replace them, until only creative jobs will be left, but there will likely also be a time when machines may also become creative. However, as and when our computers become creative, they will become part of ourselves and so of our own species, for either we will already have found a way of uniting them with our own brain, or we would set these computers to the one task of finding a way to do so until they would, since this would be the most important thing we would need at this point.
There might be a chance that by this time, many people who remained unemployed would have become so decadent that they would no longer care to set these computers to any other task than to find better ways of stimulating the pleasure centers of their brain, but, fortunately, they would be in the hands of the scientists that invented them, and they would certainly choose otherwise.
Thus, even if humans and computers will not yet have united by the time that computers become creative, humans will still be needed for creativity until then, and, because creativity gives meaning to life and our need for meaning is so great, then as soon as they are more creative than we are ourselves, they would be fully focussed on the task of enabling us to have their creativity by unifying them with our brain.
As long as computers are not conscious, our own lives as humans could still have meaning, and as soon as they would become conscious, we would become one with them. In a time when the only work that is left is creative, everyone could likely achieve an equal level of creativity through cognotechnology, as the creativity of someone altered through that time's cognotechnology would be vastly greater than that of anyone who has ever lived anyway. This does not mean that everyone would become identical, however, as there are infinitely many ways of being creative; these need not be scientific or artistic, as they can also be social.
By the time when man and machine will become one, both will be quite different from what they are now. Machines will no longer be the contraptions we see today, as their machinery, just as our own, will entirely have advanced to molecular levels, whereas men will no longer be the animals that we are now, as our abilities will have advanced to cosmic levels. Machines will become more like organisms in structure as they achieve nanotechnological levels, as they will then make more use of analogous media like chemistry, rather than relying only on black-and-white digital media as they do now. Meanwhile, men will also become more like machines in power, as they, as well, integrate aspects of their mechanical counterparts into their bodies. Our computers will become subtler and more complex, whereas we will become stronger and more skillful.
It would seem that a unification of man and machine would make society shift further towards the material and away from the spiritual, but the opposite is true. Our spiritual as well as our material world will grow, but they will also grow toward one another. It's just that spiritual evolution comes more subtle than material evolution.
Moreover, when man and machine will become one, we will still have use for our biological aspects as well as of our electronic aspects, as both have their own unique qualities. Both man and machine will keep evolving, and either evolution will help the other, but both evolutions will themselves unify.
The unification of man and machine is only one aspect of a greater unification, that of mind and matter. Our power to change reality becomes so great that reality becomes like a dream, while virtual reality become so immersive as to become like reality.

Post-Scarcity Communism

2009-11-22T02:21:06+01:00

When communism rose in the previous century, as is now clear, it was much too early for the world to be ready for it, and thus it remains to this day. The failure of communism has shown that people are too self-centered for it to work, and unless people change, it can never work. People work out of necessity or out of greed, but not out of love, at least for now.

Communism is bound either to fall or turn into despotism as long as it is not the choice of the people themselves, and because of this, the communism we have seen so far has little to do with its actual ideals. Nonetheless, it is probable that communism will be the next step in the evolution of society, though in another form than is seen today. However, today, it is still too soon for us to take that step.

Every kind of government has its place in the evolution of society, and when it is time for one to succeed the other, this happens almost spontaneously, not through revolution. There was a time that democracy could not have succeeded, or even republicanism. When a nation tries to get ahead of itself in this evolution, it is bound to turn either into despotism or into anarchy, and so evolution is usually the best way of change.

In the beginning of this evolution, despotism is the only viable government: at this time, republicanism cannot or barely succeed, as there is too little cooperation between people for it to work. At this point, cooperation must be imposed by a despot. It is crude, but the only thing that works at this point. Without a single ruling power, everyone would become a despot. There is, fortunately, the mercy that the worst despots are often the quickest to be overthrown by the people.

Every society begins in anarchy, and, if it lives long enough, it eventually ends in anarchy, in much the same form, but on a larger scale. Anarchy is viable in the beginning of the formation of a society, when people still live in small clans, which are much alike to a large family. Sometimes, these clans are communistic. Superficially, it seems that these clans are more cooperative than most societies, but this is only so because they are so small; so small, in fact, that every or almost every member of the clan usually knows every other. As these groups grow, this level of cooperation is no longer possible, because although they may be cooperative towards people they know, they are quite uncooperative towards strangers. The people of a clan are so little used to strangers that they will often kill them on sight. Wars between neighboring clans are frequent. If the people of ten clans were put into one tribe overnight, most would be dead before long.

There is a lot of cooperation in early societies, but little cooperativeness. The cooperativeness in societies grows as they evolve, until they eventually achieve the level of democracy and eventually (though this has never happened so far) anarcho-communism. So far, however, anarcho-communism is not feasible, as people have yet to achieve the level of unity for it to work.

However, we live in a world were everything is being automatized through robotics and informatics. This is already posing problems in many developed capitalistic countries as more and more people become (or remain) unemployed as they are being replaced by computers. Because of this, many countries already find themselves to be forced into a compromise between capitalism and communism, in which unemployed people receive benefits during the time they are unemployed.

As work in the primary and secondary sector continues to be automatized, and not everyone can or wants to work in the tertiary sector, more and more people will become unemployed. Eventually, the rate of unemployment will become so high that it can no longer be resolved in any sensible way, forcing the government into offering people benefits in order to help them survive.

With the trend of robotization, it is only a matter of time before we achieve a state where our necessities are provided for automatically or largely so, and so become almost free. Eventually, it will be possible to produce anything through software, and since software can be duplicated freely, this will mean that all necessities will be available in sufficient amounts without any work being done. In such a society, it would be nonsensical to still pay for software, as everyone could as well have all software there is if no one asked money for it. In a society where everyone has enough to survive and where software offers so many possibilities, many people will see software (which by then would encompass all art, science, and culture of civilization) as being more important than money. It only takes a certain percentage of the population to believe this before the system collapses, all the more because many of these people would themselves be artists and programmers. The more people would believe spiritual values to be more important than material ones, the more the capitalistic system would be subverted, and software would be hacked and shared illegally. Moreover, artists and programmers who would be of this view would release their works for for free, so that, eventually, those who would still charge for their works would be likely to be ignored, all the more because their work would be motivated purely out of greed, rather than out of love, and therefore be seen as being of lower quality. It is therefore inevitable that, at this stage, software would become free or practically free.

The need for socialism will increase with unemployment, and eventually, artists, scientists and social workers will be the only people left to be employed. Most scientists, many social workers and some artists (in some countries) are already being paid by the state, but in future, all will depend on the state for payment. For now, scientists, artists and social workers are still required to work in order to be paid, but this is only because much of their work is not fully creative and involves routine. However, as the routine component of their work will eventually be done by computers (robot scientists already exist for genetic research, for instance, as do computer programs for educations), only the creative and social components will be left, and neither can be done on demand. Ideas come best when they are not forced, which is the only thing scientists (and, of course, artists) will still be needed for, and the same counts for compassion, which is what social workers will still be needed for. When I say creativity, I'm not talking about the ability to remember the right idea at the right time, but the ability to think of new, unique ideas that have never been used before, as anything less can be done by computers. With compassion, I'm not talking about commitment, patience or politesse, but genuine and heartfelt sympathy, as, again, anything less can be done by computers. Attempting to enforce creativity will lead to loss of inspiration. Attempting to enforce compassion will lead to detachment (as is seen in many psychologists and psychiatrists today). Either how, the best ideas will come from people who seek them because of their passion for the idea, not from people who seek them because they must. The same counts for compassion. The true scientists, social workers and artists of the future will not need money as an incentive to work. Those that would, would be incompetent anyway.

Obviously, the unemployment would also put many people before the problem of finding meaning in their lives, or rather, it would confront them with that problem which was already there, now they could no longer seek distraction in vacuous mind-numbing routine. By and by, people would learn to find meaning either in love or some form of creativity.

Uncreative people who would want to become more creative could be made more creative through cognotechnology (technology applied on cognition). Because of the significance cognotechnology will have on humanity, it is extremely important that everyone be given equal chances, and here, we are once more faced with a need for socialism: the means of cognotechnology should be equally allocated among those who desire it, for if this does not happen, a disastrous technological divide will result which is so great that, over time, humanity itself would actually split up into two separate groups, one being vastly more intelligent than the other. The intelligent group would become more successful, so acquire increased access to cognotechnology, and so forth. Of course, the more intelligent group would eventually realize the necessity to give the other group equal chances.

In the past, communism has failed because the interests of the individual are capitalistic. In future, capitalism will fail because the interests of the individual will be communistic.

Too Soft Wares

2009-11-22T00:26:29+01:00

The reason why illegal downloading is so common, aside from the fact that it is very easy to do, is that there is little or no moral inhibition against it. This is not only because the chance of being caught is smaller, but also, and mostly, because the thief does not take anything away from the owner, but merely refuses to give them anything for their work: the owner remains unaffected by the thief. This is worsened by the fact that most software products are sold by large firms, so that if the individual does buy the product, it makes no difference to the firm, as the payment is spread over a large number of people, so that each receives only a very small sum, and only the payment of an equally large number of people will make a difference to them; whereas, if it is paid to another individual, it does make a difference to him or her. Also, because the payment usually happens via Internet, it is made not through a person, but rather to an impersonal website. The firm is a mere concept to the thief, and does not concern him or her at all.
Meanwhile, because they can be duplicated freely, more and more people program freeware applications, which replace the vast majority of non-freeware applications programmed by individuals, so that only the applications programmed by large firms remain unavailable as freeware. Because people become used to getting software for free, they will be all the more reluctant to pay for other software.
Also, the laws of software ownership are also becomes more and more ambiguous, causing people to regard them as irrelevant. For instance, one can legally watch most popular movies and listen to most popular music on a large number of websites, including Youtube and Megavideo, and one can even legally record music from the Internet using legal applications, such as Audio Hijack or SoundFlower, or record videos using applications which are also legal, such Windows Media Recorder.
. Meanwhile, one can also legally upload or download books or articles.
Illegal downloading is becoming so prevalent that it becomes very hard to take measures against it, and even would we succeed in bringing all illegal downloaders to justice, this would mean that we'd have to imprison one third of the population and ruin another third with fines.
Perhaps this means that it is time we find another system, which pays designers and artists fixed regular sums based on the quality of their work. On the other hand, one might also argue that this is unnecessary, as only popular software is readily available for illegal downloading, and the producers of that software have already earned a lot of money with that software anyway, and so all artists and designers still have a chance of earning enough money.
If, however, illegal downloading continues to become more popular, it will soon become unmanageable. Unfortunately, it is very hard to control illegal downloading, as anyone who possesses software can also duplicate it. The only way anything can be done about this is by protecting the software, though this is only feasible for applications. Most "killer applications" have effective protections, but for most of these applications, and almost all of the popular ones, this can relatively easily be surmounted through "cracks," especially for the Windows operating system.
However, for music and movies, it is probably already too late, since YouTube is far too popular to be closed down, and closing it down would result in general outrage among the population. Eventually, it will likely become possible to upload entire movies in full resolution, so that, aside from philanthropism, the only reason people might still prefer to buy the movies would be because it might feel more quaint. The money earned through cinematography would be reduced mostly to the revenues of movie theatres, and the money earned through music would be reduced mostly to the revenues of life performances. Obviously, if we allow this to happen, then artists will need to depend on subsidies. Only applications might still have a chance of escaping the same fate.

Fast and Slow

2009-11-21T18:29:27+01:00

If one goes too fast, it is much more likely for balance to be lost. On the other hand, if one goes too slow, this is in itself an imbalance. In the end, one still goes fastest if one goes so fast that one meets difficulties, but only if one can deal with those difficulties. Even if you cannot go faster, you can still work to enable yourself to go faster. When you cannot advance further, you can still make preparations to advance further, so that you do not truly need to slow down, for advance may happen in subtle ways. You will go fastest when interchanging slow and fast in balance. To find this balance, know yourself. Do not overestimate or underestimate yourself.

Control

2009-11-17T12:26:24+01:00

If you have become too so absorbed in your thoughts that you can no longer feel, the only way you can feel again is by letting go off control. Ironically, you have to let go off control to regain control over your thoughts.

With letting go off control, I do not mean that you become passive to everything that happens, but that you accept it. You might still change those things, but it will no longer be because you think you have to. Change things because you feel you want to, not merely because you think you must. Thought is a medium through which change is organized, but the motivation for change originates from our feelings.

The irony is that through acceptance, you may become much better in changing things than through rejecting them, since it allows you to build from the things that are already there, rather than seeking to undo them before starting over. Everything can be used to build something else, even if it is its opposite.

In order to be in control, you must control your need for control. Do not be attached to control, for this is in itself loss of control.

Love your Suffering

2009-11-13T21:00:55+01:00

Whatever you do, do not be stopped by suffering. If the only thing you can feel is suffering, then love your suffering, and it will no longer be suffering.

Do What you Wish

2009-11-13T20:59:38+01:00

There is no general rule for where to find beauty, as in all things there is potentially an equal, infinite amount of beauty. If you truly search for beauty, then wherever you wish to find beauty is therefore the right choice, as you then make this choice out of love for beauty; and beauty itself is nothing else than the love of beauty, which is its perception.

Whatever you perceive as beautiful is beautiful to you; thus, seek beauty there were you perceive it the most, wherever that may be. However, remember not to confuse comfort with beauty, and that beauty may hold pain yet not be reduced by that pain. Perceive also that beauty is in perception itself, and so seek beauty in the increased perception of beauty, not only seeking for it around you but also within. Seek beauty in balanced measures inside and outside. Remember, however, that balanced does not have to mean equal, as each of us has their own center which may differ according to our personality.

In seeking beauty, seek it wherever you see it, but do not lose sight of it because of pain. Thought can guide you in finding beauty, but it cannot lead you to it: only your feeling can do that, thus you can but seek for beauty there were you feel it to be.

If you cannot feel where to find beauty, it is because you do not know what you wish. In that case, you need to decide first what you wish, even if your decision is but that you wish to try things until you happen to find something you feel is beautiful. Whenever you do find something that is even slightly beautiful to you, remember it, so that you might enkindle the wish to search for more of it. It's already a start to wish to find out what you wish.

If it seems like you want nothing at all, or even that in fact everything is something you don't want, then it might be that what you actually want is emptiness, as emptiness is itself also something. Let the emptiness purify you of attachment.

This might also mean that you are depressed, but depression has its purpose: it allows you to let go. Let go, especially, of control. The best thing you might do when there is nothing you want to do is to meditate on letting go of control. In fact, many people who are clinically depressed do this spontaneously: they might find that they suddenly become highly aware, yet nearly empty of thought. Their increased awareness might be of their sensations, of their feelings, or of their thoughts. Depression is also correlated with increased daydreaming, during which you might find out what it is you want.

Depression is a defense mechanism meant to empty your mind after or during a period of excessive stress. Depression itself is not the problem: stress is. Nonetheless, depression might be a clearer sign of the problem than stress itself is.

If there is nothing you wish, then you will become depressed, but in this state you might discover what you wish. If there is too much you wish, you will become anxious, which might cause you to become depressed, so that you find out what you really wish.

Freedom of Greed

2009-11-13T11:04:08+01:00

If we knew no greed, we would be in ecstasy. To be freed of greed is not so much about not compromising others, but not compromising ourselves. If we weren't greedy ourselves, even the greed of others could not compromise us.

Integral Imaging Invisibility

2009-11-13T00:17:54+01:00

"The first step was covering the subject: first of all, [the nanorobots] layered themselves thickly on the surface, in the case of a person leaving only the eyes uncovered; then, they extended their outer walls; then, they connected them, so that they blocked out all light. The second step was scanning: first, they scanned the ambient light; then, they calculated where the light would go if it were unhindered; then, they transmitted the information of the ambient light to right nanorobots. The final step was invisibility: first, the outermost layers of nanorobots filled the interior of their outer walls with a special chemical; then, they caused it to luminesce with a certain hue and brightness. This hue and brightness was the same as that of the background, so that the surface could become almost invisible.

This was much like the chameleon effect, but the camouflage was perfect. The main problem with this was that this was observer-dependent: from different angles the camouflage had to look different as the background also looked different. This required a technique known as integral imaging. This allowed different images were sent in different angles, sometimes up to dozens, so that from whatever direction one looked, the subject would be invisible. Because the nanorobots were so small, this was not a problem if one had enough of them."

From Tempest II: The Novans

This is, of course, science-fiction, and therefore rather extreme: still, I believe that in reality, integral imaging might still possibly be used as a means of achieving invisibility, although perhaps not on a cloak made entirely of nanorobots.

Nanorobotic Morphing

2009-11-13T00:15:28+01:00

"The exterior of the nanorobots could consist partly or entirely of compartments which could be flipped, so that either side could face either the inside or the outside of the machine. In this way, the exterior of the nanorobot could rapidly be changed to another material present in the storage of the nanorobot (if such were present): the plates of the material were deposited on one side of these compartments, which then flipped, upon which nanomagnets guided it to their appointed position. If the material was already magnetic, only one was needed, on the inside of the wall. Otherwise, the material was itself equipped with a second nanomagnet.
This process was then repeated at such extreme rapidity as is typical of such small scales, so that the nanorobots could change their exterior surprisingly quickly in this way. Other nanorobots had their exterior made entirely of these "doors," so that the process could be instantaneous."

From Tempest II: The Novans

Nothing and Everything

2009-11-10T21:06:47+01:00

If you want to be content, compare what you have with zero. If you want to achieve something, compare what you have with infinity. This cannot be done without infinite imagination, and if you could fully realize what it would be like to have everything, and fully realize what it would be like to have nothing, you would be enlightened.

Change and Sameness

2009-11-10T19:17:42+01:00

You will learn the most not through suffering, but through the enjoyment of as many experiences as possible, but only if that enjoyment is in the form of love rather than a need for distraction from suffering. Suffering merely occurs when we resist experiences when we are still to learn to love them. Being confronted with those experiences can help us to learn to love them, and it is so that to some, suffering sometimes seems the best way to learn. But this suffering is merely the resistance to the learning process.

Bliss in beauty is the triumph of love; suffering in beauty is its failure, but so too its triumph in bringing itself so far as to try.

It is true that we must confront this resistance in order to overcome it, but suffering in itself is just that which keeps us from beauty. Only once we have learned to love an experience have we truly found its beauty. Pain too must be loved, but just therefore it should not be suffered.

If you try to learn as much as possible, it may be that you will suffer the most, but nonetheless, do not seek suffering in itself, for when you suffer, your love becomes exhausted, and so too the will to love. But if you seek love rather than suffering, then your love may grow through its love for itself, until finally it spreads to things that you would otherwise have suffered and not loved.

A careful balance is needed between seeking more of what which you already love and seeking other things that you have not yet learned to love. Stay too much with the things you already love, and your love will turn to boredom. Explore too much, and your love will become harmed. Either way leads to apathy.

Too much adventure into the unknown, and we hurt ourselves through the suffering of too much pain; too little, and we hurt ourselves through the suffering of too much emptiness.

The greater your consciousness, which leads to sensitivity, the more you will have of either, unless it is paired with an equally great self-consciousness, which leads you to balance. People often suffer the most when their consciousness is greater than their self-consciousness. Consciousness helps us to be receptive, self-consciousness helps us to be in control.

Either how, things will always change, even if it is but through the duration that things remain the same. But even so, things always remain the same, even if it is but change that remains the same. You cannot be free from suffering nor find love unless you find balance between change and sameness.

Change too little, and the things you have will change by becoming monotonous, so that they become harder to enjoy; unless you either learn to enjoy the monotony, which is in itself also a change, or unless you change, so that your enjoyment may remain the same. Change too much, and the change will also become monotonous, so that it becomes harder to enjoy change, unless you learn to live with the monotony or stop changing, so that your enjoyment of change may remain the same.

Love may be lost either if it is not renewed through enjoyment or if it is harmed through suffering, and both will happen if there is too much sameness or too much change. In sameness, love the things you already love; in change, love things you have not loved before.

We must transcend our abilities to love but also preserve the ability to love we already have, so that its growth is not stalled, and this can be done if transcendence and preservation there are both enough, if there is balance between emptiness and fullness, light and dark.

See also:

Love and Suffering

Pursuit Parachute

2009-11-10T17:19:58+01:00

Perhaps police in pursuit of vehicles could employ small parachutes to break the momentum of the criminals being pursued, storing the parachute in a projectile attached to a kind of harpoon, which would be fired at the vehicle and open the parachute as soon as its barbs are attached into the vehicle.

Alternatively, the harpoon could be attached to a crank on the top of the pursuing vehicle, which could then brake or drive in the opposite direction to stop the vehicle, so that it would act somewhat like a winch. In analogy with the system of a retractable leash, the winch could then still be retracted, but not lengthened, so that, should the pursued vehicle brake or slow down, the pursuer would not lose control over the vehicle while driving in the opposite direction. Obviously, someone else should be present to arrest the criminals. Should they exit the car, the cable could be detached through a remotely electronic cable joint, so that the pursuing car could continue to pursue them.

Psychoactive and Medicinal Plants, Creations of Humanity?

2009-12-14T13:46:41+01:00

It might be that many psychoactive plants, such as Saint John's wort, a herbal antidepressant, did not evolve their psychoactive substances through mere coincidence. If it was coincidental, it might have occurred in a few plant specimens, but it wouldn't have come to be present in every single specimen of the species. Evolution does not happen without reason. If a mutation occurs and it is useful, then there's a chance that it is passed on onto next generations, but if it has no use at all for the species, then it will disappear.

Obviously, it must have been some use for these substances. Thus, either the psychoactive effect of these substances on animals was useful for the plant, or the psychoactive effect of these substances is a side effect of the substance's real use to the plant. However, as no other use of these substances has been observed, and the plant only wastes energy on producing them, it is obvious that we should assume otherwise.

Moreover, most plants containing psychoactives contain several psychoactives with a similar effect, even though these psychoactives are very different in structure and composition, so that they are unlikely to have been produced in the same chemical pathways. For instance, compare the substances hyperforin and hypericin found in Saint John's wort: hyperforin is aliphatic, whereas hypericin is cyclic. Hyperforin is derived from phloroglucinol, while hypericin is derived from anthraquinone. Either psychopharmaceutical cannot be produced through the combination of the other with other molecules present in the plant, contrary, for instance, to the substances found in Rhodiola rosea, an antidepressant and alleged adaptogen.

Why would a plant produce two different psychoactives with similar effects in entirely different ways? It might therefore be that for some reason, their psychoactive effect increased their odds of survival.

Perhaps these plants, much like the silk worm do today, have always depended upon human cultivation, and developed their psychoactive effect from the artificial selection of humans, much like livestock developed their increased body mass from human selective breeding, or like dogs developed their obedience. As selective breeding shows, human influence can cause evolution to accelerate dramatically, so that it is very well possible for thousands of medical and psychoactive plants to evolve in only tens of thousands of years. What is clear is that herbalism has existed for at least 5.300 years, based on a body found in the Swiss Alps with medicinal herbs among his personal effects.

When some plants of a species developed a mutation causing them to produce psychoactives, someone would have discovered it eventually, especially if their effects were short-term. If the effect was pleasant or interesting, the discoverer might have decided to find more of the plant, and grow some for later. As the plants which were grown were selected according to their potency, they became more and more distinct from their original species generation after generation, so that they eventually formed an altogether separate species.

It is also likely that many medicinal plants evolved in this way. However, it might also be that certain plants containing medicinal substances might themselves have had uses for it, for although plants have no nervous system which might react to psychoactives, they do have a biochemistry, which, though it differs immensely from that of animals, nonetheless also has many things in common with it.

Plants whose effects were long-term were probably only cultivated in later periods, in the Neolithic, since it was unlikely for anyone to discover the effects of long-term working psychoactive or medicinal plants unless they happened to grow amidst the crops. In this case, the plants were likely to be reaped along with the crops, and parts of the plant may have been eaten by accident, or their substances where inhaled during threshing.

While the first Agrarian Revolution happened only 10.000 years ago, a more primitive form of cultivation might have been possible much earlier, since it requires no actual agriculture to grow psychoactive plants for consumption. After all, psychoactive plants can be used at relatively low amounts to have their desired effect, whereas agricultural plants need to be grown in much higher quantities to provide for food. The Amazonians have almost no agriculture, yet they cultivate ayahuasca using cuttings. In fact, despite their lack of agriculture, they call the Amazon a "cultivated forest," that is, a forest that they helped shape. The existence of ayahuasca might be an indicator that to some extent, the Amazon might indeed be called a cultivated forest. It seems that, at the least, they did help one particular plant to come into being, though the liana, as one might expect, is rare.

Among the psychoactive plants, there are two types: some are symbiotic, and some are parasitic. Basically, a psychoactive plant is parasitic if it is addictive, because the cultivators then no longer use the plant out of their own volition, and therefore, it no longer matters whether the plant has any actual benefit to them; whether it benefits them or not, it is already ascertained that they will continue to cultivate it. The cultivators do not base their selection of addictive plants on whether or not it is healthy, but merely on how well it satisfies their addiction. It might therefore be said that, as a rule, addictive psychoactive plants are never healthy.

The symbiotic plants are the kind that are cultivated because they are of benefit to the users, and are invariably not (or barely) addictive. Most of these plants either act on long-term, such as herbal antidepressants. Among the short-term acting varieties, the overwhelming majority are entheogens.

For instance, the Amazonians use ayahuasca as a medicine for physical and mental illness, enabling the user to find the cause of the illness. Similar plants are found to be used by other Native American tribes for the same reason, such as the San Pedro cactus. Because of the medicinal use of these plants, it was, of course, important in their selection that they were healthy, and relatively safe to use. Those who cultivated these plants for medical use or as a means of self-improvement obviously choose those strains that proved to be the least harmful and most beneficial.

One could say that this could be vaguely compared to a clinical trial, except that the guinea pigs were actual humans, usually the shamans or the natives themselves, and without the procedures of scientific method, such as double-blindness or follow-ups. Moreover, the results were only passed on through folklore and were never written down, and because there was never a careful analysis of the users' health, only the significant findings were noticed: in people who lived in such primitive conditions, such petty symptoms as a skin rash were easily overlooked. Despite all these drawbacks, however, I believe that these trials were not without merit, for they were repeated countless times over thousands of years. Because any strain of the plants that proved to be less toxic than the rest, they evolved until they became of the very low toxicity of which they are today.

For instance, cannabis, unlike tobacco, causes no lung cancer, and there even appears to be a negative link between cannabis use and lung cancer, indicating a protective effect. It has been hypothesized that cannabis contains substances which protect the lungs, because any inhalation of smoke would normally cause an increased risk of lung cancer. It seems very unlikely that a plant which is smoked would spontaneously develop substances which negate the damage caused by smoking by pure chance.

Also, it has been found that marihuana contains substances, such as cannabidiol, which are antipsychotic. Heavy use of marihuana can increase the risk of developing psychosis, and the presence of cannabidiol in marihuana could counter this effect. Unfortunately, modern commercial cultivation of dealers, unlike the wiser cultivation of the shamans, has overlooked this danger. Instead of choosing the strains of cannabis based both on safety and potency, they based it solely on potency, ignoring safety altogether. Because of this, the ratio of cannabidiol to the other cannabinoids in marihuana has decreased, which might in part be responsible for the increase of psychosis among seen among heavier users of marihuana today. That this ratio has changed again so quickly because of human cultivation is an indication that the selective breeding of marihuana had once been based on the presence of the cannabidiol, for if it would always have been based solely on the concentration of THC in the thousands of years it had been cultivated, as it is now, the cannabidiol would by now have disappeared or nearly disappeared.

Ironically, another way in which some plants proved to be safer than others was through a bitter taste. Almost any psychedelic plant there is known tastes extremely bitter: kratom, san pedro, peyote, psilocybe, salvia divinorum and ayahuasca are all renowned to be thoroughly disgusting. Marihuana is very bitter when eaten, which might have been how the plant was originally used. Of all psychedelic plants, the most disgusting of all is ayahuasca, and it is accordingly also the most potent. In addition, the psychedelics can also cause vomiting if too much is used, and new users of ayahuasca almost invariably vomit, although more experienced users are able to keep from vomiting the brew. It appears that this bitterness is meant as a warning to those who use it. New users are more likely to be stop eating early, repelled by the taste, while experienced users, being more used to the taste, would be better able to conquer their disgust for it. Aside from this, the bitterness is also an indicator of the plant's potency and the dosage the user takes in. To unprepared users, it can be a foretaste of the suffering it might bring about if they are not ready for the experience.

A German and Dutch proverb actually says that what tastes bitter is healthy: "Was bitter dem Mund, ist dem Herzen gesund," which is also used in Dutch as "Bitter in de mond maakt het hart gezond." While it is true that many medicines taste bad, this is only an issue in herbal medicines, which need to be eaten or swallowed as a viscous brew. It is very likely that this bitterness is meant to ensure that the right dosage is used. It seems too coincidental that practically every psychedelic plant there is is bitter in proportion to their potency.

Everything should be in moderation, and anything that is in excess will be dangerous. The thing is that it is far easier to use drugs in excess than it is to do something else to excess. Usually, it is very hard to do something to an excess, as it will become harder the more we then do it. When we do something to excess, our body usually warns us of this, but this is not the case with drugs. For instance, if one trains too hard in the gym, one will eventually be stopped by fatigue and cramps, but there is only a very small step between swallowing a single pill and an entire bottle. The most important reason why drugs are so dangerous is that our body does not stop us from using too much. If our body did not stop us from feeding or drinking too much, it would be equally dangerous.

Ergo, for herbal psychedelics to be safer, they needed something to replace the body's own feedback mechanisms, such as a bitter taste. It is unlikely that the shamans consciously choose the psychedelics for their bitter taste in the knowledge that this would moderate usage. Instead, they probably merely observed that people who only used the bitter variety were healthier.

Most psychoactive plants which aren't addictive appear to be harmless or even beneficial to health. On the other hand, some plants might also use psychoactives as a poison like any other, either to warn animals not to eat them them or to kill those that did. Datura stramonium, for instance, is quite dangerous, and none that were so bold as to try to use it thought the experience so pleasant as to even consider cultivating the plant. Hallucinogens as a warning might be a pretty drastic warning compared to nettle sting, for instance, but may imprint a permanent traumatic memory even on an animal's inefficient memory. It is possible that the Amanite uses this same strategy, as an addition to its physical toxicity.

Aside from those meant either to keep animals from eating the plant or psychoactives meant to coerce the user into cultivating the plant through addiction, however, most psychoactives found in plants seem to be largely beneficial.

The notion that these plants live in symbiosis with humans is reminiscent of the Gaia hypothesis, which posits that all organisms in the biosphere are part of a greater superorganism; and although there is clearly not by far as much union between the organisms of the biosphere and the cells of a single organism, there do seem to many symbiotic relations between different species. In the end, any species depends on countlessly many others, and many depend even on us.

Micro hygroscopic

2009-10-27T22:42:31+01:00

Envision microscopic permanent supermagnets dissolved in water, coated with a material which adheres to water and having a microarchitecture which furthers its absorption of water: perhaps it could then be possible to quickly repel the water itself with a larger magnet. This could be used to dry something or, perhaps, to remove the water from an area around the magnet so as to do something beneath where the water surface had been.

Jungles and Factories

2009-10-27T22:01:30+01:00

That our society inclines towards yang might be because of our primal ancestry, for the African jungles in which they lived are a very yang environment: basking in sunlight, broiling with heat, brimming with life, whirling with activity and abundant in food. Vivacity, hedonism, sociability, industriousness and materialism are all values characteristic of our species, and they are also all very yang. Scientists have already found that war is something we inherited in common with primates from our evolutionary ancestry, and so are language and community; why then, not materialism? That so much of the earth's surface is covered with our factories might be a direct consequence of the fact that we share our original homes with the primates.

Reconciliation

2009-12-03T22:32:40+01:00

Yin and yang can be hard to reconcile. The only reason that nature has managed to combine them is that this was necessary for it to exist at all, since neither yin nor yang can exist by themselves in any form at all. It was needed for nature to achieve this balance between yin and yang in order for it to be able to evolve at all. We must be cautious to retain this balance.

Yin and yang cause one another; yet at the same time, they also avoid one another, as night shuns day and day shuns night. Try at all times to be mindful to be balanced between the two. Do not fear sadness when you are in joy, and do not fear joy when you are in sadness, but try to accept that one flows into the other as day and night. There can be joy in sadness and sadness in joy, and neither is above the other.

As our species are more yang than yin, we tend to fear sadness rather than joy, even though, when our joy remains too long, it will turn into anxiety. Some who are in sadness, on the other hand, fear joy when it comes to them. Try to accept both. Do not deny your sadness, but neither deny your joy. We must accept it when one has to succeed the other. The same counts for all things yin and yang, such as work and rest, or society and solitude.

See also:

Opposing Opposites

Positive and Negative

Tactics of Pain and Pleasure

2009-10-27T19:35:44+01:00

Pain is our way of repelling what we do not want. Pleasure is our way of attracting what we do want, which may include the absence of something we don't want. Thus, both can be means of achieving the same purpose. The difference between the two is but that one painful and the other pleasurable. Thus, focus on what you do want, not on what you don't want.

Ego-Splitting and Schizophrenia

2009-12-09T02:56:50+01:00

Perhaps all the symptoms of schizophrenia, paranoia in particular, are a direct result of ego-splitting, in which the person's sense of self, or ego, becomes split into separate compartments which seem to assume a role of their own. For instance, the person's own thoughts may seem as though they are those of someone (or something) else, leading to the delusion that thoughts have been inserted into the person mind. These thoughts which have separated from the ego may then turn to intrusive thoughts or voices.

At the same time, if the ego has been split into many compartments, it becomes harder to focus one's attention on one specific compartment, because one's thoughts have basically become scattered across each of these many compartments. In this way, one's attention may become distracted as it rapidly shifts from one train of thought to another.

In ego splitting, the central part of one's ego is still in one's physical body, but most of it has become transferred onto other areas of one's consciousness, such as daydreams, to such extent that these may become extremely vivid. These may then have such impact on one's emotions that they seem real, whereas the part of the ego concerned with reality has become so small that real events have a much smaller impact on one's emotions. The result is an increased response to imaginary stimuli, and a decreased response to real stimuli. In other words, the ego has partly dissolved into imagination.

In addition, parts of the ego may become transferred onto objects in the person's environment, so that it seems as though these are alive, or as though they contain cameras, microphones or other means through which they might be spied upon, or it might seem that the person can control these objects with his mind.

This may also happen with people: when parts of the ego are transferred to other persons, the person's emotions about him- or herself may become projected upon them. It follows that if the person has a high self-esteem, this may lead to the feeling that people will likewise have a high esteem of him or her, increasing the feeling of high self-esteem and so forth. This interaction may lead to grandiloquence. On the other hand, if the person has a low self-esteem, this may lead to paranoia, because he or she then projects his or her feelings about him- or herself onto others.

In addition, some people who suffer from self-loathing may use daydreams to punish themselves, especially people who have a lot of imagination. They may do this by hurting themselves in their thoughts, but also by making other people hurt them in their daydreams. In one's daydreams, one has the ability to exert full power over all things, and for people who live largely in daydreams, this ability might distort their image of reality, leading to the delusion that reality differs little from daydreams.

As the ego splits up, the person comes to feel one with things that are in reality separate from his physical self. In this way, the person's sense of separation becomes blurred. This may cause the feeling that people are too close to oneself and so worsen the sociophobia already caused in part due to the paranoia. Furthermore, because of this lack of sense of separation, it becomes as if all things in the world are in fact part of the person's own mind, things that are therefore controlled by the person's own thoughts. As the person dissociates from their own thoughts, however, and they come to appear to take a form distinct from the ego, it seems as if their thoughts are not their own, and that they are instead thoughts that they pick up from other people.

Furthermore, because of this lack of sense of separation, it may also seem that everyone is much too close to them. Close enough, for instance, to harm them, or to read their thoughts. Strictly speaking, this is not in itself ego splitting, since the ego is one's sense of self, and the paranoid still knows the difference between themselves and other people, and does not see them as part of themselves as one would see one's arm as part of oneself, for example; but the feelings they believe others to have towards them still originate from their own. This is so because the paranoid's sense of self has partly dissolved, so that they no longer recognize these feelings as their own.

If the person hates him- or herself, it may seem to them that the entire world hates them. If the person is also self-destructive, it will seem as if the entire world is keen on destroying them. But to paranoids, this feeling becomes so extreme that is no longer a mere emotion, but a reality to them.

One might argue that ego dissolution is not the only thing that may cause paranoia. Traumas can be another cause, for instance, which neither directly nor indirectly have anything to do with ego dissolution. On the other hand, one might question if this is paranoia at all, since people who develop fear of people because of traumas have an actual reason to do so, namely, the chance that the trauma might repeat itself. The traumatized person's estimation of this chance isn't even necessarily irrationally high, but he or she is so terrified of this chance that no matter how small it may be, it is still significant to him or her.

In ego dissolution, emotion has become a continuum from the ego to empathy, with no well-defined line in between, and so emotion can readily flow back and forth from the ego to empathy. At the other extremity, in the case of egotism, the line between the two becomes an impenetrable wall that cuts the ego off from empathy, and the little shared emotions there are are attributed to the ego.

It may be that schizophrenics are highly empathic, though this does not have to mean that they are compassionate, and, if they have low self-esteem, they will likely not be.

Some Buddhists, and other practitioners of meditation, practice a form of meditation called metta meditation, or compassion meditation, in which the meditator tries to generate compassion for living beings: first him- or herself, then loved ones, then acquaintances, then enemies, then strangers, and ultimately all that lives.

This form of meditation would not actually work with paranoids, because the issue with paranoids is not their own hate for others, but the imagined hate others have for them. However, if this form of meditation were reversed, it might actually serve as a potential cure or prevention for paranoia.

Since the paranoid's emotions have become projected onto other people, he must deal both with the emotions ascribed to the ego as those ascribed to others, meaning that he must re-place him- or herself in the place of others and then deal with the emotions he feels for himself in others' place.

To the paranoid, the metta meditation should be focussed entirely on the first stage of generating compassion for him- or herself, but from the viewpoint of others. In other words, he or she should imagine other people to love them and send them love. This is unlikely to work, but in the process, he or she might resolve the hate that he or she imagines others to feel for them, which is actually their own self-hate projected onto others.

As this form of meditation would require insight on the paranoid's part that he or she is paranoid, this would sometimes be more useful as a preventive than a curative method, at least in severe cases. Nonetheless, it can also be used in less severe forms of paranoia, or while the illness is already or still in full force.

Vicarious

2009-10-27T15:06:59+01:00

As such, softness cannot be given; it can only be received. Softness can therefore only be given to another by vicariously receiving it in their place.

When There's Nothing left to Love

2009-10-25T20:27:17+01:00

The goal is always love. You can either search that which you love, or love that which you find. If there is nothing left which you love, for instance if everything causes you suffering, you have no more choice than to try to love that which you find, even if everything you can find brings you suffering. If you are suffering, it is not enough to accept your suffering: you must love it, especially if there is no longer anything else than suffering.

Imaginary

2009-10-21T16:16:18+02:00

As everything is relative, so everything is in itself equal in value, equally beautiful and equally abominable — infinitely beautiful and infinitely abominable. Everything being equal in beauty, and having no real beauty of itself, the only thing that we should seek is the perception of beauty in itself, since that is the only real beauty we will find. Or rather, it is the closest to real beauty we can ever find — for no beauty is real. Beauty is but in our minds. It is something we imagine, and by imagining it, we make it real.

Outside our imagination, nothing is ever beautiful, and this is a curse we must bear; for whatever we may think to be beautiful, it is never beautiful in itself, and so no beauty we ever see will last outside ourselves; and it may be that when we think we have found beauty, it is only to find later that it no longer holds any beauty to us anymore. If beauty lies but in ourselves, it can never be certain, for nothing that lies in ourselves is. What lies in ourselves can always change.

The tragedy is that the perception of beauty, which is all that matters in the universe, is infinitely fragile, and it may shatter literally in a moment through the force of suffering, or worse, ignorance.

Because perception is so relative, so too is beauty, and beauty can be perceived in literally anything at all, no matter how ugly we tend to perceive it. Thus, to find beauty one must not only seek what one sees as beautiful, but also see the things you have already found as beautiful. The perception of beauty is called love, though love may also be many other things.

Things have no value of themselves whatsoever. Things can only have value to us when we give them that value, and one can only give something value through love. If life seems worthless, that is because you give it no value. If life seems precious, it is because you give it its value. Neither is an absolute truth. But why should we choose to give only certain things in life their value in the form of love, while not others?

Depression and Hypomania: An Inherent Correlation

2009-10-16T22:37:06+02:00

In a person who is bipolar, hypomania and depression both have the same cause and cause one another. Bipolarity is usually caused by with an increased sensitivity in some form or other, though increased sensitivity does not necessarily lead to bipolarity. As such, the bipolar cycle is merely an exaggeration of a normal person's emotional cycle between normal sadness and normal happiness.
However, at the same time, hypomania may cause depression and the other way around, as yin and yang usually do, much like the crests and troughs of the waves. For one thing, hypomania may lead to denial of problems. In particular, hypomania may cause an overconfidence which leads to an indifference with regards to negative emotion, so that these become repressed. When these become too obvious to still be denied, they at once come to the surface and may thus trigger a depression.
At this point, the hypomania may either gradually turn into a depression, or it may first turn into a mixed state: a nervous state of feverish excitement. The latter happens if the bipolar person still tries to retain his or her elevated level of energy despite the agitation, but this eventually becomes to painful, and he or she finally gives up to end up in a full-blown depression.
On the other hand, depression may then pave the way for a new hypomanic episode in a bipolar person. The withdrawal caused by depression gives one time to contemplate what one wants to change in one's life, so that, when one endeavors to achieve these changes, one's quality of life may improve. At the same time, one may become used to dealing with negative emotions.
Bipolar people often learn to objectivize their emotions because they are so changeable, thus making it clear to them that everything is highly relative. Realizing this, people with bipolar depression may be more likely in a depressive episode to work about their condition than someone with unipolar depression, knowing that a hypomanic episode may come afterwards which may be worthwhile.
Either how, depression may paradoxically improve one's outlook on life in anyone. It puts one before the choice between suicide, suffering or self-improvement. Eventually, if given enough time, one either chooses for suicide or self-improvement. One becomes forced to become more conscious and more constructive in one's thoughts and actions.
Moreover, depression creates an emptiness which forces one to detach from things one formerly took for granted, so that one is reminded of their value, and later becomes more capable of appreciating them and being thankful for their existence. In major depressive episodes, it may be that one has to let go of absolutely everything one ever enjoyed, simply because one has lost every bit of enjoyment of it. But only once you've let go of something can you be mindful of what it means to you. Becoming depressed and then recovering is like dying and then being reborn again.
Bipolar disorder is common among artists not only because artists are often more intense people, but also because art can be a way of dealing with emotions. In addition, however, their emotions may depend strongly on their art, especially because artists often have less social contact then other people. At the same time, their art depends strongly on their emotions. This codependence may spiral in turns into a depressive and a hypomanic episode.

Active and Passive Meditation

2009-10-11T12:22:01+02:00

When you are too distracted by thoughts during meditation while being still, try to meditate more while moving, for instance, in yoga, tai chi, dancing, walking, exercise, work, or another activity. If you are too distracted by thoughts during active meditation, try a more passive meditation, like insight meditation, mantric meditation, prayer or hypnosis.

Since meditation is merely mindful experience, meditation can be both active or passive. There must be a balance between active and passive meditation, and if this balance is not respected, then the meditation may cease to be effective or even become harmful. People have slipped into psychosis from too much passive and too little active meditation. On the other hand, too much active and too little passive meditation will only lead to an obsessive concentration.

In any case, however it is very important that any activity during meditation can be more or less automatized, that is to say, that it can happen without much thought, as it is not concentration, but experience, that matters in meditation. It is impossible to experience if one is forced to concentrate on thought.

People who have too little yang might focus more on active meditation, lest they only lose focus in passive meditation. People who have too little yin might instead focus more on passive meditation.

Panorama

2009-10-22T11:58:02+02:00

When you are in sadness, try to let go of attachment as much as possible: let go of greed, of anger, of fear. Let go of all things you tell yourself that must or must not be. Letting go of attachment is easier when sad, and in this way, sadness can come to its use. It can thus cleanse your being from impurities and, like winter, creates an emptiness from which new life can grow in spring. The faster you are able to let go, the less painful your sadness will feel, and the quicker it can also pass. Thus, do not resist sadness, but try to make use of it until it is gone. The use of sadness is to make one let go how things go, not as a punishment when things do not go your way. In your sadness, let go off all control and let everything be. Thus, it will come to its use.

Sometimes the best thing you can do when you are in sadness is to make use of your sadness' purification abilities, and the best way to do this is to turn inwards. Meditation, or, if you are religious, prayer, can be a good way to do this. In your sadness, you are more able to let go of control, thereby creating an emptiness within yourself. Learn to appreciate the silence this brings, and in that silence try to find grace.

Above all, when you are sad, think about what you want to do with your life. Sadness is an emptiness which creates a panorama within your mind. Hear the silence. See the darkness. Feel the cold. In this emptiness, find purity. Once you have done this, your sadness has served its purpose, and the light may come back once again.

Infinite Beauty

2009-09-23T22:29:03+02:00

In everything there is infinite beauty; in what things one sees beauty is but a matter of preference. To say that the beauty of something is greater than that of something else is prejudice, for if all beauty is infinite, there is none that is greater than any another. There is inexhaustible beauty in all things, and to be fully conscious of it would mean to be God.

Since everything is perception and so everything is but as we perceive it, everything is of infinite and therefore equal beauty. It is therefore impossible to do or create anything that is more or less beautiful than anything else, except to oneself or to a specific other person. There is beauty only in love, the appreciation of beauty.

As everything is equal in beauty, it is meaningless to seek beauty in anything but the perception of the beauty in all things in itself, which is love. To seek to love all things is the only thing we ever need to do, but unfortunately, since we are unable to love all things, we must often confine ourselves to the things we have already learned to love, lest, in trying to love the things that are still hurtful to us, we would destroy ourselves. Yet our task remains but to learn to love those things we cannot yet love, and to more fully love those things that we already do.

It is a question of balance, therefore, between loving what we find (yin), and finding what we love (yang), in order to find love, which is the only thing we should seek.

Ultimately, love itself is the only thing of value, that is to say, the only thing that gives value to our lives. Thus, everything is of infinite value, and yet nothing by itself is of any value whatsoever.

Destroy to Create

2009-09-10T10:52:52+02:00

Destruction is sometimes needed for construction. But if you destroy out of hate, destruction is your ultimate goal, and not a means to an end. If you destroy out of love, then creation becomes your ultimate goal.

Of your own Creation

2009-09-10T10:45:31+02:00

You've created this perception of good and bad and do not realize that this is but a perception of your own creation. The only thing that is good is the perception of good, and that perception doesn't even need to be in your experience; it can just as well be in your experience of your experience.

Indecisiveness and Depression

2009-10-27T10:14:56+01:00

Worries are often the result of indecision. We worry about things if we aren't sure what to do about them, or even what to think about them. In fact, worrying is basically about making decisions: the mind recognizes a problem and debates what to do about.

When we think of doing something but dither about what we should do, or if we should really do anything at all, this vacillation may resound in our minds for some time, and for some people longer than for others; at first, consciously; then, when our minds are distracted by other matters, this may go on on a subconscious level. When this happens, we may have the feeling that we have forgotten something we need to do. The feeling that something needs to change leads to unrest. We have a nagging feeling without knowing just why.

At this point, we may struggle, perhaps without being fully aware of it, to remember what it was we still needed to decide about, sometimes to such extent that it causes us to forget to enjoy. We know not what to think about, but we know that we should be thinking about something, a matter which still needed to be settled upon. Since we forgot what it was, we simply go on thinking about what we were thinking until our thoughts wander. The more frequently it occurs that we cannot decide on something, the further we get lost in our thoughts.

On the other hand, indecisiveness may also be linked to philosophical abilities, since people who are indecisive about what to do may also be unable to decide on what to think, allowing them to keep their mind open to possibilities.

Another phenomenon where indecisiveness can lead to anxiety is in an undesirable situation which may or may not be changed. The mind cannot relax and accept the situation before it knows that it will not change it, as it otherwise wishes to seek a way to change it. However, it may be difficult to change the situation, which may lead to indecision whether or not to change it. To make matters worse, to change the situation one may have to sacrifice something else, further making the decision harder. As long as this has not been decided on, the mind will remain in a state where it sees the given situation as something it wishes to change, and therefore it will become more frustrating. As long as the mind thinks of changing the situation, it cannot accept it. However, someone who is indecisive may also be indecisive about whether or not to even think of changing the situation or accept it.

In addition, indecisiveness is also likely to generally slow people down in everything they do, as they spend a large portion of their time deciding what to do, so that, in this way, indecision may significantly make their lives less fulfilling and more frustrating.

Many people may be faced with indecision now and then, but for some people, this may become so frequent that a chronic sense of uncertainty settles in their minds. If this problem becomes severe, these people may eventually develop depression. It has indeed been observed that in depressed people, the prefrontal cortex, the brain's decision center, is hypoactive, which is one of the most characteristic signs of depression. Perhaps indecision is not just a symptom but also a cause or contributing factor of depression, though it is certainly not the only one. Either how, it seems clear that people who are indecisive run a higher risk of developing depression at some point in their lives.

Detachment from Enlightenment

2009-09-05T18:01:29+02:00

To be mindful of every experience can uplift one to such state of bliss that, ironically, there is soon the danger that one becomes attached to it, which, once you are no longer in a state of mindfulness, causes negative emotions which prevent us from becoming mindful again. In order not to become attached to the state of being mindful of your experiences of every moment, try to see the transience of every moment, which, after all, lasts only for a moment before it is replaced with the next.

Do not regret when you have allowed an experience to pass you by without you having thankfully enjoyed it, for every experience lasts only an infinitely short time. It does not matter to have lost it, for in doing so, you have lost nearly nothing. In the awareness that every moment fades after an infinitely short time, you may better be able to detach from it.

Whether you were mindful or not at some time in the past does not change your chance of being mindful now, for if at a given moment you wish to be mindful merely for the experience of mindfulness at this moment, and not for its effect on long term, then you certainly will be at that given moment. You may no longer be so the next moment, but that does not matter, for if you do not, it is because you no longer wish to be mindful for that moment, and that, at most, you wish to be mindful merely for the long-term effect of it.

If you try to be mindful but fail, it is because you have forgotten why you want to be mindful. At this point, you no longer truly want to mindful to experience, but merely to be in a state you can call mindful.

Emotions Embedded in Sensations

2009-09-05T17:38:21+02:00

Emotions are, for a large part and perhaps entirely, experiences which are embedded within sensations, in the form of impressions. The sensations in which emotions are imbued may be real or exist only in imagination. Thus, to better become aware how you feel, try to attribute emotions to your sensations, including sight, sound, touch, smell (and to a lesser extent, perhaps taste). When you are aware of how you feel, to feel better, try to imagine that you fill every sensation with positive emotions.

The Danger of Exaggeration

2009-09-05T17:26:40+02:00

The exaggeration of a point of view will automatically give rise to a counteraction from its opponents, rather than suppressing them. It does not help at all to exaggerate in order to convince your opponents, contrariwise, it will give them an opportunity to further contradict your point of view.

Exaggeration will make you seem less plausible, so that your arguments are more susceptible to skepticism. Once the error of your exaggeration has been uncovered, you are no longer trusted in anything you say or do. This can be dangerous, because you may in fact represent a point of view that, except for its exaggeration, may in fact have a core of truth.

Do not try to argue against the opponents of your point of view, but instead try to argue with them. Be as objective as possible, so that you may invite your objectors to do the same. Rather than trying to show how much we are right and the other is wrong, let us seek for the truth together.

Be open to all points of view, and do not cling to your own. Not only will this help you to find more insight into truth yourself and not be blinded by attachment to your own opinion, but by following another's line of thinking, you may also better be able to falsify it, and so share your own insight into the truth with others.

A common example of how exaggeration has led to increased skepticism is global warming. By announcing the end of the world, many people, including scientists, have only brought about only more controversy about whether or not global warming is effectively happening. With all the prophets around to declare doomsday, many people eventually came to see climate change as a pseudoscience.

If you have a view which is extreme and seems exaggerated because of being controversial, then when propounding it, try to remember to state that it is a mere possibility, a hypothesis, so that others may be more open to it. After all, thought experiments, even when untrue, can always be interesting.

Counterbalance

2009-09-05T16:58:55+02:00

When you do or think something negative, it is not enough to resolve not to do so again. You must also counterbalance the destructive thought or deed with a constructive one.

Simultaneity and Fluctuation

2009-09-05T15:59:41+02:00

It is not so that balance means stability; for as there must be a balance between all things, so there must be a balance between stability and fluctuation. Things must be combined both through simultaneity and through fluctuation, so that these two things as well can be combined in balance, and also separated in balance, and combined also through their separation. Things must be combined not only in space, but also over time.

Think of climate, for instance. The earth must be balanced between hot and cold. Not only should its average temperature be balanced between these, but also should the oscillation between temperature be balanced, as in the seasons. Nature would be limited, were there no seasons. But nature would also be limited if the seasons were too extreme.

Extremism is not only out of balance in itself, but it will also cause even more imbalance through reverse extremism, which comes as a reaction to counterbalance it. You cannot achieve your goal through extremism, not only because it will only cause you to shoot right past your goal, but also because it will cause the opposite extreme to grow, and increase conflict between the two extremes. Only if both extremes are reconciled and combined harmoniously with one another can balance be restored. There is a tendency, called enantiodromia, of opposites to attract. If you remain sufficiently in the middle, then the two will flow into one another in harmony, rather than coming together in collision.

Repress or Resist

2009-09-05T15:06:21+02:00

First tell yourself how you feel, rather than denying it, and only then, say to yourself how you would like to feel, and try to feel thus. Many people try to do this the other way around, but in doing so only succeed in repressing their emotions.

Worries and Plans

2009-09-05T14:59:38+02:00

Sometimes, from your worries can grow plans. Worries are a sacrifice of the present which you make for the future. Be sure, then, that if you worry, you are doing so in such way that you are also planning change. Don't waste too much energy on negative (that is to say, destructive) emotions about how things currently are; instead, try to draw positive energy from positive emotions about how things could be. At all times, also be aware that times when you worry are times of transition, and while these may be hard, they are also the most beautiful passages in the story of your life. Knowing this, be patient.

Universal Analogy

2009-09-05T13:37:49+02:00

The love of man and woman is the same as that of all things hard and soft in the universe.

Ethics of the Self

2009-09-05T12:55:39+02:00

Everything we experience is no more than a connection with things that are already there in the universe. Therefore, ethical matters are more a concern of one's own connection with these things in the universe than those things themselves. Everything, being infinite, will always remain the same anyway. In an infinite universe, all things occur at an infinite frequency, and so their frequency always remains the same. Nothing we ever do can therefore change anything about the universe itself; it can only change the nature of our own connection with the universe.

Ethics, then, is not so much about not hurting others in the universe, but not hurting one's own connection with others in the universe. Others are part of our connection with the universe as is our ego, and so they are part of ourselves. Whoever hurts someone else will hurt themselves.

Updated: Save Killing, Kill only to Save

2009-09-05T12:48:45+02:00

A war should be fought only if genocide is already taking place, in order to stop the genocide, when all other approaches to stop it have failed, including assassination and coups. A nation who commits genocide must be seen as an offender of international law. When a war does have to take place, the entire world should take part of it against the offender. A war stops only when either party is either defeated or surrenders; both will be more likely to happen, or happen quicker, if either of the parties is vastly outnumbered, so that many lives may be spared.

The United Nations of the world should see any nation in the world as part of their own world, as though it were their own nation; an offense against any nation must be seen as an offense against the entire world. The military of the world should be seen as a political police; like the police, the military of different countries should cooperate. Once it has recognized a criminal, it must put an end to their crimes.

When I say that all nations of the entire world should partake in the war, I mean that it should do so as though it were their own, and as though the people who were dying in of the war were as the people own nations. That is to say, every nation should send all troops that are readily available as fast as possible to the attacked nation or ethnic group. Long before they have fully done so, the offender will be so swarmed that it will be sure to surrender. Moreover, if the entire world reacts in response to genocide, genocide is far less likely to happen.

Choice of Family

2009-09-03T15:32:49+02:00

Children should at all times had the right to choose freely to be received in a foster family, be it temporarily or permanently, for instance in the case of abuse or neglect. As soon as a mental illness (including alcoholism) has been diagnosed in either of the parents, the children of the parents should be informed of this right.

Influence of Time of Birth upon Personality

2009-09-03T01:35:35+02:00

Though most likely not in the modality of classical astrologies, it is factual that the month in which one is born is likely to have an influence upon one's personality, much like the time during pregnancy. When the child is still unborn, the environment can affect it through the mother once the brain is active, because of hormones received from the mother. After the child is born, however, the environment directly affects the child through its own experiences. It is quite logical that, since the brain is still not yet fully developed during the first few months after birth, its growth will still be affected by the environment. In fact, the brain is affected by the environment throughout life, because it keeps growing new connections with every experience.

However, it is mostly in childhood that the personality is formed. It makes sense that the earlier in one's life, the more one's experiences impact one's personality, because there is still so much empty space to be filled in. It is not to be wondered at, then, that people who were born through Cesarian section have been observed to be calmer than those born through the far more traumatic natural delivery.

My idea is that while the time of year also has an effect on the early formation of one's personality, it also depends on all environmental factors at the time of one's birth, including weather and the pervading mood in the family.

It has already been observed, for instance, that the chance of developing schizophrenia is higher if one was born during winter or early spring, with a ten percent difference between february and august. It is also known that schizophrenic symptoms are generally worse in winter than in summer. This former correlation, however, is also likely partly caused by the last three months of pregnancy, as the brain of the fetus activates at nearly six months after conception.

There is a possibility that, through the passage of observation from one generation to the next, correlations were observed between the month of one's birth and personality, although this is no excuse for proper scientific method. These may later have formed a core of truth in some astrologies, but since astrology is based mostly on the significance one would be inclined to attribute to zodiacal signs, most of it is still likely to be fantasy.

Instead, it would be interesting if, as an extension of earlier investigations which correlated schizophrenia with birthdays in winter or early spring, researchers would investigate further links between the month of one's birth and personality. The correlation already said above, for instance, could mean that people born in winter or spring are generally more fantastic or more nervous than other people. By that logic, people born in summer or early fall would generally be more practical and cheerful.

It would be interesting to see a scientific replacement for astrology, although the correlations actually found would likely be less dramatic than those affirmed by astrologies. Furthermore, the correlations would likely be less specific for each month, instead being spread out over many months.

Imagine how it must be like for a newborn to suddenly emerge from the womb and begin to experience its environment. Only months before, there had been nothing but a great blackness. You can remember absolutely no past; nothing whatsoever. There was nothing. There has never been anything. You are unable to form a single concrete thought; all you can do is to experience the world in its overwhelming intensity. Everything is new, alien, impossible. You are constantly learning. Every single sensation or movement is a new lesson to understand. Your mind is filling itself with qualia like a black hole. Life suddenly explodes from a narrow space in a mother's womb into an entire, infinite universe. In this time, how can it be otherwise than that the nature of our first experiences impacts our personality for the rest of our lives?

Universal Equality

2009-09-02T23:25:10+02:00

If there is or would be a God, then all things to God are of infinite and therefore equal value. With regards to its value, therefore, it does not matter what we do except to ourselves individually.

Love and Suffering

2009-11-10T19:19:00+01:00

Love, in its earliest form, still as a germ, usually inevitably comes with attachment, and so fear, and ultimately hatred for anything that threatens that which we are attached to, and these remain until our love has become perfected. Usually, it is only if our love grows steadily, so that it grows already being close to perfection, it does not cause attachment. Attachment arises when our love grows faster than we can deal with.

Perhaps we can so see the evil within us, in the form of fear and hate, at least in part, as a good sign. It means that we are growing, and that we are growing fast. That we hate means that we love, and that we love so much that we are prepared to make the sacrifice of suffering for it. When we make this sacrifice, we must bear it, however, and not impose it upon others; it is our own burden. Others did not choose to share in it.

It is, in fact, easy to get rid of all suffering, but only if one gives up one's love. Love, once found, however, is so strong that one rarely finds the force to dispose of it again, unless one has descended into extreme tendencies of self-destruction, such as drug addiction.

Life is as hard as you are willing to make it. Life will never be easy unless you make it so. Remember this when you are suffering. It is the cross you bear to love. You can always be freed of it if you give up that love, and stop caring about anything in unfeeling emptiness. To suffer, until you are perfected, is your own choice.

Suffering, it itself, is not necessary to grow. But nonetheless, that we are suffering means that we are growing. It means that we have not given up, and that we are trying. For failure is always also a sign of success.

See also:

Change and Sameness

Updated: Condensed Light

2009-08-26T21:04:38+02:00

Updated article: Condensed Light

"It may also be possible all energy has the same constituents as photons are themselves composed of, which would likewise always have the speed of light. What those may be, however, is highly speculative, as they would be beyond the level even of elementary particles. If all elementary particles have the same basic constituents, however, this would explain how elementary particles can bring others into being. Photons themselves can be converted into any kinds of other particles, for instance. Usually, when two particles interact (read collide) with one another with enough energy, their kinetic energy is converted into other particles. However, if two photons interact with one another with enough energy, they are entirely converted into other particles. This is basically the time reversal transformation of the combination of matter and antimatter particles, which yields photons.

When photons are converted into matter, its energy is transferred into these particles. Thus, it is obvious that the energy in the photons is of the same form of that of the particles, and therefore, has the same particles at some level. That all forms of energy can be converted into one another seems to indicate that all energy fundamentally has the same constituents. Otherwise they could interact, but no more.

All this is, however, mere guesswork."

Free

2009-08-24T22:55:19+02:00

It is only when one stops trying to resist one's sadness that one can be free.

Day and Night

2009-08-23T12:17:48+02:00

Do not be afraid to be content, even though you dream of more, but always keep dreaming even when you are content, and keep being content even when you dream of more; so that your thankfulness, and so your happiness, might help to make your dreams come true, and that your dreams might also help to make you happy.
Day and night must alternate within you; but so too, in some part they must be one. When night falls, keep the light of day within you, and when dawn comes, keep the dreams of night within you.

Silence Between the Notes

2009-08-20T10:23:33+02:00

Whenever you fail to be fully mindful in whatever you do, stop doing it for a few seconds to become mindful again.

Hydra

2009-08-19T19:25:34+02:00

Love your hate, lest in hating it you would let it grow. In so doing, however, remember that your hate is, nonetheless, something that is not meant to be, but do not attempt to undo it. Be objective, trying neither to kill it nor to make it grow, but merely observing and enjoying it in the current moment, as nothing more than a merely relative and transient experience.

Moreover, experience it in its context, neither focussing too much upon it nor too little; for hate is an enemy which will attack you in your back lest you are on your guard, but as the Hydra, it will also only grow stronger as you fight it. Instead, then, try to unify and reconcile it with your life, and your life with it. Let it be part of your life as long as it is there.

Genius and Idiocy

2009-08-08T20:41:31+02:00

There is less than one would be inclined to think that separates the intellectual from the idiot. The greatest genius arises not from intellect alone, but also from creativity and sensibility. The greatest idiocy arises from intellect without creativity or sensibility.

All Things are Equal in Value

2009-08-05T20:29:59+02:00

Since everything is perception and so everything is but as we perceive it, everything is of infinite and therefore equal value. It is therefore impossible to do or create anything that is more or less valuable than anything else, except to oneself or another certain person.

Dreams and Loneliness

2009-08-04T23:01:45+02:00

In dreams only you are alone. Only when you are alone are you dreaming. But when a dream is shared, it becomes reality.

Close Enough

2009-07-30T10:13:23+02:00

Messier registered hundreds of planetary nebula in order not to be distracted by them in his search for comets. Today, planetary nebula prove to be even more beautiful to us than any comet as yet observed.

Perhaps we can learn from this: anything can become beautiful, if only we look close enough.

The Seeds of Love

2009-07-28T22:53:27+02:00

Craving and fear can be converted into love through detachment. Do not therefore resist them, as they can precede love. Instead, allow them to grow into love.

Suffering and Resistance

2009-11-10T19:19:56+01:00

We resist suffering merely because suffering is per definition that which we resist, nothing more and nothing less. Suffering, then, is but resistance and otherwise nothing but an illusion. Pain itself is not an illusion, but if one will not resist it, one will not suffer from it. Do not resign yourself, but do not resist either.

The Purification of Emptiness

2009-07-28T22:24:37+02:00

It is in your emptiness that you can most purify your life. If emptiness comes over you, then, use it to do so.

Loss and Gain

2009-07-28T22:24:49+02:00

When losing something, people often try to represent what they lost as being of less worth than it used to be to them. This may lessen their sorrow for what they lost, but this is no good way of saying goodbye. Instead, remember of what worth it was to you, but also see the worth of its loss, and what that loss may have brought you instead. You will then find that it may have brought you more silence where before there had been disorder.

Places and Places

2009-07-28T22:14:39+02:00

Attention is as much a place in one's mind as one's location is a place in one's world. One must therefore remember to accept not only where one is in the world but also where one is in one's mind. Accept where your attention is as long as it is there where it is, as you should accept where your location is as long as you are there.

If your senses are focussed on sensations you experience as negative, learn to love them, and so too if your mind is focussed on emotions you experience as negative, accept them as well.

The Only Time

2009-07-28T22:07:24+02:00

After no time will time ever be aught but this moment; and after no time will this moment ever be again.

Perfection

2009-07-28T21:49:18+02:00

The only thing that you can perfect is your awareness of the perfection in and of the universe. To be fully aware of all perfection in the universe would, however, require infinite consciousness.

Experientially Creative, Creatively Experiential

2009-07-28T22:00:19+02:00

In absolutely everything you do, be, intensely, mindfully, wholeheartedly creative, even if what you are doing at a given moment is no more than enjoying, for even in the way one enjoys one can be thusly creative. Without really needing to achieve anything, let everything you do every moment be as beautiful as possible, as though it were a work of art — not only in your actions but also your experience. In this way, one may grow through every moment, and every moment will contribute to one's constant growth. In this way, one can both experience and improve at the same time, at all times.

Evolutionary Advantages of the Earth

2009-07-27T10:24:11+02:00

In considering the possibility of life on other planets, we must note that the earth has had far more advantages than just having seas and the right temperature:

1) The protosphere, the nebulous disk from which the solar system arose, formed of matter from a heavier star which contained a wide variety of heavier materials.

2) The Earth was formed of a mass which contained a wide variety of elements

3) The Earth was protected from the impact of heavier asteroids by the proximity of the gas giant Jupiter, the vacuum cleaner of the solar system
4) Meanwhile, smaller asteroids and comets, having less gravitational attraction to Jupiter, were let through into the innermost solar system, providing water, organic materials and minerals.
5) By an amazing stroke of fortune, our planet has a stable moon, which is highly exceptional for terrestrial planets. Usually, natural satellites of planets our size either collide with the planet or rapidly drift away from them. By causing oceanic tides, the moon brings many advantages to the Earth's biology and in particular to its evolution. Without it, it may have taken far longer for life to migrate onto coastal areas and later inland, and for all we know it might never have happened had some of the first sea animals not been swept away to the shore.
6) The Earth has a magnetosphere which repels cosmic radiation and solar mass ejections which would otherwise almost fully sterilize the planet.
7) The Earth has an ozone layer which offers a protection against UV rays. However, as ozone is relatively likely to form in an atmosphere rich in oxygen, this is linked to the probability of high atmospheric oxygen.
8) In addition to having water at all, the Earth has actual oceans,
9) The Earth has plate tectonics, which furthers biodiversification compartmentalizing the earth into many separate as well as non-separate areas, thereby allowing the biosphere to experiment with evolution in different environments; adding to the variety of the terrain will add to the variety of the life-forms inhabiting it.

Megastructures from Self-replicating spacecraft

2009-07-25T16:47:03+02:00

Self-replicating spacecraft could replicate until there were many enough to build even greater self-replicating spacecraft, which could then in turn replicate to build even greater spacecraft, so that through self-replicating spacecraft one could eventually create megastructures which could manipulate the solar system in any way theoretically possible. In this, these self-replicating spacecraft would be similar to self-replicating nanomachines, which could build even smaller self-replicating nanomachines and so on, so that nanomachines could eventually manipulate molecules in any theoretically possible way.

Self-Improvement and Self-Love

2009-07-28T22:00:41+02:00

Spirituality alone tends towards self-satisfaction yet also towards self-love, science alone tends towards self-criticism yet also self-improvement; thus, we need both so that we can both love ourselves as we are and improve ourselves. In fact, we need to love ourselves to better improve ourselves, and also improve ourselves to better love ourselves. Love gives us strength to improve, improvement gives us the strength to love; both should be possible without the other, but they can nonetheless increase each other.

We are once more faced with one of the many versions of balance between yin and yang, spirituality being yin and science yang. These terms are, however, open to interpretation: a spiritual attitude can be a mere sense of connectedness, without any actual theory behind it, while a scientific attitude can be a mere openness.

In Case of Emergency

2009-07-19T12:30:09+02:00

1) Experience (Input)

Be lovingly, curiously, intriguedly aware of your current experiences;

Be thankful for them, knowing that they might as well not be there, that they will not last, and that they are unique for every moment, and beautiful in that unicity;

Perceive all things as being novel and impossibly, paradoxically wonderful in the fact of their existence;

Perceive all things as though they were living beings, and lovingly interact with them, while forgiving them for any disharmony felt with it.

Take a walk, remembering to be fully anchored in one's experiences;

Say to yourself repeatedly "I live" whenever you find yourself slipping into unconsciousness, and set your determination to stay firmly in your experience;

Meditate, focussing on absolutely everything you experience, and let the experiences come to you rather than seeking out the experience;

Repudiate judgmental thoughts.

2) Imagination (Processing)

Perceive the world as being a dream, and as such part of oneself over which one has full control;

Trust that everything that happens has a meaning and reason, and perceive them as being part of a design;

Feel the infinite love of the universe;

Ask for whatever you want, trust you will get it in time, and wait for it, as on a parcel;

Feel a connection with the earth (yang) which keeps you firm, and a connection with the sky (yin) which keeps you open-minded;

Imagine whatever you dream of, or whatever would make you feel happy, as vividly as possible.

Whenever you catch yourself in an unpleasant daydream, mend whatever has happened in the daydream, and make it become as positive as possible.

3) Activity (Output)

Do whatever you feel like doing, without thinking about it whatsoever;

Always keep busy with at least one thing (even if it's just experiencing in some way, as long as you commit yourself to doing so wholeheartedly);

Take a walk or engage in other kinds of exercise, remembering to remain aware of doing so every moment;

Review your past achievements, and compare them as a proof of your progress so as to gain confidence and motivation;

After having accomplished something, spend some time contemplating it, either to figure out what you need to work on, or to reinforce your self-esteem;

Experiment and playfully try new things.

Positive Compromises

2009-07-19T00:53:43+02:00

A good compromise does not lessen the advantage of either side but finds a way of fully retaining the advantage of both, or even improving both: in other words, a good compromise is one that achieves a Nash equilibrium. With this, I refer not only to a compromise between two or more parties, but also between two apparently opposing motivations in a person or other entity.

In all things we do, then, we should not act from a single motivation but take all our motivations into account at the same time, in such way that each benefits the other and so all motivations become connected. We must seek to thus connect all things thus in balance.

(See the entry below for an example, in that case, a compromise between ambition on the one hand and contentment on the other.)

Aspirations and Aspirins

2009-07-19T01:13:55+02:00

If you deeply aspire to achieve something, then by all means do all that is in your ability to achieve it, but remind yourself that you can do no more than just that. When you are already doing your best, you should not try to push yourself further, for it will not work, on the contrary, it will then only demotivate you. When you have reached the limits of your abilities, accept them as long as they are there, until you manage to push them further.
When you are already working hard to achieve your dreams, it is time to once more avert your focus from those dreams and turn it back on your experience. In this way, not only will it become more pleasant to work to achieve them, but you will also become better at it because you do so with more focus.
In this way, one can have very high goals without being pained by them. Whatever efforts you exert to achieve your goals, you must always do so step by step, departing from where you are to then arrive as close as you can get to your goal; if you have made up your mind what your goal is, it is no use of thinking about that goal when you are already doing everything to move closer towards it; instead, focus on how you move closer towards it and that alone. Devote yourself to what you do now, not to thinking of what you cannot do yet.

In the meantime, as you work to achieve your goals, enjoy what you have achieved so far and what you are achieving as you work. In this way, a compromise can be made between the need of achievement and a need of happiness without compromising either of both, and indeed actually improving both; similarly, such there are for all things.

Daydreams and Emotions

2009-07-18T16:44:34+02:00

One of the functions of our dreams, including daydreams, is to represent a model of reality; therefore, we should try to become aware of our dreams and daydreams, and try to achieve the best possible outcome in them. In this way, we will not only be more ready when the situation in question comes in reality, but we will also harmonize our feelings: if something negative happens in our daydreams, it will affect our feelings negatively, while if something positive happens in our daydreams, it will effect them positively. Therefore, in our dreams we should do that which feels best as well as we should in reality. If something negative happens in your daydreams, set it right.