tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30571759238858902172024-03-13T23:25:56.611-07:00 New Physicist ϕIdiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-5857057196599158502018-12-22T09:11:00.000-08:002018-12-22T09:11:45.628-08:00A defence of diversity in science<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-amSifbV6-_s/XB5vB4P2gfI/AAAAAAAABXU/rDCC4VtEF_INTQxB6zPeveR-kbXfFzaxgCLcBGAs/s1600/Sergei_Vinogradov_-_Igraet_._1914.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="638" data-original-width="474" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-amSifbV6-_s/XB5vB4P2gfI/AAAAAAAABXU/rDCC4VtEF_INTQxB6zPeveR-kbXfFzaxgCLcBGAs/s320/Sergei_Vinogradov_-_Igraet_._1914.jpg" width="237" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
A particular pianist is remembered for their unique style of play, repertoire of musical pieces, and their distinctive command of the piano. In this sense we are all defined by our own style, methods, and toolkit. As scientists this may not seem so obvious, as we like to think we all employ the same scientific method and unlike a pianist, who may play Chopin with melancholy or rapture, we apply it in more or less the same bog-standard way. This cannot be further from the truth. Some scientists take a more broad approach: focusing on unifying large bodies of knowledge; a few hop between relatively small unrelated problems and fields; many work in a single field for most of their lives. Even in the latter category there are multitudes of scientific styles, methods, and tools. Laser tinkerers, gene creatives, equation eccentrics, software superheroes, and cell culture crews are but a swab of the various kinds of scientists out there. My point is that science can be, and is, done in many different ways.<br />
<br />
We judge a pianists work by some arbitrary criteria that defines 'good' music (I don't have a clue what criteria this is). However, in science the threshold criteria for a work to be considered 'good' is anything but arbitrary. We call a theorists work 'good' if it makes predictions that agree with experiment, and those experiments are judged on whether they produce results that are reproducible by other independent experiments. It doesn't matter how you approach science, whether you use scribbles on paper or huge labs full of expensive microscopes, if it doesn't pass these criteria it's not only bad, it's useless.<br />
<br />
I have deliberately left out any descriptions of the people behind the piano or doing the science. I did this because they are utterly irrelevant to the criteria of what constitutes good or bad work in a discipline. It does not matter if a black woman from, say, South London makes public a theory for some phenomenon by making use of novel computer simulation techniques, or whether a white man from, say, Princeton makes public an alternative theory using only one side of A4 with a few equations on it. Both works, to be classed as useful and 'good' science, will be judged by the same criteria.<br />
<br />
Who does it ultimately doesn't matter. However, the fact that two different scientists from differing backgrounds, working on the same problem can only benefit progress on its solution. To make a crude analogy: an egg hunt with a handful of people who only know how to look in certain places with the same tools won't be that profitable, but add more people who look in different places with different tools and your egg hunt will be much more successful. <br />
<br />
Science is like this egg hunt. Increasing the diversity of scientists will only benefit science. However, in today's world science is not as diverse as one would like to think. Many institutions, departments, and labs are dominated by white men from similar backgrounds. Not that there is anything wrong with white men (from any background) but the lack of diversity is limiting the progress science could be making. Women and people of color are particularly absent in all echelons of science. There are certain institutional obstacles and barriers that discourage alternative students, post-docs, and early career researchers who want to do 'good' science from staying in science.<br />
<br />
It is for the sake of 'good' science, finding those wondrous eggs brimming with natures secrets, that we <b><u>must </u></b>ensure those people from all walks of life, of all colors, and of all genders are met with open arms. This, however, is not the view held by everyone. There are those who claim that 'good' science can only be achieved by those who are superior in the various tasks that gets 'good' science done. They purport that only a certain kind of human is superior in doing science. Women and blacks, they say, are biologically disadvantaged in comparison to the white man in this respect and giving them equal opportunities will only slow down progress (basically they will be in the way).<br />
<br />
There is not one credible shred of evidence that a person of a particular gender, color, and ethnicity is superior in any of the faculties that a 'good' scientist has. Even if it were true (it isn't) that white men are just that much sharper and better at certain tasks than everyone else, it still does not justify excluding or discriminating other people from doing science. Going back to our egg hunt analogy: if a group of white men with a certain background could compute various possible hiding spots and collect eggs much faster than everyone else, they would no doubt be beaten by a competing group containing those white men and people having different upbringing, genders, and ethnicity. This is because a group consisting of people from different backgrounds with various ways of thinking can conjecture about much more hiding spots and come up with more methods of how to get to them.<br />
<br />
One could argue that since all types of human are innately capable of doing the tasks that lead to 'good' science, the only thing that makes people diverse are their various unique upbringings, experiences, and languages i.e. their background. In the egg hunt, if we were to have a group of white men each having a specific background that matches the diverse (different ethnicity and gender) group, then by my very own argument they should perform the same. This would be true of course, but as we know in real life it is highly unlikely that we would find a group of white men that have the same, upon accumulation, upbringing and experiences as a multi-ethnic and -gendered group.<br />
<br />
Even if people of different ethnicity and gender all have the capability to perform scientific skills at the same level, they might still have slight phenotypical differences that would not be detected by some contrived test of these skills. Since work at the edge of science requires new thinking, normally in highly specialized and established fields, that breaks away from that of the past, any slight difference in thinking will confer an advantage. It therefore seems reasonable that a more diverse group of scientists is more likely to generate, at a faster pace, work that counts as 'good' science compared to that of a uniform group, with everything else being equal.<br />
<br />
This argument is not restricted to humans, it just so happens that the species that can and want to do 'good' science are similar to us. If any other species or forms of life want to do 'good' science and are able to communicate with us, we will only be the better for it. Even a machine, the product of humans, may at some point in the future be able to do 'good' science in ways that we cannot as yet fathom. We should allow them to join in on our science too.<br />
<br />
Anyone and anything that can play the piano, hunt for eggs, or do science should be encouraged by us to do so. Our music, bellies, and science will be forever richer for it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-81472555378453790962016-09-20T16:15:00.004-07:002016-09-20T16:31:43.701-07:00A reply to Bloomfield: Towards a completely empirical foundation for veganism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Murray_Grey_cows_and_calves.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Murray_Grey_cows_and_calves.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Josef Bloomfield's essay [1] is a well written exposition of why one doesn't have a sound case to logically intertwine 'spiritualism', say asserting the existence of metaphysical souls of animals e.g., with veganism: the standpoint which has at its core the principle that manipulating animals for our sole benefit is inherently wrong. I want to almost push his arguments to their proper intended logical conclusion, which he doesn't quite get round to since the piece lacks the clear-cut empiricism and rationalism found only in the sciences.<br />
<br />
One point that I would like to make is that whilst reading the piece which continually states how veganism cannot be conflated with spirituality, I was almost dumbfounded to find this in the conclusive paragraph:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "roboto" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><i>To conclude, if spirituality and veganism exist in a symbiotic relationship, this can only be a good thing. If a spiritual or religious person feels motivated by their spiritual beliefs to become vegan, we should embrace them. - Josef Bloomfield</i></span></blockquote>
which, to me, contradicts the whole previous build up. Obviously this probably wasn't intentional, but it is slightly confusing since the penultimate paragraph reads:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "roboto" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><i>This approach has to be secular. Secular abolitionist vegan moral philosophy does not require one to reject any other beliefs, other than that animals are ours to use. The audience will not react against secular justice in the way they would against spiritual. A spiritual argument can quickly descend into religious debate, which is an area of debate that would be best to avoid. - Josef Bloomfield</i></span></blockquote>
So which way is it? I believe the apparent contradiction and confusion arises intrinsically from the way many vegans justify their adherence to the principle(s) of veganism.<br />
<br />
Jo asserts that it is so easy and so blindingly obvious that the use of animals for food and other products is 'morally wrong';<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "roboto" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><i>It doesn’t take much coherent thought to realise that the use of animals is morally wrong. - Josef Bloomfield</i></span></blockquote>
but this is a logical fallacy. He is justifying the statement: 'the use of animals is morally wrong' because.. well... isn't it obvious!? It is similar to justifying that the objects we see are a superposition of quantum states in the classical limit because... well.. isn't it so darn obvious!?<br />
<br />
He doesn't provide a logical or scientific justification for the main premise of veganism. This is very dangerous, it means that any vegan who thinks the same way cannot adequately defend the core of their beliefs. It is also harder to convert non-vegans who may be logically inclined (quite a lot of people) because they may just think that veganism is based on a lifestyle choice which won't necessarily, at face value, improve their lives.<br />
<br />
One could argue that, on some animal inclusive happiness principle, it is morally justified. Since reducing the animals un-happiness and pain equates to a greater score of total happiness for all animal kind. The happiness principle has its shortcomings... what counts as happiness? Different animals, including us, experience mental states of pain and pleasure differently so how can we derive an averaged happiness measure? Also all seemingly sophisticated moral philosophies around justifying veganism are actually just sugar coated expressions of empathy.<br />
<br />
Humans (some more so than others) are programmed genetically to experience empathy when our young are in pain, so that we take better care of them so that our genes are more likely to live on. This empathy facility affects us when animals are in pain too, this is because there has been no selection pressure to distinguish specific human pain from animals... any pain like behaviour is sufficient to induce empathy. So, my argument continues, moral stances of veganism reduce to this empathy facility. Many vegans are vegan because they feel empathy when they are shown terrible (and believe me they are terrible) videos of slaughtering, chicks being blended etc.<br />
<br />
However this is not a valid logical justification to accept a moral ideology. As heart warming as it is to stand alongside those who base their moral actions on empathy, it is primitive and contradictory to our modern secular system. It is primitive because in this time we understand that to live a in a free, healthy and progressive society we must advocate science, not because it feels right, but because it works. Our emotions are prone to error and we have much more refined and rigorous tools of reasoning at our feet to use.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Towards a valid foundation</b></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "roboto" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><i>I would openly claim that veganism is irrational because it is spiritual, and therefore I would never be vegan. - Josef Bloomfield</i></span></blockquote>
<br />
Replace 'spiritual' with 'emotional' and, from the preceding arguments, you can see how some people would still reject veganism because they may see that at the heart of all the moral 'stuff' is irrational emotion. Before anyone shouts 'how can emotion be irrational?' you must remember that anything rational can either be a system of logical axioms (maths) or based on experimental induction. Emotion by its very nature precedes sophisticated language and is built up from instincts ingrained within our brains from billions of years of natural selection.<br />
<br />
So where are we now? We need to place veganism on a foundation where, like Josef rightly says, it appeals to the rational faculty within us. Since veganism involves the real world, the only area that can help us is the realm of science. We must base veganism on facts.<br />
<br />
What will change if we base veganism on facts and what type of facts anyhow?<br />
<br />
Well there is vast evidence pointing towards the hypothesis that eating meat will greatly increase your risks for chronic diseases which of course include the cardiovascular form [2]. It has been shown that dietary choices account for 30% of factors leading to cancer in Western societies, a study concluded that vegan diets lowered the risk of getting cancer by a significant amount [2 - cancer]. Veganism is a form of food restriction, you are avoiding meat cuisines, which isn't all so bad since any form of food restriction (not leading to nutritional deficiency) and increase in antioxidants from increased veg intake actually increases health [2 - vegetarian].<br />
<br />
<br />
Grazing animals consumes huge amounts of food and land. There are many future problems which could affect you, your children... but mainly YOU in the future. Global warming is a prevailing issue which is serious and the meat industry plays a bigger role than you would have thought in ruining this planet. There will come a time when we have to invest in technologies which remove carbon from the atmosphere, this will be when you are still alive. The countries you live in will have to pay for this, this means you will via tax. So by reducing your meat consumption you will inevitably save money in the future and preserve that fresh(ish) air you love to breathe in when you wake up. By freeing up land used by animals after there population dwindles due to humans not forcing increased rates of birth, this land can be used for green urban areas which will help the growing population find living space but still make the world greener. Plus less methane being produced!!! For articles and papers for veganism and the environment see [3].<br />
<br />
It is facts like these and growing evidence that a plant based diet will help you live a healthier, happier life, internally and externally in terms of the environment you live in. So since denying scientific fact is a sign of insanity, which not many people are(?), and actually realising that by accepting these facts and adapting to them, via veganism or even just reduced meat consumption for starters, you will help yourself. This is pretty much the empirical foundation for modern veganism, or what it should be.<br />
<br />
It works because the facts align with our genetic disposition to survive, to procreate and live healthy lives but also due to the pressures of becoming successful in modern day living. To become successful in any field of note requires alertness, clear thinking and energy... all this emulates from a properly functioning brain and body. Plus having a scientific mindset, which respects facts when they are properly established, will enable you to adapt quickly to the ever complex realm of technology, medicine and society.<br />
<br />
So now we see that veganism is not based on spirituality or emotional empathy (or moral philosophy you say?) but it is based on impartial fact. Facts do not require belief, they will remain a fact even if people do not take to it.. but those who deny will be at a disadvantage for it. People who accept facts and adapt to them will most likely thrive and become successful... with the propensity to do so happens to be installed in our genes and within Western culture.<br />
<br />
So will you dine with the carnivores or take your first steps to a healthier, greener and scientifically literate you?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[1] http://www.ecorazzi.com/2016/09/20/spirituality-and-veganism-may-co-exist-but-cannot-be-conflated/<br />
[2] Science for plant based diets:<br />
<br />
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/8/1777.short - diabetes<br />
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929 - cancer<br />
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/19166134 - vegetarianism- food restriction<br />
<br />
[3]Science for plant based diets and the environment:<br />
<br />
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1699S.short<br />
<br />
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/global-warming/ - PETA<br />
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-92228978398492489782016-06-27T18:45:00.000-07:002016-06-27T19:09:21.929-07:00 Could your genes make you racist ? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DH4tJVWxtMA/V3HBE-dvX-I/AAAAAAAAA4M/jAjiJoI7sDMUb0ov801ssD4GzLeqX2ZCQCLcB/s1600/polish.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="189" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DH4tJVWxtMA/V3HBE-dvX-I/AAAAAAAAA4M/jAjiJoI7sDMUb0ov801ssD4GzLeqX2ZCQCLcB/s320/polish.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>A frightening awakening</b></div>
<br />
The shocking result of the EU referendum has left remainers weeping in their pillows, the pound falling down the stairs and the xenophobic standing tall and proud. Politics has been truly shaken at its heart with the prime minister resigning and economic emotions flying high with no where to land.<br />
<br />
One side effect of the success of the leave campaign has seen an emphatic spread of 'hate crime' and xenophobic outbreaks towards the Muslim, Polish and foreign community. I can only assume those who hold such dire and inhuman views believe that because a slight majority voted for leave it somehow justifies their actions towards benevolent, tax paying and culturally diverse citizens.<br />
<br />
Racist graffiti was observed on the front entrance of the Polish Social and Cultural Association (POSK) in Hammersmith which is a direct act of hate crime.<br />
<br />
This recent spout of such acts has been encouraged by Brexit but the hate and despise of immigrants and people of differing culture and ethnicity has been bubbling in many Brits minds for years. This is merely an opportune moment to strike. The leave campaign, whilst not explicitly promoting racism, has re-triggered the emotions and motives of many racist groups and in this sense it has been an absolute devastation in terms of dividing Britain.<br />
<br />
Polish people have been migrating to the UK since world war II and Polish is the third most common language spoken here in Britain. I went to school with many Polish children and they have integrated within many communities very well, their stores and food becoming ever more popular with typical 'British' people.<br />
<br />
The classic thing to say is that many working class people believe their future labour is being snatched away by immigrants and the like, they assert that immigrants should be put second place to them on the job market even if they are more hard working and cheaper labour. However many racist people do not just hate one single community of people, say just Polish or Muslim, but any community which differs to theirs. It seems to extend beyond jobs, fear of terrorism or religion but towards an innate hatred to that which is different to them.<br />
<br />
Is there something... biological going on here? <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Gene hath you by thy neck</b></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pdbxmq43NgI/V3HGlfIBe0I/AAAAAAAAA4c/Nm1Iyy3wnKoN0pBQ4HNkKNHLBIWOZukGQCLcB/s1600/White-Pride-Supremacist-R-0021.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pdbxmq43NgI/V3HGlfIBe0I/AAAAAAAAA4c/Nm1Iyy3wnKoN0pBQ4HNkKNHLBIWOZukGQCLcB/s320/White-Pride-Supremacist-R-0021.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Genes provide the instructions for proteins which dictate how your body develops and how it functions. They are the main stars in the show known as evolution and we are merely the vehicles, carrying them on generation after generation.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now anything your genes instruct (to produce your phenotype) has been selected over great expanses of time, so the behaviours and biological make up of humans must serve a purpose to help propel genes into further generations. We can ask whether there would be any obvious advantages to having a gene, or collection thereof, which encourages a human to stick with other humans who look like it and who come from the same territory. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If someone has the same skin tone as you and was born in the same place as you it is more than likely that they share more genes with you than say, a dark outsider. This means if you were to protect those who are physically more like you etc. from competing outsiders then similar genes will be more likely to be passed on to the next generation. This makes quite a lot of sense in terms of selfish genes. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Potentially the selection mechanism for this wouldn't have to be extremely strong, maybe it was enough only to have genes which share resources with similar humans and protect them from danger in particular... it doesn't necessarily have to encourage the hunting of different humans.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Maybe the wide spreading of xenophobia and racism around the world is based upon a common inherited 'racist' gene. Obviously not everyone has this potential gene expressed in them as we see tolerant and multicultural societies existing in our modern world... but maybe because this gene was suppressed by other genetic factors? The environment? Or modern ideologies overriding genetic dispositions?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We can surely question the selective advantage of such a gene, if it were to exist. I proposed early that it may be advantageous for humans to protect those who are physically similar to them, in case they share the same genes. This would, in theory, increase the copies of that gene in the next generation. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If we consider a small community who only breeds with themselves, under the influence of this said gene, then they will eventually become inbred and increase homozygotsity within cells (duplicate alleles of the gene present). There have been numerous reports of birth defects, learning difficulties and weakened defences of the inbred. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b51BzPrpqS0/V3HNiAcU9JI/AAAAAAAAA4s/1xbYkAkl4gk4M_EFThjRvoVDpEgWjP-aQCLcB/s1600/inbred.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b51BzPrpqS0/V3HNiAcU9JI/AAAAAAAAA4s/1xbYkAkl4gk4M_EFThjRvoVDpEgWjP-aQCLcB/s1600/inbred.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
These defects would surely put the human at a disadvantage in terms of producing offspring, whether it struggles to survive in order to mate or simply it is not sexually attractive, hence those genes will become less frequent within the gene pool.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There is growing evidence that intermixing i.e. interracial breeding which produces heterozygotsity within the cell increases parasite, disease and other harmful disorder resistance (Professor Bill Amos - Cambridge) also a trait which produces more symmetrical facial structures occurs more in mixed raced adults (Dr Mark Shriver - Penn State). In fact, many of us find humans of the opposite or same sex attractive solely because they are different... there seems to be a genetic advantage in this view too.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So there could potentially be a gene which protects those similar to oneself however the selective advantages are not convincing and it cannot explain how waves of racist people arise in modern societies, it surely must be something cultural not entirely, if at all, based on genes. Genes can encourage aggression, intelligence and many other things but something like xenophobia and nationalism is surely a cultural phenomenon and we must therefore bring in the right technical Cavalry. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What do you meme it's me? </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Drawing analogies with the gene, the meme is the cultural unit in which a new form of evolution acts upon. Memes can be considered to be ideas, literal internet memes, snippets of music, art, isms and fashion accessories. Anything that can be imitated and copied by other humans acts as a meme. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
To illustrate the concept quickly just imagine 4 people on the tube, one starts humming a coldplay song, the other hums too but messes up a few times and the others copy him and so forth. The small errors in imitation lead to mutations of that meme. This means memes get passed on (like genes), have variation (like genes) and instruct (like genes) .... all this necessitates a selection process.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now back to racism. Think of our modern and complex culture as a huge ensemble of memes living in subsystems called meme-pools which consist of memes competing with each other to be copied from human brain to brain. Now maybe it is possible that ideas based on xenophobia, while seemingly created by radical politicians from history etc. , have in fact evolved (in a meme-like fashion) so as to manipulate human brains to copy it.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The idea instructing its brain to be hostile of foreign ideas and values in such a way as to protect itself and fellow cooperating memes such as fundamentalist religion, right wing politics, fascism and nationalism. The idea manipulates the human into sharing it for its own survival without seemingly benefiting those who believe it.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This would mean racism is not innate but acquired through different forms of imitation and it is spread culturally. Memes arising from tolerance, reason and inclusion directly pose a competitive threat these xenophobic memes and hence a clash occurs (we are obviously in the midst of such a clash now). </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">Thinking in terms of memes and culture this way is very different to how we normally think of things, it could offer a unique and potentially scientifically interesting perspective into how cultural trends and political movements work. Also it could offer an explanation to how many people acquire ideas and how ideas seem to take control of them, making them do acts which do not directly benefit them economically or in terms of passing their genes on.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">It could be a mixture of genetic dispositions and memes taking advantage of these, two distinct replicators manipulating humans for their own endeavour. Only future advancements in understanding many-human-systems, genetics and even memetics will lead to more specific and clear answers to these interesting questions.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">All I can say is this... multiculturalism and the diversification of ethnicity and language brings great benefits to societies in terms of advancement in knowledge, peace and genetic prosperity. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">LOVE ALL DESPITE THEIR DIFFERENCES!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UvqKTHBFDc4/V3HWVRc5eRI/AAAAAAAAA48/0lZ38AatDBUsc_Ao3UZ7cKS5V_JjyYB_wCLcB/s1600/painted-heart--symbol-of-love-michal-boubin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UvqKTHBFDc4/V3HWVRc5eRI/AAAAAAAAA48/0lZ38AatDBUsc_Ao3UZ7cKS5V_JjyYB_wCLcB/s400/painted-heart--symbol-of-love-michal-boubin.jpg" width="342" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-21386705329897421912016-01-25T15:40:00.000-08:002016-01-25T15:40:43.859-08:00The Protein Folding Problem<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Protein_folding.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Protein_folding.png" style="-webkit-user-select: none;" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What is a protein?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>Most people are familiar with the word protein because quite a lot of food has it and protein, as we are told, is good for muscular recovery. But proteins are much more than that. Without them our body couldn't function at all, they are the diverse workers which reside in our cells and allow our food to be digested properly, our brain to function to its full potential and to avoid our muscles wasting away.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Proteins are polymers, meaning they are strings of repeating subunits called monomers. Monomers are the basic units of proteins and consist of a class of 21 amino acids:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Amino_Acids.svg/624px-Amino_Acids.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Table of Amino Acids." border="0" height="640" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Amino_Acids.svg/624px-Amino_Acids.svg.png" width="516" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
These different amino acids bond together via N = H or C = O hydrogen bonding to form the lengthy protein chains. This bonding is due to a chemical reaction. As you can see, there are many amino acids so the natural question to ask is: does the ordering of amino acids matter ? The answer to that question is a huge yes! It matters because different amino acid sequences lead to different folded states of the protein polymer chain. These different folded states result in the protein doing a different job. If proteins folded the same way irrespective of their amino acid sequencing life as we know it could not have evolved all those billions of years ago. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It is compelling to note that DNA, the helix molecule which contains the important genetic code, has a structure which does NOT depend on the sequence of the bases inside the helix. This fact ensures the helix molecule can be used as an efficient information storage medium. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>So what's the problem?</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So we have gathered that proteins are important and their folded structure depends on the sequence of the amino acids along the chain. The problem here is what causes the protein, which is initially a floating spaghetti like structure in water, to fold? Most useful proteins in biological organisms contain very long chains of amino acids and have a huge amount of possible states that they could be in. Theoretically it would take the protein to make trial and error movements, testing each possible state, before finding the right 'native' state which it needs to be in to do its job.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This would require huge expanses of time, obviously evolution would have sieved this out in the very early stages of life.... and in a sense it did. It is experimentally known that proteins fold on a time scale of milliseconds to seconds, which presents a paradox... how does the protein get into the 'native state' without testing all or most of the possible states. This is known as Levinthal's paradox.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It is assumed (yes only assumed) in the general statistical physics and chemical community that what helps proteins fold so quickly is thermodynamics. In particular the driving force for protein folding is entropy, a measure of disorder, and hence a minimization of a quantity known as the Gibbs free energy. The protein chain starts out as an ordered linear string and due to most of the bases being hydrophobic (repelling water) the water around it forms ice like cages which forces the protein into a more compact shape. This most compact and stable of these shapes is called the 'native state' and it is the state which has the lowest Gibbs free energy. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
However all is not simple. There is not just one simple minimum for proteins. The minima of the Gibbs free energy function form a rough landscape full of different wells of differing depth. As the protein is also undergoing brownian fluctuations but also being forced into compact globules by the hydrophobic bases it travels through this energy landscape. Sometimes its 'shape' gets stuck due to it being in a temporary minimmum well but this may not be the most stable and the shape is relaxed slightly until being forced into another compact shape determined by yet another minimum well.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In reality the forces causing the protein to fold have to interact on a atomistic level, the atoms of the water solution interact with the atoms of the bases of the protein. To simulate these atomistic collisions is an extremely computational problem, which requires taking into account the position of many many particles and computing huge amounts of tiny interactions. These simulations are called molecular dynamics and some ingenious approximations have been made but to simulate a whole protein fold solely based on molecular dynamics is.. quite simply... near impossible currently.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So there are many problems...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ol>
<li>How can we prove analytically that proteins really do fold because they want to minimize their Gibbs free energy?</li>
<li>How much computer power does it take to fully simulate, at an atomic level, the protein during folding?</li>
<li>Can we fully replicate the stability of the folded protein in real time?</li>
<li>Can we form any program which... given the sequence of amino acids could determine an immediate folded state?</li>
</ol>
<div>
These are some of the pressing questions in the field of theoretical and computational protein folding. Is there another computationally inexpensive way to do this?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Taking a step back, then compute the acceptance probability</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One way which is reviving the field is to not focus on the computationally heavy molecular dynamics.. but to attack the density of states directly. Since it is okay to assume the native state is at a minimum of some Gibbsian like energy function, we can simply sample the density of states and 'roam' the free energy landscape until we hit the deepest minimum.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This can be done using specialized Monte Carlo techniques e.g. umbrella sampling and Wang Landau algorithms. These techniques start from a partition function (which counts all possible states of a system) and begins to sample the density of states by making trial changes to the system i.e. moving a part of the protein to another point and seeing if it is energetically favorable according to some acceptance criterion. If you are interested in Monte Carlo algorithms I recommend reading the original paper by Metropolis, Rosentbluth and Teller on the Metropolis algorithm.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the field today there are improvements to Monte Carlo algorithms which allow bigger systems to be simulated and a better sampling of the free energy landscape. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
All in all it is a very exciting area of research one which has huge biological significance and could impact our medical world. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-65032360467186298762015-08-14T08:50:00.000-07:002015-08-14T08:55:59.377-07:00A Defence of Offence: Why We Need To Offend <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LILdVHXF6VQ/Vc4PhgNAKzI/AAAAAAAAA10/1ihsl3E-NBQ/s1600/freee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LILdVHXF6VQ/Vc4PhgNAKzI/AAAAAAAAA10/1ihsl3E-NBQ/s320/freee.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What do we mean by offensive remarks and gestures ?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We live in an extremely interconnected society where we can communicate with a large amount of people, some we have not even met, from varying cultures and places. Our culture is a wondrous array of different idealisms, trends, fads and belief systems with its diversity being shown in people around the world.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
With this diversity of ideas and belief systems comes an inevitability, due to ideas contradictory to one another or senses of egoistic superiority, which is disagreement. This happens everyday on the internet where anonymity aids the ferocity of arguments between theists and atheists, supporters of different football teams, groupies of competing boy bands ad infinitum. It also happens in person between members of family, where the traditional views of parents conflict with the liberal aspects of their young or between friends and even strangers. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As we are humans and have evolved the capacity to feel, for better or worse, during these spouts of disagreement a lot of people react negatively to their ideas being challenged or mocked. This negative reaction is also shown when people are themselves slated with nothing to do with the ideas they think to be true. These reactions vary in intensity and some even use violence to air how 'offended' they feel. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A mundane example could be that you meet a tourist from a different part of the world who visits your city and upon meeting you describe how great your city is and then he describes how great his city is also. Then you both realise that your own city is better and start to bicker on who lives in a better place, the tourist feels offended and leaves angrily. This is basically the 'patriotic offender' who believes his birthplace is the best solely because he was born there by chance and slates every other country or territory. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A more pressing and extreme example is when the Western media mocks the prophet Muhammad of the Muslim faith or burns the Q'ran which evokes extreme reactions from the Muslim community because they feel offended that their religious faith and articles are being mocked or publicly disagreed with. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So offensive acts explicitly challenge or contradict another idea which causes negative emotional reactions from their believers, it also includes ad hominem (insulting each other on personal traits) attacks also. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Therefore we can say being offended equates to being in a negative emotional state where you feel your own traits and beliefs are being negatively portrayed. The discussion then revolves around whether a persons right to avoid this emotional state weighs more than having the right to challenge other peoples beliefs and traits. We shall come to see that people can avoid being offended and still be challenged at the same time.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>An argument against offence based on Bentham's happiness principle</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/files/2013/05/Sci-Am-Benthams-Happiness-Bucket.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/files/2013/05/Sci-Am-Benthams-Happiness-Bucket.jpg" height="250" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One simple argument against the right for people to offend and protecting the right to not be offended comes from the greatest happiness principle. This principle states that in a society the general happiness of its citizens should be its main priority.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The argument goes like this: Being offended is a negative emotional state in which X is not happy, the offender Y gains a small amount of happiness for offending X. It is shown that in general the magnitude of happiness Y gets is smaller than the loss of happiness of any X. So therefore there is a net loss of happiness every time someone gets offended, so the government which looks to put legislation in place to protect its citizens and provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people should make offensive acts illegal. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This is the first argument I thought of against people offending others and it is literally bursting with erroneous assumptions, impracticalities and just shoddy thinking. Firstly, if we play along with Bentham's principle for a moment, we assume that over time restraining offence will lead to a happier society but will it? I mean some offensive remarks actually do lead to useful debates on hot topics in the society be it vaccinations, education, science and how people should live their lives so maybe allowing offensive remarks can lead to people changing their minds (in light of arguments etc.) in order to live easier and happier lives. So restraining offence might not actually be the optimal way to increase happiness in a society.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I cannot stand the principle of happiness. It assumes that happiness is a precisely measurable quantity and in order for society to place efficient laws there would need to be a 'happiness calculator' for every action a citizen would do. Happiness is a complicated thing, scientists do not exactly know what constitutes the mental state of happiness and they are far from measuring it well enough for it be the base of all law in a society. Also the argument and principle assumes that happiness is the only ultimate goal of a society.. is it? There doesn't seem to be any evidenced based reason to assign any ultimate goal to a human society. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So this argument against offence is really a very weak one. I hope to have done it some justice and it is an argument many people do use, they really think that they have a right to not be put in this emotional state of being offended but underneath this thinking there seems to be no strong argument. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Let's move on to a more challenging argument against offence. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>An argument against offence based on incitement of violence</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01800/RIOTS_1800588c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01800/RIOTS_1800588c.jpg" height="200" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This argument stems largely from John Stuart Mill's 'Harm principle' which was originally formulated in his great book 'On Liberty'. It is of great contemporary importance in moral discussions and in direct application of laws on hate speech. Mill's words on the principle are exemplary and it would do this discussion justice to show them here: </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His
own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.’ - J.S. Mill (On Liberty (68) ) </blockquote>
Let's look at another extreme example which is racial hate speech. If I was to publicly share my hate towards another race either verbally or in written form there would be a huge uproar. People would congregate and share their extreme negative feelings of being offended towards me. As racial hatred has such a deep history of pain, suffering and evil some people on getting offended by my remarks will simply strike me down out of rage as if there extreme feelings of hatred toward me compelled them to use violence to stop me. Who is the wrong?<br />
<br />
Well my racial hate speeches obviously led to a congregation of very upset people and those that used violence wouldn't have needed to if I didn't start my speeches in the first place. So it seems my racial hate speeches incited their violence towards me and potentially anyone with me or any passers by out of emotional rage. As violence should be prevented at all times because allowing violence leads to a barbaric and chaotic society we should therefore ban any speech which leads to a possibility of violence. So offensive speech should be banned because it always elicits a negative response which could lead to violence.<br />
<br />
This argument, which I have purposefully constructed weakly for the time being, seems stronger than the argument from happiness as it is true that most humans in today's world do believe that the prevention of violence is a shared interest. However one of the assumptions made in this argument is that all offensive acts are done to cause violence or are intrinsically useless. Another thing to be challenged here is that do all offensive acts carry the same probability of inciting violence? If I offend Paul from my work because I thought his car was ugly is this likely to cause violence? In that case many people would say Paul is in the wrong if he reacted violently to that remark even though it could be classed as offensive.<br />
<br />
We should take a step back and justify why harm and violence are bad things in the first place. Mill argued that freedom should be the basis of a society and this should be in the form of a democracy because no absolute ruler is infallible and knows exactly how a human society should live. People should be able to experiment with their lives as they wish and he argues that this will lead to a diverse society where people will find their own happiness, will take different paths to finding what is true.<br />
To avoid a complete anarchy he invoked the harm principle which stops other people impinging the freedoms of others through the medium of physical harm. If I hurt you I violated your freedom to be harm free or injury free etc. through non-consenting harm I am in a sense minimizing your freedom and this jeopardises the core values of society.<br />
<br />
This value of freedom isn't picked out of thin air though. Mill used a utility argument to basically say that as humans are fallible (even scientists) and we do not know the best way to live a life it would be easier and more efficient if many people just experimented on their own accord. If there was no freedom but just a complete absolute ruler where everyone lived the same lives this might not be the best way to live as the ruler is finitely intelligent and may be wrong. So instead of wasting time all living the same lives we should all live different lives.<br />
<br />
So going back to our argument then offensive speech that incites violence should be made illegal but not all offensive speech should be banned. This is because we are all fallible and if we cannot challenge and stimulate debate with one another then how can society progress? How can the civilians decide for themselves how to improve their health, wealth and happiness if they are protected from differing and potentially contradicting views just because they might get offended and get angry. As the society is a democratic one and the government cannot be fully relied on for generating new ideas it is essential that diverse civilians debate with one another on the ideas they believe to be true and useful.<br />
<br />
There needs to be a compromise. This is a hard topic to think about and legally it is sometimes done on a case by case basis, there is no universally agreed way to approach the line at which the apparent harm principle acts.<br />
<br />
<br />
Throughout this debate however we have assumed that being offended is somehow pressed upon us, that we are forced into this emotional mental state without a choice. However I am going to argue that people can make a concious choice to be offended or not and with choice comes a way out of the harm principle for offensive remarks. As the state under the guidance of the harm principle can only exercise power on an individual if he restricts the freedom of another without their consent.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Eradicating the debate all together and defending all free speech</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I like the harm principle. It makes sense. It makes sense because at its foundations it takes into account our own fallibility, the ability to test and try, gives power to individuals and allows them to develop in their own way. It implies that any dictatorship will fail over time and lead to a non progressive state whose citizens are not given their own volition to develop physically and intellectually ( I say volition as some choose to run their life into ruin). Most modern democracies use the harm principle in developing laws, some still have mountains to climb in applying it to all aspects of life however. So we will accept the harm principle as something that should be implemented in society and it represents a protection of individuals physical freedom.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Going back to the racial hate speech...the angry mob will no doubt want to commit violence to stop me but surely they can't cause harm to me because they would be restricting my freedom without my consent. By standing and shouting racial hate speech am I harming them? Well I am not restricting their freedom physically as they can still move around as they please and they can also move away to stop hearing me. So it seems I am not harming them at all because they have a choice to be here or not. If they feel negatively towards me then so what they can choose to be here listening to me. Also I think they shouldn't really feel anything towards my speech and they can choose how they feel. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Let me elaborate. If someone calls you names at school like fatty or shorty you might choose to feel angry... but why? All you should be worried about is if what they say is true or not... if it is true then they are simply stating a fact and what I do with facts is my own choice, there is no use in reacting emotionally to facts. If what they say is false then it doesn't matter, they are wrong and falsehoods don't apply to the real world. So really any emotional reaction to any remark is a choice and is unnecessary. Of course you can have the freedom to react emotionally to statements but any grief caused by that reaction is of your doing. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
When I talk about truth and false I am working within the confines of analytical and empirical truth. If something is true mathematically (analytically) then it's true due to the axioms of the system, if something is true scientifically (empirically) then there is substantial evidence to the claim being put forward.... if you cannot decide there and then if something is empirically true you should reserve judgement. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Nmekb4k-ZeM/0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Nmekb4k-ZeM/0.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So any offensive remark can be allowed because we have a choice to how we react to such remarks. Also we should only really be concerned with the validity of the remarks. If there is a homophobic parade shouting 'God Hates FAGS!' or 'Gays Are Stupid!' then we can just say well there is no evidence for God so the first one is false or we should reserve judgement (for those agnostics and really bad scientists) also there is no evidence showing lower intellectual ability in homosexuals so the second one is false. So these paraders look quite silly shouting false or meaningless statements and we cannot get any use out of them so we should use our freedom to walk straight on by. No harm done either way. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Some people will argue that these remarks are not challenging us in the sense that they can help progress society and these remarks are there just to try and incite violence. However we have already argued against such a response because who are we to say these remarks won't help society when we ourselves are fallible.. if they are shown to be false then that doesn't mean we should ban them... should we ban all false claims according to science? Of course not because science is fallible too but in a 99.9% sort of way i.e. most established theories are assumed to be certain but there is of course a small chance that some experiment in the universe will falsify it. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Also some will question whether we truly can choose to not be in an emotional state or not. Well I think because we have evolved in a certain way it may seem like this, our instincts are strong. However we can train ourselves easily to become emotionally disciplined and I think most people can control how they think. Of course we can be manipulated visually and audibly but we can choose the way we feel or at least act. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This part of the argument is the most controversial as modern science cannot really state exactly the proportion of control we have over our emotions. I believe that most medically and mentally healthy or non deficient adults are responsible for their actions and really only explicit physical manipulation can cause another human to commit harm which is itself a harm. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So allowing all speech even if it is false or appears to have no value to society should still be allowed to be spoken because they do not cause harm in the sense of restricting freedoms and they are not responsible for others causing harm. Only the human or being doing the directing harming is responsible and the state has the right to exert power over him to prevent further harm. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-45689914208793570582015-06-19T16:00:00.000-07:002015-06-19T16:00:20.851-07:00Why Are Humans Curious? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/curiosity.jpg?w=360&h=240&crop=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/curiosity.jpg?w=360&h=240&crop=1" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Our Ancestors</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
'Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings'</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
- Salvador Dali</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It is an established scientific fact that humans and all living things have evolved, due to natural selection and other selection mechanisms, from organisms which roamed their environments before them. These organisms are their ancestors. The predecessors arise due to a change in the genome of the ancestor over huge periods of time, this change in genome occurs because some genes in the gene pool have done better than others. This change in genome results in a change of phenotype which we can see as a change in appearance or behaviour. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Humans are by far the most sophisticated produce of evolution, even if that is slightly biased in favour of ourselves. I say this not due to our physical prowess or our ability to live long (a lot of animals do better than us in this department), I say this due to our ability to comprehend the world systematically and use this comprehension to manipulate it for our own desires. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.thesymbolofsuccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pythagoras-2.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://www.thesymbolofsuccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pythagoras-2.jpg" height="230" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A lot of modern science, mathematics and even ancient mathematics was developed and explored for its own sake. Humans of the recent past and now express a desire to understand the workings of the universe or multiverses or even completely abstract ones without a direct reward for their selfish genes. This is an oddity, especially when we compare this with every other animal known to man whose every action is, directly or indirectly, to benefit a collection of genes or a single gene.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So how did this come about? How did humans acquire this 'desire' to understand?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One answer is to look at the gradual sophistication and efficiency of the ways our ancestors interacted with the environment and other organisms to enhance their survival. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://multimedia.uga.edu/media/images/Adult-juvenile-watches-BWright.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://multimedia.uga.edu/media/images/Adult-juvenile-watches-BWright.jpg" height="278" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Evidence has been put forward that shows capuchin monkeys in Brazil using stones to forage for food, an early sign of tool use by a primate cousin. To use tools requires a complex brain, one that has a sort of software which realizes that the stone is impenetrable (well in the monkey's eyes) and that it can be used to dig out food etc. all this seems very simple to us... because we have that software programmed within out genetic code and it is probably much better than the capuchin monkey's one. This tool use requires a sort of understanding of physics, using objects in a three dimensional space and the concept of a force. However we obviously don't think monkeys study classical mechanics, however evolution has favoured this behaviour and consequently it resembles a sort of intuitive understanding of basic physics. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Chimpanzees, other primates and some other animals exhibit an ability to recognize patterns. This has obvious benefits to the selfish genes that ride inside them. For example if I am a predator and day after day I see that large numbers of my prey come out at a certain time, it would be most beneficial to me and therefore to my selfish genes that I conserve my energy and only hunt around that time. This seems easy enough. Some organisms can change their behaviour to match this in their own lifetime and this requires a pre-ordained software to allow them to do that. Some organisms cannot and only mutations and tedious genetic selections favouring hunting at this time can move the species to benefit greatly from this prey behaviour. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So it might be useful to have a pre-ordained ability to spot patterns, find the causes of them and use them to manipulate the environment to benefit the genes. We witness this gradual ability develop over evolutionary time throughout the animal kingdom. It just so happens that the strand on the evolutionary tree which led to human beings favoured extremely sophisticated pattern recognition filters.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So my guess is that the desire to understand is a sort of 'over doing it' by our genetic pattern recognition abilities. In other words evolution has developed this awesome ability to recognise patterns and then we started to use this outside the bounds of our immediate environment. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It just so happens that a development of language was also important. It enabled us to classify objects and express the useful patterns that our brains saw to other human beings, this was probably because humans lived in close proximity to their family members which share a fraction of our genes so telling them useful things will lead to more of our genes surviving in the future.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
These two monumental evolutionary inventions i.e. pattern recognition and language paved the way for the human civilisation that we see today. The ability to record language so as to preserve useful patterns was another huge leap forward for our ancestors.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Do we need to be curious?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://newngrguardiannewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Astronomer.jpg-celestialscenes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://newngrguardiannewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Astronomer.jpg-celestialscenes.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
'I am not apt to follow blindly the lead of other men'</div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">― </span>Charles Darwin<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This question seems to grate me a bit. If by 'need' you mean do we have to be curious in order to survive I think no. There is plenty of evidence in our modern society of humans not being curious at all but surviving nonetheless albeit barely! If by 'need' you mean to advance human's ability to comprehend the universe and use it to increase the quality of life, life expectancy and happiness of the human race I think yes, as merely doing things just to survive won't allow us to push beyond that. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The fact is if we uncover patterns of the universe which help us to live better lives that's great but a lot of the motivations to find these patterns extends beyond helping humans to live better lives. Marie Curie wanted to understand and know about radioactivity and whether or not there was a separate element inside a uranium core, from this yes we can use this in medicine but Marie Curie didn't know that. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We can be curious and if some humans want to know how the world works just because then go right ahead. It can only enrich us. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A part of me thinks of the long time future for humans and how our destiny on this planet might not be a nice one either by natural forces creating an inhabitable planet or by our own actions leading to some despicable destruction. Maybe some scientific understanding that came about from scientists trying to know for knowing's sake will grant us the ability to avoid complete extinction and lead to our future survival. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If this were true then our genes would surely benefit from this. Are our genes great prophets and evolution granted us with curiosity so as to maximise our genes survival far into the great future!? How great then are we? Or shall I say our genes....</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-45147334941304518792015-01-17T05:58:00.000-08:002015-01-17T06:09:29.074-08:00Black Holes: Event Horizons and The World As A Hologram - Part I<div style="text-align: center;">
PART I</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
By</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Luke Kristopher Davis</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1668383/thumbs/o-BLACK-HOLE-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1668383/thumbs/o-BLACK-HOLE-facebook.jpg" height="160" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Newtonian Gravity</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We all know about gravity: the fact that two objects attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and which gets weaker the further apart they are. This is what Newton essentially discovered. In the classical sense you can picture a tight-rope contest between the two masses and as they exert equal and opposite forces on each other, the lighter mass gets pulled in. If they are of the same mass they normally spin around the middle of the rope. If a mass comes from a long way away at a high speed the heavier mass at rest 'slingshots' the lighter mass, the lighter mass is moving so fast that the tight-rope slips from 'his hands' and continues to move on a new altered path. These little tight rope contests occur between all masses, from apples to stars. Mathematically instead of tight ropes we think of gravitational fields but the basic principle remains the same.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Einstein Fabric</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/10/Curved_in_3D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/10/Curved_in_3D.jpg" height="307" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>One of Einsteins greatest triumphs is the mass-equivalence principle, famously embodied as E=mc^2. This means you can think of a piece of mass as having an intrinsic energy in space and time. So if I completely destroy a piece of mass, say a kitkat chunky, I will get an energy equal to the mass of the kitkat multiplied by the speed of light squared. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In relation to our tight rope analogy, because mass can be thought of as some energy we can think of energy as some mass. Photons which are massless move at the speed of light so they actually have kinetic energy (energy due to motion) so Einstein says that this kinetic energy can be thought of as some mass. So if this energy can be thought of some mass it will be affected by gravity. So a photon actually takes part in tight rope contests with other masses, but they move so fast that in fact we hardly notice these contests. We only notice them when the heavy mass is really heavy which means the photons path through space is noticeably altered. This is called gravitational lensing. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Another step we must take is to ditch the tight-rope analogy. It can only go so far and as you may be familiar with gravitational forces now we can take the next step from Newtonian gravity, which is to introduce the notion of space-time. Time and space are normally thought as separate quantities, my time on my watch doesn't depend on where I am in space or my motion through space..surely?. Einstein showed the exact opposite, that any time you read depends on how you are moving through space and as movement can only be recognized relatively to some other object, time is essentially relative. Every observer has a unique reading of time.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This means that time and space are intrinsically linked, like two different threads being woven to form a fabric, and they form what is known as Minkowski space-time. This space-time has 4 dimensions which are time and the 3 dimensions of space. Instead of masses contesting with 'gravi-tight ropes' they curve this fabric (as in the picture above) and this curvature affects the motion of other objects. So think of an actual piece of fabric and an apple in the middle, the apple curves the fabric. If I place a grape on the fabric the grape falls inwards to the apple. This is gravity in the Einstein sense and it is the most accurate way to date in picturing what gravity is. Here is a really good video to show it.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/MTY1Kje0yLg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Black Holes As Singularities</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_X6JnoL0U4BY/S8ktpzWIRXI/AAAAAAAAah4/kOe_83Lz-ys/tmpB915_thumb_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_X6JnoL0U4BY/S8ktpzWIRXI/AAAAAAAAah4/kOe_83Lz-ys/tmpB915_thumb_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>So as mass curves space-time, you can start asking how much curvature occurs when a huge huge huge mass exists in the Einstein fabric. Well actually the curvature is so much that it forms a singularity. A point which is so dense that light spirals inwards and cannot escape due to the immense curvature of space-time. So as light cannot reflect off it we cannot see it hence the name black hole. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Black holes are formed when there is an object with a sufficient amount of mass, normally a heavy star, such that the object begins to collapse on itself due to the extremely strong gravitational pull. This can be anything, from a star to zillions of kitkats. The collapsing forms an infinitely dense black hole but with finite mass. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://application.denofgeek.com/pics/film/marty.doc02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://application.denofgeek.com/pics/film/marty.doc02.jpg" height="205" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Let's imagine Marty and Doc doing a little experiment with a black hole. Crazy Doc wants to go in a spaceship so that he gets sucked into the black hole, merely following the curvature of space-time, and Marty is at a safe distance in another spaceship. Doc will send a photon to Marty to tell him he is alright every second or so. As Doc goes closer and closer to the black hole he will accelerate, he will get faster and faster. Doc still sends the photons and Marty picks them up knowing that Doc will be okay. But there comes a point where the curvature is so steep (gravity is so strong) that a photon cannot escape, this means that when Doc sends a photon he thinks Marty has got it but in fact Marty cannot receive it. So Marty does not know how Doc is or where he is. This point is known as the event horizon, a point of no return.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So does Doc become completely obliterated ? Marty cannot know either way becomes he cannot retrieve any information about Doc beyond the event horizon. So the information Marty has about Doc seems to have completely gone. Is this a problem ? Yes. In part II we see why. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-74575907302435577802015-01-07T21:49:00.000-08:002015-01-07T21:55:57.236-08:00Charlie Hebdo: Frontlines on An Ideological War<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Charlie-Hebdo-logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Charlie-Hebdo-logo.jpg" height="47" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
By</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Luke Kristopher Davis</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Act of Terrorism</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn4.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article30889503.ece/72e93/ALTERNATES/w620/Charlie%20Hebdo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn4.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article30889503.ece/72e93/ALTERNATES/w620/Charlie%20Hebdo.jpg" height="176" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists try to manipulate us and change our behavior by creating fear, uncertainty and division in our society.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
- <i>Patrick J. Kennedy</i> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
On January 7th 10:30 GMT two gunmen, believed to be Cherif Kouachi and Said Kouachi, killed at least 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo HQ in Paris. Many of those killed and in current critical condition were cartoonists and workers for the satirical newspaper. The gunmen forced the cartoonist Corienne Rey to open the coded doors leading into the Charlie Hebdo HQ building, once inside they killed a police officer on guard and one staff member. After this, they moved to the meeting room on the second floor killing 8 journalists and 1 guest. Witnesses, one of whom took a video which was uploaded to youtube, heard the terrorists shouting 'God is Great' in Arabic providing even more evidence that this was indeed an act of Islamic terrorism.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80118000/jpg/_80118073_5victims624_afp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80118000/jpg/_80118073_5victims624_afp.jpg" height="110" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Victims from left to right: Bernard Maris, Wolinski, Cabu, Stephane Charbonnier and Bernard Verlhac</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Police rushed to the scene and engaged in gunfire, more police officers died and many more injured. The gunmen, with an accomplice, escaped the scene and a current manhunt of the utmost urgency is being carried out. Paris and indeed France is in a state of extreme emergency.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80126000/jpg/_80126535_1b497c1e-6b7d-4baa-a989-e8f6c291d9d8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80126000/jpg/_80126535_1b497c1e-6b7d-4baa-a989-e8f6c291d9d8.jpg" height="179" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Kouachi brothers are the current suspects</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What is Charlie Hebdo?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://imworld.aufeminin.com/story/20130224/charlie-hebdo-une-14309_w1000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://imworld.aufeminin.com/story/20130224/charlie-hebdo-une-14309_w1000.jpg" height="320" width="247" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Charlie Hebdo, meaning <i>Weekly Charlie, </i>is a left-wing, controversial and anti-religious piece of satirical newspaper which was founded in 1970. It was dropping in the 80's but re-founded in 1992 which has grown a circulation of around 45,000. As you can see by the example '<i>The Father, The Son.. The Holy Spirit'</i> cover, it is by no means subtle or politically correct in its critique of Christianity. It doesn't just explicitly poke fun at Christianity, the form of Religion dominant in the west, but it also blatantly ridicules all religions, the extremism of right-wing dogma and notable topics in culture which they see fit to comment on in their irreverent tone. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In November 2011 the previous offices of Charlie Hebdo were fire bombed in response to a piece named <i>Charia Hebdo </i>meaning 'Weekly Sharia' which quoted the prophet Mohammed as the editor in chief. The paper moved offices into Paris and did not cave in to self-censorship, which many citizens demanded, but instead continued its goal in producing news reports which deliberately mocked fundamentalism, Religion and extreme right wing ideas. This choice to not undergo self-censorship was given the thumbs up by the French government itself and many intellectuals agreed, as caving in implies the fulfilling of the terrorist goals, which is to install fear and demand respect for Islamic religion and all that it derives. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The reason for this attack</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>You may suspect that this attack was simply another November 11' and you wouldn't be wrong. The mocking of the prophet is one of the most offensive things you can do to a Muslim, scratch that... it <b><u>IS</u></b> the most offensive act you can do. A large minority of Muslims are blindly intolerant, living as extreme fundamentalists in which they believe the Muslim faith to be true without doubt and anyone who mocks their beloved figure head deserves death. The thing is they not only think that those who mock their faith should suffer intolerable pain and death but some are extreme enough to actually bring this about. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
January 7th is an event which saw the actualization of this hatred towards a group publicly mocking their faith in such a freely and careless way. This was an attempt to silence that mocking, to point the finger at this massacre and say "you disrespect my faith, which me, my family and my community base our entire lives on... we will kill you... we will take away your lives... your lives worth less than our faith...".</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I must stress that only a minority of Muslims are extreme enough and indoctrinated enough who would actually cause the death of innocent people who were merely exercising their freedom to express themselves. Many Muslims, who are in no question offended by the cartoons, agree that this does not give anyone the right to take lives and that such matters should be addressed in a peaceful voice. An Islamic man justifies my point: </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; font-family: Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18.0040016174316px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></strong></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><strong style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18.0040016174316px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </strong><span style="background-color: white; color: #404040; line-height: 18.0040016174316px;">In my Islamic upbringing I was taught that the pen is man's strongest weapon. These extremists must know that they can never silence freedom of speech, for it is a stronger weapon than any they'd dare to carry. Why couldn't they answer peacefully through the pen as our prophet likely would have? True Islam condemns such attacks, more so when they are ignorantly and violently carried out in its name. Long live freedom of expression, religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence. - </span><span style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #404040; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18.0040016174316px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><i>Hamed Saeedi</i></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A casualty of war</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LtBJQ7ZHwJM/SqkEDJ-CK_I/AAAAAAAAAEU/uBhQf6tIhDM/s400/islamic-fundamentalism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LtBJQ7ZHwJM/SqkEDJ-CK_I/AAAAAAAAAEU/uBhQf6tIhDM/s400/islamic-fundamentalism.jpg" height="211" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
This massacre is a physical expression of memetic alleles colliding and trying to drive the other out as they are both detrimental to each others survival in the whole meme pool. It is a casualty in the war waged between the central idea holding some military authority in the East and the idea which founded the modern Western world as we know it.<br />
<br />
Basically fundamentalism and religion on the one hand, largely represented by Islamic fundamentalism, is in a state of ideological warfare with Freedom of thought and expression. Fundamentalism which is the belief that an idea or theory or any number of statements is 100% true is in direct competition with freedom of thought and expression: the idea that no claims about the world are 100% true due to empirical and scientific doubt and that no idea should be physically impressed on anyone because it might in fact be wrong. In a world dominated by a belief in freedom of thought would lead to its inhabitants being free to express ideas as this stimulates debates, discussions and questions which could lead to an improved living and empirical understanding of the universe. In a world dominated by a fundamentalist belief, due to historical reasons it happens to be an immovable belief in a supernatural being and the validity of ancient texts, we would witness its inhabitants not being able to think outside the confines of their belief due to indoctrination of such belief. Even if some do indeed think beyond the fundamentalism any expression of it would result in death, for this denies the supposed absolute truth.<br />
<br />
So we can see that these two ideas are on an extremely basic level contradictory and any humans believing in them would form two groups with a conflict of interests. Now those who are on the freedom of thought side also assign fallibility to their own belief so in light of this, they will not be intolerant towards the fundamentalists solely because there is a possibility (however small the probability) that they are indeed right. The fundamentalists however believe that anyone who does not believe the absolute truth are committing the highest crime to all humanity, for they are denying what is 100% true... supposedly. So this will result in them doing all they can to either convert or exterminate the other group.<br />
<br />
In reality we have witnessed the fundamentalist side do this very thing, but only really when the other side really mocks the fundamentalists beliefs. Why haven't the fundamentalist side, which not only includes Islamic extremists, tried to wage outright war on the other 'freedom of thought side' ? Well because the sides are not equally matched and are not the same size. The Western world with its huge accumulated economy, population and military power has actually stopped the Eastern world (which most fundamentalist communities at large exist) from going to outright war solely on the difference in culture because the East would surely lose. So going to war would in essence destroy fundamentalist believers, their homes and possibly the survival of the fundamentalist idea itself.<br />
<br />
However the fundamentalism urges believers to still do something in order to convert or destroy those who explicitly contradict their ideas. They do this through acts of terrorism and acts of death (many which include the death of a terrorist) to install respect of their belief through fear of more death and violence and this reduces the power of freedom of expression. I say reduces but it is simply an attempt to reduce the power of freedom of expression. In no way has this mission really been accomplished.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Which side will win ? </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Freedom-of-Speech-300x224.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Freedom-of-Speech-300x224.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>Looking at this as two memes (ideas) which are competing for their future survival, where such survival depends on their abilities to adapt to selection criteria imposed by human nature. By this I mean that the idea that survives or becomes more believed in will be more conducive to human life in which it enables humans to live a more long lived, healthier, more knowledgeable and happier life. Showing how these ideas could do that seems hard and almost impossible, but it can be done and I will outline some reasons as to why I think fundamentalism, be it; Islamic, Catholic, Judaic.... Creationist or any belief system believed in without doubt or consulting the evidence will gradually fade away into the history of mankind.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
First of all what is conducive to human life is most definitely likely to be true. Never has a false principle ever helped humans in manipulating a physical environment or improving their biologically characteristics. This is because if a principle does not abide by how nature works the principle cannot take into affect. For example if I believe that curing a disease took a number of people putting their hands together praying to a supernatural being then of course this wouldn't work... we would in fact witness those with no natural way of improving their condition simply dying. This is because the principle of praying assumes the existence of an all controlling being and that praying to him about curing someone will cure them. These assumptions have no scientific evidence for them so they are deemed false. This logic can be applied to any principle of this nature and it can be shown (has been shown in many cases) that these principles are in fact completely useless. Principles based on scientific inquiry, repeated experiments and peer-reviewed theories will work much better instead. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So the dogmas of fundamentalism which are majorly based on religious ones are principles which assume supernatural entities, beyond the observable world, they assume odd claims about the world which nearly all are either physically impossible, cannot be demonstrated or have no evidence for them. This means that actually they really won't lead to useful advances in human life. Some may argue that what happens if science is believed fundamentally? Well they will face an immediate contradiction in terms as science is based on empirical approximations and no scientific theory by the very nature of science itself can ever be claimed to be 100% right, as there is a possibility of a future experiment which could falsify its claims. So in fact fundamentalism is doomed. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Of course the human race cannot know innately the principles which are most conducive to human life but the most logical way is to try different ideas and see whether they are indeed useful. This implies that humans should have the freedom to think of different ideas and they should be put out into the open so that all these ideas can be discussed, some being more favored than others due to their accordance with established ideas or because they can be tested in science or politics with ease and minimal cost. Those least favored would be those which failed theoretically or testing them is extremely costly or those of a fundamentalist nature. Of course those least favored would not be outright exterminated as in a fundamentalist world, but they lay on the top shelf in which they would be sought for if they are the next best thing or other ideas failed to be useful. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This is how Western democracy should in theory be run and in fact it runs in a pretty similar fashion to this. Also note how well the West has actually done in economical terms, scientific terms and in the quality of lives that people live. Of course we can do better! But I personally think we are doing better than those in the East which are countries in political turmoil, stricken with poverty in some areas and not boasting the best life expectancy. Political revolutions which have occurred in Egypt, Syria and Libya are actually adopting democratic means to appoint leaders. I think once doubt creeps in and gradually enters the minds of more far Islamic and religious people they will start to question their faith and the ideas which their lives revolve around on. With these questions demand answers and I think the humans in these areas are capable of as much reasoning as I and you are, and once they question their indoctrination they will demand sensible answers with justification. The internet is slowly allowing this doubt to creep in.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>How should we then react to this event? </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.alianza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Freedom-Copy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.alianza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Freedom-Copy.png" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We must not give in to terrorism and we must not condone acts of intolerance. Freedom of expression is an extremely valuable principle in our modern world and we all reap the benefits of its success, it is a principle worth protecting with our hearts and minds, together as a unified culture of free spirited human beings. I am out, I am Charlie, you are Charlie, we are Charlie. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-64190261288569502262015-01-02T07:21:00.000-08:002015-01-02T07:43:49.428-08:00Evolution Will Always End With Intelligence<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
By Luke Kristopher Davis</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Life on other planets</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/aliens.jpg?w=480&h=320&crop=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/aliens.jpg?w=480&h=320&crop=1" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>There is little doubt that there is a finite chance of biological life existing anywhere else in the universe be it in our own solar system or galaxy. A more interesting question to think about is whether the life that does exist elsewhere, arising independently from ours, follows natural selection via the differential selection of genetic material. Basically will it evolve in a similar manner to how life on planet earth has?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We do not yet know precisely the mechanism or all the ingredients for life to emerge from pools of basic chemistry and physics. However we are pretty confident, we meaning the scientific community, that life arises through the thermodynamic building of complex molecules which then have the special property of replicating themselves. This could arise from special symmetries of the molecular lattice such that when this special molecule is bombarded with other basic ones or after some chemical reaction it splits in two, each being copies of each other and of its parent. Though this is mere speculation on my behalf. Life that could arise on other planets will probably originate through this same process, the building of replicators, and as soon as replicators are built Darwinian natural selection starts to exert itself on these extremely basic forms of life. I only say that life will 'probably' start this way because we do not know any other way that it could arise from basic matter within the confines of our established science. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So we are assuming with good reason that life can and probably does exist independently and that it would have emerged from the molecular building of replicators.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>How does evolution work again?</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/images/DarwinPic1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/images/DarwinPic1.jpg" height="320" width="235" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Charles Darwin - Proposed natural selection and evolution</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Let's continue the story on from our basic replicator molecule which copies itself due to some physical mechanism. This copying process is not perfect, there is a probability that some part of the molecular structure will change slightly after replication therefore a daughter molecule will differ from its parent. These molecules will probably exist in a pool of other molecular compounds and elements and the different daughter replicator will change how it reacts with other molecules or how it bonds with other compounds. If the new daughter molecule speeds up the replication process somehow or can breakdown a new source of energy to fuel reactions its type will no doubt out replicate its mother. So then we already see how a slight change in structure can offer advantages for out replicating the parent or other 'mutated' siblings. Over a great expanse of time molecules would be able to build, through chemical means and interacting with other replicators, bodies which are capable of moving and sensing the environment (a basic example is plankton). The replicator molecules would chemically instruct their bodies to carry out certain physical actions. In certain environments there are selection criteria which select those replicators which build more advantageous bodies, these bodies are called phenotypes and the selection criteria of the environment impresses itself on the phenotypes which increases or decreases the chance of future replication. The replicator body which is more 'adapted' to the selection criteria will increase its chances compared to other replicator bodies.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Replicators are known as genes and replicator bodies are known as organisms. Over time and with the statistical spreading of organisms into different environments (or the statistical emergence of separate life on the same planet) they will branch out into species and evolve complexity. The evolution of all the organisms follow from the differential selection of genes which produce more advantageous phenotypes.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Nature has universal tricks for varying environments</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://f3nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bag-of-tricks.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://f3nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bag-of-tricks.png" height="298" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>What sort of environment can we expect on other planets ? Well I will not go to the expense of describing them because the range of possible environments that could foster life is great, and it is not key to the point of this article. All I can say is that in general there will be environments which contain molecules for phenotypic structure and metabolism, a solvent and a replicating molecule which does not necessarily have to look like DNA but may well be very similar to. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Even if different planets have different atmospheric pressures, different concoctions of gaseous elements or different amounts of solar radiation and light coming through the sky etc. there will be strong selection criteria which will form similar phenotypic solutions which occured on our planet. For example: the need to move the body through a medium or along it will require limbs or jet propulsion, assuming a wing is a limb. On earth the independent evolution of the wing occurred in birds, insects and bats which resulted in varying wings but similar in function (creating lift). The independent evolution of a particular phenotype tool is called homoplasy in cladistics, in general we call it convergent evolution i.e. similar selection criteria causes a convergence to the same structure. So nature seems to re-use solutions for similar problems. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
On other planets the need to fly, even if it is through more dense air, will lead to something like the wing. There may even be other ingenious ways for organisms to move through air which us humans cannot imagine but in the unique environment natural selection will carve it out. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One thing which I would bet a large amount of money on is the evolution of social behavior and sexual reproduction on life on other planets. Scientists do not completely know how sexual reproduction evolved but because nearly all organisms take part in it sexual reproduction must somehow ultimately bring survival advantages for the genes that instruct them. If this is true, which I assume is, mating dynamics will play out which will cause the evolution of social behavior. Altruism in some species will most likely evolve, either by hunting in a group or living in close proximity to offer protection, warmth, help with rearing young etc. the point is it will offer some sort of advantage to survival or reproductive power. With the existence of social organisms there are advantages to manipulation either of individuals belonging to their own species or organisms from a different species. This manipulation exists as language: the organism exerts some force on the environment which another organism registers and carries out an interpretation or action. As we see in bees, dolphins and us use a fairly complex language which arises from manipulation. This evolution in language must first start with the evolution of a complex brain.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Convergent evolution of intelligence</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>Simulation of the world is a process which many animals do, it is more cost-effective in terms of time, energy and risk to simulate an event in the world than to try it out for yourself. Young animals with little experience of the world and 'no data' in their memory can have instincts programmed by their genes to get them to make the right choices in early life, and they can have their parents to teach them certain things which they have learnt in their lives. Brains capable of guessing what would happen if an action is taken and choosing the optimal choice based on simulation will be favored by natural selection and an organism which simulates more accurately or records more accurate data will be more favored. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Going back to manipulation of other organisms and social behavior it seems simulating brains of other organisms is a much more complicated matter than simulating the seemingly deterministic physical world. So with the evolution of language and simulation mechanism would lead to a very sophisticated control center of an organism. With phenotypic tools which can adequately alter the environment (would have been advantageous in many environments: see Beavers, our ancestors and even ants) and an ability to somehow infer the causal nature of things, which amounts to an innate genetic proficiency of physics, then organisms could somehow manipulate the environment to reduce the exertion of selection criteria. They could build weapons or defenses to fight off predators, herd prey into groups and cultivate them all this arising from rules and language passed down from generations. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Using the environment to increase an individuals survival or even group survival (dependent on genes shared) is obviously beneficial to the genes which reside in them. However using rules and tricks passed down by the generations through linguistic means or means other than genetic change, results in a reduction of the power of selection criteria without further genetic selection. Normally a reduction in the power of selection criteria comes with better adapted phenotypes from selecting better genes. If an intelligent organism can even restrict the power of future selection criteria be it disease, food shortages or a new predator by using sufficient intelligence as to remove it or constrain it then this organism will not evolve anymore. Evolution needs selection criteria. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I say 'will not evolve anymore' but of course some evolution will gradually take place. Sexual selection will place selection criteria on the organisms but of course in principle this criteria can be reduced through more manipulation of the environment and even the phenotypes themselves without genetic changes. Also a moderately intelligent organism like ourselves has not completely outdone natural selection as poverty in some parts, disease and smaller environmental effects which we have not yet seen could be still placing selection criteria on gene pools.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The point is this, with sufficient intelligence and sufficient ability in manipulating the environment, natural selection will have dwindled. This is because the intelligent organism solves the problem before natural selection will. Natural selection occurs in much greater spells of time then say the time between future generations. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
With a great intelligent organism which reduces all selection criteria by manipulation of the environment then evolution, in the sense of differential selection of genetic material, will have ended. It could happen that such an intelligent organism will modify its genes as to increase its manipulative power over the environment, selecting pre-existing genes from other organisms or cutting some genes out or even inventing new ones. However would we still call this evolution? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Would such an organism become victim of another evolution?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://photo.elsoar.com/wp-content/images/Idea-concept-with-row-of-light-bulbs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://photo.elsoar.com/wp-content/images/Idea-concept-with-row-of-light-bulbs.jpg" height="198" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>Such an organism whose body of accumulated information from generation to generation may become a vehicle for another selfish molecule which is not the gene but a unit of the body of information. So another form of evolution could take place.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the collected body of information which we call culture in human terms, has selection criteria for certain types of information in certain types of departments. Say the department of finding another energy resource will have the selection criteria of ideas which seem feasible, then there is selection criteria for those which can be implemented sooner or with less energy. This environment provides selection mechanisms for units of information, surely this resembles the differential selection of genetic material? Surely genes are fundamentally just bits of information however complex. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If this scheme were to actually happen the selection criteria would come from the organism itself so it could be argued that the units of this evolution would always be products of the organism and hence the organism is not the one being played in this case it is the player. However it does not seem impossible that the units of evolution in this new scheme could manipulate the organisms for their own survival in the body of accumulated information.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This of course is not established science so I cannot assign any validity to it as an empirically or mathematically sound idea. However with what we witness within our culture, the control of humans by hostile ideas to kill others and themselves seems to not benefit them but the continuation of the idea itself and its future copies. I think there is some value in this proposed idea and something which needs further study. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-50032408234101439992014-09-15T18:28:00.000-07:002014-09-15T18:36:04.800-07:00Away To A Fabulous Land<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
By Luke Kristopher Davis</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Nn1zJUzktjE/VBeSo2MhIeI/AAAAAAAAAzA/7cZSUK5-XGg/s1600/5201489936_ee673d26c1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Nn1zJUzktjE/VBeSo2MhIeI/AAAAAAAAAzA/7cZSUK5-XGg/s1600/5201489936_ee673d26c1.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - <i>Isaac Newton </i></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Joy Of Science</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>Humans are a small element in the subset of all the life on earth and this subset may even be still an even smaller element in the set of all life in the known universe. We are here by chance: there existed the chance for the basic atoms of matter to form complex compounds and for these to form even more complicated material structures which somehow formed the building blocks of DNA. The fact that over thousands of millions of years of evolution have produced a life form, us, which can decipher the patterns in the world and form an understanding of them is extraordinary. It is as if the universe is contemplating itself through our brains, how odd and mysterious this is! </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
To question and inquire the workings of the universe is an absolutely joyful experience. What grander quest exists than to understand the universe? To use the language of mathematics and the imagination of the human brain to describe events in the world is fun! The ingenuity of some species of organisms to deal with environmental selection pressures stretches the mind. The fact that we can describe a lot of what goes on in the universe with the basic equations and ideas of quantum mechanics is stifling! With a few elementary equations we gain a huge insight into the universe, this means that the universe that surrounds us and is us, is an elegantly and beautifully constructed system. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
With science we can create technologies which allow us to talk to friends from all over the world, science enables us to travel around the world in the first place ! We can build monumental structures with the basic notions of mechanics, aerodynamics and metallurgy. We can conjure up bio-mechanical limbs which in some cases work better than our own evolved limbs! </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What has separated us from the middle ages is science. Modern society is nothing without it. The only way we can make considerable progress in the advancement of knowledge, our happiness and health is with science. All other areas of study are dwarfed by sciences ability to thrust mankind into a new land of understanding.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I cannot understand how doing anything else in ones life could be that exciting, mesmerizing or humbling than doing science or mathematics.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Fabulous Land</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>To train oneself, or if one is lucky enough to have a huge genetic disposition, to become aware of the patterns that live in the many layers of our world reveals the fabulous land. The fabulous land can be thought of as the mechanical cogs behind a majestic clock. Instead of only seeing the face of the clock and its decoration and so forth we must wonder what the clock is and how it works. We then open up the clock, without destroying it, with some clever tricks (mathematics) and we witness a whole new layer... the workings of the cogs. This analogy has its limits as it assumes the workings of the universe to be deterministic which at some layers it can be but at many layers of reality events occur in a probabilistic fashion. The point, I hope, is made clear.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I think trying to tease out the patterns in our world assumes the validity of the claim that the whole natural world consists of layers of interacting patterns. This claim can never be shown to be absolutely true as it is a claim about the world, its validity depends entirely on the empirical success of the methods of inquiry which assume it. Through the success of science it is quite reasonable to assume that every event in the known universe is part of some pattern or other. With this assumption we are confidently able to look at new phenomena or mysteries in a completely scientific fashion.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As one develops his/hers pattern recognition skills and knowledge of already existing patterns one discovers more of this fabulous land. It is easy to become lost in this land and to forget about the face of the clock (returning to the analogy). We must always try to bring what we find in the fabulous land back to normal reality and explain it in terms applicable to the everyday world in which we see and others see. Otherwise we lose the wonder and beauty that attracted us to the fabulous land in the first place, we also have an obligation to share what we find with the rest of humanity so that they benefit materially or intellectually from it. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-71206799446531056732014-09-10T09:47:00.000-07:002014-09-11T02:32:56.195-07:00Neurology and Yahweh<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="p1">
<div class="p1" style="text-align: center;">
by Michael Kenning</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>The Brain of Wonderful Tricks</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The stimulation or destruction of any part of the brain affects its corresponding physical or mental behaviour. A damaged hippocampus impairs memory. Stimulating the amygdala elicits violent behaviour. A shrunken frontal lobe produces anti-social behaviour (as was the case with a patient called ‘J.P.’). Gradually we are are uncovering the neural correlates</span><span class="s2"><sup>1 </sup></span><span class="s1">of our behaviour, but how these neural networks produce emotion, thought, experience, memory, the experience of ‘qualia’, such as colours, emotions, sound, smell, and how they are produced, has eluded scientists and philosophers alike.</span><span class="s2"><sup>2</sup></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Being the natural dualists we are (see <i>The Self Illusion</i>), it is not immediately obvious that the moments in which we feel most out-of-body, or weightless, or one-with-nature, are grounded in matter. Doubtless the majority of people have felt at least once the feeling of weightlessness, or bodilessness (for lack of a better word).</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b1DF7Tl5EJA/VBB9WmhjnBI/AAAAAAAAApk/J85cHddimsU/s1600/yahweh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b1DF7Tl5EJA/VBB9WmhjnBI/AAAAAAAAApk/J85cHddimsU/s1600/yahweh.jpg" height="320" width="247" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">This feeling has been experimented with in one case: A forty-three-year-old suffering from severe epileptic seizures had her <i>right angular gyrus</i> of the temporal lobe stimulated through electric shocks. The scientists conducting this study were able to control the height she reported being above the bed using different levels of electricity (Blanke et al, 2002 cited in <i>The Believing Brain</i>). These are experiences we have in which we feel most separate from our body, and yet they are still rooted in electrochemical activity.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">These apparently bodiless experiences are what make many religious experiences. In 2001, Michael Persigner published an article in the Practice and Opinion section of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry to account for the paranormal experiences. He first noted that ‘patients who display complex partial seizures with foci within the temporal lobes … report more frequent paranormal experiences has been known for decades’, and that ‘[p]aranormal beliefs and paranormal experiences are related.’</span><span class="s2"><sup>3 </sup></span><span class="s1">Furthermore, 15 years previous to the study, Persigner noticed that ‘specific complex magnetic fields’ over the right hemisphere made participants, who were unaware of the experiments purpose, experience a ‘sensed presence’ or ‘sentient being’.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Other cases described included a couple who felt ‘an apparition moving through their bed’, and a female adolescent experiencing a presence ‘stimulate her inner vagina and uterus, and sensed the outline of a baby over her left shoulder.’ While the researchers found possible neurological reasons for the experience, the girl’s ‘religious context resulted in a different interpretation’ on her part. Electromagnetic readings in the locations of these experiences revealed ‘repeated transient of complex magnetic fields’ similar to those use to induce a sensed presence in the laboratory.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Experiences like these are in the extremes. There are the more subtle emotions that make us feel just as bodiless. Love is one of these emotions. Oxytocin is considered to be the neurotransmitter most frequently associated with forming personal and social bonds. It’s released by mothers when holding their children, during orgasms, and in the final stages of childbirth (Carter, R., 2010, p. 124).</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>Setting the Schism</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Accounting for the most extreme of human experiences in neurological terms will not satisfy the argument—and it’s not the primary aim of this post either. This is the salient point, though: Dualism</span><span class="s2"><sup>4</sup></span><span class="s1"> is dead, but there are still philosophers grasping onto it in the name of ‘monism’</span><span class="s2"><sup>5</sup></span><span class="s1">.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">‘Non-reductive monism’, better termed ‘property dualism’ (because it is a dualism), states that there are two kinds of ‘properties’: the mental and the physical. Here’s how K. T. Maslin describes it:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">[Non-reductive monism do] not insist that mental properties are nothing over and above physical properties. On the contrary, it is willing to allow that mental properties are different in kind from physical properties …</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">[P]roperty dualism dispenses with the dualism of substances …</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">There are only physical substances and physical events, hence it is a form of monism. [T]here is a one-sided dependence of the mental on the physical … (<i>An Intro. to The Philosophy of Mind,</i> p. 153)</span></blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">If this ‘mental property’ <i>is </i>in the physical realm, as Maslin stated, then this means we are able to test for it … right?</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">I think it would be true to say that we have a strong, overwhelming intuition that there is a fixed gulf between the material and the mental, which not only forever prohibits their identification, but in addition renders an account of how one gives rise to the other out of the question. (ibid., p. 168)</span></blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">He’s right—up until the second comma. There <i>is</i> a strong intuition to believe in this ‘fixed gulf’, but that’s as far as you can reasonably go.</span><span class="s2"><sup>6</sup></span><span class="s1"> I myself freely admit that I sometimes fall into the trap of the appeal to intuition. But it is hardly surprising that we cannot conceive of a ‘bridge’ between the ‘gap’ when we have the small island of evidence we have now. What seems intuitive to us isn’t necessarily the right thought process, and it might not lead us anywhere new. Take Darwin’s scepticism—albeit more sensible—about the evolution of the eye:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.</span></blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The tendency to posit a completely new substance (yes, it is a non-physical substance)—one we do not have and cannot know we have—is all too unoriginal. Giving problems names does nothing to describe them, either.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">This philosophical theory places you on both sites of the proverbial fence.</span><span class="s2"><sup>7</sup></span><span class="s1"> Is Maslin a dualist or a monist? Yes. But what he does admit, and what he must admit, as well as those who agree with him, is that the ‘mental properties’ are completely dependent upon the ‘physical properties’. Any diversion on his part would be inconsistent with his theory, because it would be to immediately assume that these ‘mental properties’ can assume an independent existent. (He already eschewed Cartesian dualism, after all.)</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">With this in mind, we are left with dualism versus monism: our human experiences are either believed to be products of physical reality, or exogenous.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>Yahweh’s Soul</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The case for a physical explanation behind consciousness has been presented. Now the implications of such beliefs must be explained. Nick Lane, in <i>Life Ascending,</i> argues that ‘feelings are entailed by patterns of neural firing, by a very precise code.’ If this is true, or some such similar case is true, then there is no conceivable way that emotions, thoughts, ideas, words, etc., could be produced without a brain.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">By contrast, dualism would leave us to a completely different conclusion. If the ‘soul’ is an incorporeal thing, capable of leading an independent existence, then it is also the case that emotions, thoughts, ideas, words, etc., are all capable of being existent, independent of the brain, or ‘patterns of neural firing’. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">It would therefore be logical to assume that any incorporeal being would be able to host emotions, thoughts, ideas, words, etc., without requiring a brain. This reasoning also applies in the opposing direction. If one believes that an incorporeal being can hold emotions, thoughts, ideas, words, etc., then you must—must!—believe that emotions can exist independent of neural nets and the brain, or any similar <i>physical</i> structure.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">This would make sense for any theist or deist. How many times have you heard the phrase ‘God is Love’, or ‘God loves his children’. What about Genesis 1:31? ‘God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.’ It’s present in the Qur’an, too: ‘If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.’</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The Olympian Gods in all their myths (which, so far as I have read, are wonderful) feel some set of emotions or another. They are portrayed as infallible as human beings, as susceptible as we are to the vagaries of the human condition; they embody the highest of intellectual virtues, or superhuman strength. In every theistic and deistic world religion, the gods have been bestowed with some collection of mental power whilst being entirely ethereal.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">These are what must be admitted if you are a dualist—and it isn’t hard to do so. </span>If you are a monist, however, it is not logically possible to also believe in gods.</div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">There’s the dilemma: if you’re a monist, you can’t logically believe in any immaterial gods; if you’re a dualist, it's a little easier, but you still have a long way to go to prove your case.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>Neurology Without The Tools—Or Eyes</b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">‘You sadden me, Mrs Sauskind. I wish I could find it in my heart to tell you that I find your scepticism rewarding and invigorating, but with the best will in the world I cannot. I drink quiet, Mrs Sauskind, drained. I think you'll find an item in the build to that effect. Let me see. … Ah yes, here we are, “Struggling on in the face of draining scepticism from client, drinks—three hundred and twenty-seven pounds fifty.” Would that I did not have to make such charges, my dear Mrs Sauskind, would that the occasion did not continually arise. Not believing in my methods only makes my job more difficult, mrs, and hence, regrettably, more expensive.’ —Dirk Gently in <i>Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency</i></span></blockquote>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">There will be more objections to my argument than there has been ink spilt over the Trinity. Many will be vacant: others will be thought-provoking. But few will overcome the dilemma. However terse it may be, it doesn’t take away from the thrust of the argument.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The ‘theories’ of many charlatans and pseudo-scientists, examples being Deepak Chopra and Graham Hancock, work from the platform of ignorance. We know so little about the brain, and in particular about consciousness, and people like these claim that they know more; and what’s more that we cannot verify what they to know exclusively without first believing what they say.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">An objection I can think of off the top of my head would be something like this: <i>Well, what if there is a god, or gods, and it is/they are ‘physical’?</i> How big would you want the god to be? The bigger it is, the slower the neural activity, the slower it would think. You could make it small; but how many neural nets could you fit into that?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">There is an experiment that may, if successful, yield some interesting results. If there is any human behaviour that cannot be correlated with any neural activity in the brain or body, and has been tested and repeated numerous times under controlled conditions, only then might I consider that there might be a distinct ‘thing’ from physical matter, and only then might the religious and charlatans be vindicated.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"><b></b></span><br />
<b>Endnotes</b></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s3"><sup>1</sup></span><span class="s1"> Neural correlates are the neural nets in the brain which correspond to a particular behaviour, whether it’s mental or physical. For instance, there is an area of the brain called the primary motor area; if certain parts are stimulated with electricity, you can manipulate its corresponding body parts. And vice versa, moving your arms and legs will cause the associated areas in the primary motor area to ‘light up’.</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s3"><sup>2</sup></span><span class="s1"> In Nick Lane’s <i>Life Ascending</i>, Daniel Dennett is accused of begging the question in the last chapter on qualia in <i>Consciousness Explained</i> when he asked (and I paraphrase), <i>why is it that electrochemical happenings in the brain can’t produce qualia?</i> What is not realised is that he asked this question after citing multitudes of philosophers who have become absolutely certain that they <i>cannot </i>be explained using the vast, complex networks of neurones—without giving a reason other than intuition, by the way; even to the point of shifting the problem onto physics, by postulating that there might be new laws or new properties of matter to discover (which is not impossible, and if evidence does arise to support it I will admit it, but new laws purely for the sake of consciousness is asking for too much). Even Nick Lane almost fell into the trap.</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1">Here’s an example of a philosopher, K. T. Maslin, passing-off any explanation of consciousness in electrochemical terms:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">The basis of the objection is this: physical occurrences do not just appear to be different from consciousness; they are utterly different, so utterly different in fact, that it is inconceivable how the physical could produce the mental (<i>Intro. to The Philosophy of Mind,</i> p. 168).</span></blockquote>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1">Aside from begging the question (who’s to say there is a mental substance at all?), other questions come to mind. Why is it a surprise that it <i>is </i>inconceivable that the physical could produce the ‘mental’? We’ve barely scratched the surface of neurology. To what authority are these statements of ‘fact’ made? To intuition. (The same authority creationists all-too-often appeal to.) All that is provided in the favour of this view are intuition pumps.</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1">The profundity of this view is understood with the following objections: (1) It is now possible to study the evolution of our primate brain. We are also able to observe that, with evolution, behavioural capabilities tend to correlate with the relative complexity of brains, and brain power. With this in mind, why is it insisted that we look elsewhere for an explanation?</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1">(2) If ‘consciousness’ couldn’t possibly be multitudes of electrochemical happenings, then (and I’m borrowing this from Dennett) ‘what do you think it would seem like if it <i>were </i>just a combination of electrochemical happenings in your brain?’</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1">(If you would like to see a great analysis on the philosopher’s quale, see Daniel Dennett’s chapter, Qualia Disqualified, in his book <i>Consciousness Explained</i>.)</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s3"><sup>3</sup></span><span class="s1"> There is a species of lucid dreaming, called <i>sleep paralysis, </i>which<i> </i>induces a state of paralysis, pressure on the chest, the feeling of floating, flying, falling, or leaving one’s body, accompanied by fear—and other times excitement, exhilaration, rapture, or ecstasy. I owe this description to Michael Shermer’s book (pages 227-228 of <i>The Believing Brain</i>), so I will continue by quoting him:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">Several centuries ago, the English referred to nighttime sensations of chest pressure from witches or other supernatural beings as the ‘mare’, from Anglo-Saxon <i>merran</i>, or ‘to crush’. So a <i>nightmare</i> was believed to represent a crusher who comes in the night. Since they lived in a demon-haunted world, they called these crushers <i>demons</i>. Since we live in a alien-haunted world, we call them <i>aliens</i>. Your culture decides what labels to assign to these anomalous brain experiences.</span></blockquote>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s3"><sup>4</sup></span><span class="s1"> Dualism is the philosophical theory that there is the mental and the physical, and the former is not reducible to the latter. I.e., you cannot explain the mental in terms of the physical.</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1"><sup>5</sup> ‘Monism’ posits that consciousness has its roots in physical matter. ’Reductive monism’ is the philosophical theory that all mental activity can be reduced by electrochemical processes in the brain. In contrast to ‘non-reductive monism’, it does not postulate a second ‘mental property’</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s3"><sup>6</sup></span><span class="s1"> Thought it adds nothing to the neurosciences, it is therefore a great thinking aid because of how intuitive it is. Just as Daniel C. Dennett uses the idea of homunculi—tiny people inside of the brain controlling everything, which has presented the problem of infinite regress—to help us think about our various faculties, so can ‘non-reductive monism’, and this conception of ‘mental properties’ and ‘physical properties’.</span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s3"><sup>7</sup></span><span class="s1"> He even admits it himself:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">What appears to be required is a theory that contract and middle path between radical materialism and strong dualism, a theory which, on the other hand, does not seek to deny the fact of mentality by reducing states of mind to the purely physical but, on the other, does not turn the possesses of mental states into incorporeal Cartesian ghosts, impotent to affect the world. (<i>An Intro. to The Philosophy of Mind,</i> p. 153)</span></blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>References</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><i>Books</i></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Adams, D., 1987. <i>Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency.</i> London: Pan Books Ltd.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Carter, R., 2010. <i>Mapping the Mind. </i>London: Orion Books.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Darwin, C., 1998. <i>The Origin of Species.</i> Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Ltd.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Dennett, D.C., 1993. <i>Consciousness Explained. </i>London: Penguin Books.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Hood, B., 2011. <i>The Self Illusion: Who Do You </i>Think<i> You Are?. </i>London: Constable & Robinson Ltd.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Lane, N., 2010. <i>Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution. </i>London: Profile Books Ltd.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Maslin, K.T., 2011. <i>An Introduction to The Philosophy of Mind</i>. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Shermer, M., 2012. <i>The Believing Brain: From Spiritual Faiths to Political Convictions—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them As Truths.</i> London: Constable & Robinson Ltd.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><i>Articles & Journal Entries</i></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Blanke, O., et al., 2002. Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. <i>Nature </i>[Online], 419(6904), pp. 269-270. Available from: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6904/full/419269a.html"><span class="s4">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6904/full/419269a.html</span></a> [Accessed 6 September 2014]</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Persinger, M., 2001. The Neuropsychiatry of Paranormal Experiences. <i>The Journal of Neuropsychiatry </i>[Online], 13(4), pp. 515-524. Available from: <a href="http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=101550"><span class="s4">http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=101550</span></a> [Accessed 7 September 2014]</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Michael Kenninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07258268407673835674noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-72013741151368756112014-09-10T08:43:00.000-07:002014-09-10T09:18:57.123-07:00The Extended Phenotype: A Book Review<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
By Luke Kristopher Davis</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qGA7m1J4dH8/VBBsnLvMwYI/AAAAAAAAAyw/4UcFFlrB7vs/s1600/richard.dawkins-extended.phenotype-book.cover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qGA7m1J4dH8/VBBsnLvMwYI/AAAAAAAAAyw/4UcFFlrB7vs/s1600/richard.dawkins-extended.phenotype-book.cover.jpg" height="320" width="212" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>About the author</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Richard Dawkins is a prolific writer on evolution, Darwin and Atheism and was a zoologist at the university of Oxford. He is known for his tour de force book <i>The selfish Gene </i>which offered a new world view of life and how it came to be. Dawkins' efforts are mainly to encourage secularism, reason and science in today's society through articles, programs, books and films. He is one of my favorite authors because his clear-cut-no-nonsense logic really appeals to me and his courage to tackle all problems and questions scientifically.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The central idea of the book</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This book is a sequel to <i>The Selfish Gene, </i>which proposes that evolution IS solely concerned with gene survival and that organisms are merely used as gene vehicles. One is assumed to accept the idea of the selfish gene but a large chunk of the book is aimed at providing concrete examples and arguments which defend this view of life, Dawkins also challenges group selection theory and kin selection theory. The main idea is that phenotypes, which are expressions of genes, do not just stop at the level of the organism but reach further out into other organisms and the environment itself. He builds up step by step a sequence of arguments, examples and rebuttles which lead to the obvious fact that phenotypes go beyond the organism in which the gene resides. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Style</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<i> The Extended Phenotype </i>is aimed at professional biologists, something I was ignorant of, because it is a concise and referenced academic thesis proposing a serious scientific idea. The complexity of the examples and the use of technical language should not hinder a new student of evolution but it does take some slow reading and imagination to understand the book. It is recommended to thoroughly digest his earlier popular works on evolution and around the subject before this more subtle idea is introduced. However, the clarity and excitement in the book makes it a work engaging to layman and the like. With careful reading and patience the idea will be clearly and correctly understood.<br />
<br />
If you are looking for a quick popular read or get bored of academic nomenclature and arguments this book may be slightly beyond your liking. However the content of the book outweighs any faults in style.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Why should this book be read?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It enhances ones knowledge and most importantly understanding of the grand scale of evolution and the significance of the gene as the Darwinian protagonist. Anyone who really wants to understand the processes of life and how evolution works should read this. Also professional biologists and biology students have to read this in order to gain the correct macroscopic view of life, some biological phenomena only make perfect sense under this paradigm.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">8/10 </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-51501116381029588982014-09-09T03:27:00.000-07:002014-09-09T09:57:25.276-07:00Biologists Reduce Aging by Gene Manipulation<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
By Luke Kristopher Davis</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3fRnyvteG1A/VA7QAH666VI/AAAAAAAAAyg/ACmAMeRYHzc/s1600/859383286_1353896199.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3fRnyvteG1A/VA7QAH666VI/AAAAAAAAAyg/ACmAMeRYHzc/s1600/859383286_1353896199.jpg" height="282" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The research</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Matthew Ulgherait, David Walker and their UCLA colleagues have found a way to prolong the life of fruit flies by activating a gene, AMPK, within the nervous system. They activated the gene in the intestine of the fruit flies which increased a process known as autophagy within the intestine and the brain. This prolonged the lives of the flies against a control group by 30%. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What is autophagy?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Autophagy is the basic catabolic and cellular process which degrades and recycles broken or dysfunctional cellular components via the 'breaking down mechanisms' within lysosomes. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.wormbook.org/chapters/www_autophagy/autophagyfig1leg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.wormbook.org/chapters/www_autophagy/autophagyfig1leg.jpg" height="161" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The cellular 'junk' is isolated by a double walled membrane and ends up in a waste package known as an autophagosome. The lysosome, which can be thought of as the 'junk' grinder, docks then enters the autophagosome and begins to breakdown the cellular 'junk'. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This process is important for cellular health as the continual recycling of dysfunctional proteins etc. will help keep the cell thus the organism healthier and more efficient at surviving.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What does this mean for humans?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>Well AMPK is present within the human genome albeit at lower concentration levels than in the fruit fly. This experiment hints at the same process being used in humans i.e. activating the gene AMPK in the intestine, which could be digested through a pill, which will then increase autophagy throughout the body. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The team at UCLA state that human applications of this experiment won't be around for some years, however their success in this experiment breeds hope for the longevity of human beings.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-71487212005477331162014-09-08T09:06:00.001-07:002014-11-24T20:04:05.927-08:00Memes: How ideas manipulate us to survive<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
By</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Luke Kristopher Davis</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>The Selfish Meme</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b> </b>We have thought and still like to believe that us humans choose ideas as we like and create them as we wish. However this view might be slightly erroneous as it fails to explain some of the oddities we see in our cultural world. It may seem as if we do choose to accept certain ideas and reject others or to create new ideas out of thin air however this is simply an illusion, we are being made to accept or reject ideas by the ideas themselves. Analogously with genes building and manipulating our bodies for their own survival, memes manipulate our brains for their own survival too. What I will propose is a possible theory, in some sense a paradigm, that could explain cultural phenomena. The theory I will develop is currently untested to the standards of modern science and should be seen as a set of working hypotheses which in principle could be tested. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>What is a meme?</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PUg2nVbzuYs/UFnzeYOeJ8I/AAAAAAAAAd4/5ZoQx_cI_K8/s1600/Richard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PUg2nVbzuYs/UFnzeYOeJ8I/AAAAAAAAAd4/5ZoQx_cI_K8/s1600/Richard.jpg" height="216" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A meme is a unit of cultural information and its complete form is some unique temporary or permanent neuronal pattern in the brain. As the brain is not completely understood yet, the definition of the meme will be used in vagueness, however it can be usefully thought as a unique pattern in the brain. A meme can be related to what we already recognize as cultural objects; ideas, videos, images, pieces of art, scientific principles, songs, music and much more. For example Michael Jackson's Thriller is a meme as it produces a unique neuronal response and is expressed in a unique form in a cultural environment. These cultural objects are simply expressions of memes akin to organisms or cellular matter being expressions of genes. The expressions of the memes can be defined as their memotypes. The memotypes of memes are vulnerable to selection mechanisms in certain cultural environments. This is similar to phenotypes of genes which are under selection pressures be it Darwinian, sexual or artificial. This moves us onto the next important topic, replication.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Genes replicate through reproduction, how do Memes do it?</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Memes are not constrained to the chemistry of life as genes are. Memes are based upon the social culture that we have evolved and hence replicate through completely different mechanisms. A meme is said to have been replicated if its unique neuronal pattern is experienced by a new brain. One way for this unique neuronal pattern to be experienced is by the sensory interaction with the respective memotype. For example if John shares Nicky Minaj's new song on facebook to his friend Mary and Mary watches the video then the meme, which is the song, has been successfully replicated. If Mary then shares this to Joan who then watches it then shares ad infinitum then the song will be continually replicated. Normally memes are shared by the interaction of sensory equipment of humans with a memotype.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>What determines the success of memes?</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Firstly what is success in terms of memes? Well, like genes, if the number of copies of a meme at time <i>t </i>is greater then it was a time <i>t-1 </i>ago, then it can be said the meme has been successful. What happens if the meme rapidly copies itself but dies off very quickly... surely this is not a sign of success. So longevity, the lifetime of the meme in a meme pool, is a term in the success equation. Also a meme is vulnerable to mutation that is to say its memotype might be changed in collision with some other meme or randomly by replication error so if a meme can be resistant to mutation then it will be more successful. Memes may occupy different memepools in different environments for example a song can exist on the internet or on television (which may be considered to have different selection criteria hence different memetic environments). A meme which is in more memetic environments may increase the probability of replication but it may be vulnerable to different mutation rates and longevity so we only consider the success of a meme in one meme pool.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
An equation for success for a meme m in memepool A may look like this: S_A(m) = N_A(m)*L_A(m)/M_A(m) where N_A(m) is the number of successful copies of m, L_A(m) is the longevity of m and M_A(m) is the mutation probability of m (the higher the less successful m will be). Note 0 < M_A(m) < 1. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What effects the number of successful copies of a meme depends on its interaction with selection pressures in different memetic environments. Consider a meme in the imgur, reddit and tickld sense i.e. a picture with language on it existing on the internet. There are many selection mechanisms at work, whether a meme makes us laugh or whether a meme appeals to our sensibilities. A successful meme in this memepool will do well against selection pressures relative to other memes in the memepool. We must note that success of memes is wholly relative to the rise or demise of other memes in the same memepool experiencing the same selection pressures. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>The evolution of memes</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b> </b>As with Darwinian evolution the most successful genes will survive and among those the next most successful genes will survive and so on. However for evolution to act there must be mutation, selection pressures only exert themselves on slight differences in gene expressions, those that are just a tad more successful will replicate more and take a larger share of the gene pool until another more successful mutant comes into play. It is so with memes too, memes will mutate after many or little replications and the selection pressures of each memetic environment will exert itself on these mutations. It also happens that memes can merge much very easily to form a new unique meme and if this merged meme replicates more or has a longer longevity then its parents then it will be more successful than them and take a larger share of the memepool. Over time we will witness the gradual evolution of memes or combination of memes (if it does each meme better) in different memetic environments and we should witness a journey towards higher complexity. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As each new meme is either the mutation of a previous one or the combination of previous memes (its parents) then it can be postulated that the evolution of memes will form an ancestral tree. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It is then possible to track back down the tree to an 'origin of memes' which would be some basic neuronal patterns near the start of the emergence of a linguistic culture... this would be very back in evolutionary time indeed maybe somewhere near the evolution of homosapiens. However this is just speculation, it would be extremely unlikely to track far back to the origin of memes... what is important is that memes follow an ancestral tree like pattern. As memes replicate and mutate extremely fast and numerously so the branches of the tree will be extremely dense and each branch being almost indistinguishable from the next.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Why is a meme selfish? </b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A meme is considered selfish because it does for its own good and only for its own good. Memes which seem to help us in our lives are only doing so because memes which promote the well being of humans will tend to be favored. A meme may seem to give us happiness or promote logic and reason etc. but it has evolved to do so i.e. those memes which do produce happiness and do not endanger the human will be more likely replicated from brain to brain. This is not entirely so! Some memes encourage self harm or sacrifice which does not promote human happiness or health but it might be successful for the meme to do so. I think there is no other way to explain self harm or religious suicide other than that a meme encouraging that behavior might be successful in a fundamentalist memetic environment, one that promotes insane acts in the name of another meme.... God. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As the survival of memes is entirely based upon selection pressures which are based on our own physiology it seems extraordinarily likely that memes which appeal to our biological well-being will most likely be favored... that is why memes which encourage malice to our own survival hence genetic survival will be extremely rare. What is important is that memes seem to act for themselves and we should avoid talking as if we are in complete control of the evolution of the culture which originally emerged from us.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Interaction of Memes and Genes</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Following on from our discussion, memes which promote human well being and longevity will be favored. If we also assume, which I think we do, a Dawkinsian 'selfishness of genes' point of view of life we have to conclude that successful memes in most meme pools will promote the survival of most genes. I say most genes as some memes, Hitlers idea of blue eyes and blonde hair being the best, favor some genes than others.... also racism and prejudice towards gingers or small people etc. However memes which promote most genes i.e. does not discriminate will most likely be replicated by everyone and hence become more successful than those which promote some genetic discrimination.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It is possible to have memes which encourage the selection of certain genes.... that is an idea of beauty which encourages females to only mate with males above 6 ft. Or an idea of a designer baby or even genetic modification of a human to glow in the dark.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Memes simply manipulate the phenotypes (mostly in the brain) of human genes to promote itself and memes do not carry themselves down the genetic germ-line. Also genes do not replicate in the same environment as memes do. This why the evolution of both can be considered separate. But in certain cases it will be useful to study how memes can provide selection for certain genes. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>How can this theory be tested?</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Well on the assumptions which have been briefly proposed here it is possible to build mathematical models of cultural memepools and memetic replication and predict the successes of different memes. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Also if memes really are the selfish and brain manipulating replicators which I claim they are we can predict that each unique meme will have some unique temporary or permanent influence on brain structure. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>What does this paradigm imply?</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3IHYwYCEjTk/TsW5_RET-AI/AAAAAAAAABM/KefIesXm8Z4/s1600/Cerebro%2By%2BArterias.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3IHYwYCEjTk/TsW5_RET-AI/AAAAAAAAABM/KefIesXm8Z4/s1600/Cerebro%2By%2BArterias.jpg" height="247" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b> </b>It implies that culture is life. As life is merely the differential survival of different replicators. It is also an example that life may take many many different forms and different forms of life may emerge from one another in the continual march towards complexity. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It once again teaches us that we are simply vehicles of genes and vehicles of memes.... that we are being manipulate by replicators from the bottom up and the top down. Our power in the universe has yet again been stripped away... however this is nothing against the theory it is simply a possible truth. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-3949755755145979432014-08-29T08:35:00.000-07:002014-08-29T08:35:02.350-07:00Why is the world so strange? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yEDEDDtvLQQ/VACNlouUr0I/AAAAAAAAAxY/kv45HyMYL00/s1600/119790_story__chain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yEDEDDtvLQQ/VACNlouUr0I/AAAAAAAAAxY/kv45HyMYL00/s1600/119790_story__chain.jpg" height="202" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Middle World</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One should not confuse 'middle world' with 'middle earth' the famous stage for the events in Tolkien's LOTR and 'The Hobbit'. The middle world is more of a snippet of the spectrum of environments which exist in the universe, most notably on our planet. Humans, and our evolutionary ancestors, have evolved over millions of years in certain environments all with differing selection pressures. These environments varied in temperature, population dynamics of other organisms, predator - prey ratios and amount of food. However all the environments that our mammalian ancestors shared all depict physics that are more apparent on a certain scale level. For example the evolutionary ancestors of certain bacteria lived in a 'small world' where the sizes of the organisms were closer to the size of the molecules that make them, hence the random kinetic motion of molecules (known as Brownian motion) is more apparent than on our scale level. Brownian motion is not so obvious to the human naked eye. The middle world is the environment we are accustomed to and includes the normal speeds of objects which we are used to observing, the air resistance which impacts every object and something which our brain has not evolved to conceive without. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As we did with the scale level of bacteria we can postulate other worlds i.e. spectrum of environments which would make some physical laws more obvious than would be in our middle world. Let's postulate, for the sake of a thought experiment, that there could exist organisms which were the size of planets and they evolved to survive in a planetary environment. What physical laws would seem more obvious? Well we think of which forces are stronger with increases in mass and size.... Gravity! Yes the strength of gravity between objects is directly proportional to the masses of the objects. So this organism would evolve in a world where its gravitational force on other objects is significant and could easily witness the bending of light due to gravitational forces. To this organism most of the consequences of Einstein's general relativity would be 'normal', however if this organism were to develop science and look upon our middle world where objects travel faster and other forces stronger than gravity exist it would look strange. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>The world was not made for us</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4OleCPw16ts/T4ddS4LX4WI/AAAAAAAAALY/uMYxNzG0l_g/s1600/theworld.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4OleCPw16ts/T4ddS4LX4WI/AAAAAAAAALY/uMYxNzG0l_g/s1600/theworld.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Our own evolved perceptions of the world are just that.... evolved perceptions. We do not see the world as if it was intelligently designed for us or made just for us by some supernatural being. No, we ourselves are products of the universe and the laws of physics and as such will find layers of reality that will behave completely differently to our 'middle world'. The fact that our perceptions of the world are so so adapted to fit a certain scale level of the world it almost seems natural to think the world was made for us. But 'seeming so' and 'feeling so' are not what gets to the truth about the universe... we need 'knowing so'. So as we use empirical and sensible techniques and apparatus to study the universe, apparatus and techniques that go beyond our adapted senses, we will contact a layer of reality which we have adapted no set instincts or genetic programs to comprehend. However our brain is so adept... so versatile and ingenious that we can understand it. In order for us to keep developing our comprehension of the universe we must not care about strangeness or oddities but simply stick to mathematical and scientific rigor. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Some Strangeness</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SNZnRPfogFQ/TxQd1ELmfiI/AAAAAAAAAFU/Hvx6GyGp1L0/s1600/atomlithium.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SNZnRPfogFQ/TxQd1ELmfiI/AAAAAAAAAFU/Hvx6GyGp1L0/s1600/atomlithium.png" height="200" width="176" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There are a lot of strange phenomena in the universe which by our previous discussion fall outside the middle world of our perception. Most of these strange things occur at the extremely small scales of physics or the very large or even the very very fast and the very very slow. For example the process of natural selection itself i.e. the struggle for survival of genetic material against selection pressures is an extremely slow process. If we take the complete evolution of the horse (from some arbitrary starting point with physiological sense) the process took approx 50 million years which is about a million times as long as the lowest life expectancy of a human being. So of course the continual change of organisms, which we have not and our ancestors have not witnessed in one lifetime would be very strange to us. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Quantum Mechanics is one of the fields of science which many have been quoted in saying it is the strangest. On the atomic and subatomic scales of the universe we would expect a completely different world. Clouds of electrons whizzing around the atomic nucleus with no decided place unless perturbed by some external probe (other particle). Atoms attracting one another but strongly repelling upon close impact. The fact that quantum particles which are considered to be part of the same spin system, continue to conserve spin arrangement even if the particles are moved to either side of the globe (Quantum entanglement).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In special relativity we witness the slowing down of time relative to faster moving reference frames... and the contraction of lengths of objects as they reach the speed of light. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As we continue to delve deeper into the construction of the universe or expand our time and size scales to galaxies and even multiple universes we will witness strangeness... until our scientists become 'adapted' (not genetically of course) to that world of perception. We should all be searching for strangeness as that's where new layers of reality will be hiding. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-78876852386940589752014-08-05T15:48:00.000-07:002014-08-05T15:48:16.841-07:00Is Culture Alive?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2h5j2eT_VYg/UhT4Z-GJPzI/AAAAAAAAAA0/flkW9V4Zvwo/s1600/HD-Nature-photography-Wallpaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2h5j2eT_VYg/UhT4Z-GJPzI/AAAAAAAAAA0/flkW9V4Zvwo/s1600/HD-Nature-photography-Wallpaper.jpg" height="282" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What is Life?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Before we label anything as something which is alive we must define the criterion for life itself. Most of us probably know the general characteristics of life and living things; the ability to reproduce sexually or a-sexually, to grow, to die and to move. When we think of life we do tend to basically separate things which move by their own accord, by storing and releasing energy in reaction to external stimuli, from objects which move under the basic laws of physics. Of course living things obey the laws of physics but their movements arise from a complicated information processing of external and internal stimuli. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One could propose that living things must show some form of consciousness of themselves or their surroundings. If we think about the general animal kingdom, this is partly true, humans have high self awareness and so do dolphins and elephants. Other animals show less consciousness of themselves and their surroundings due to less complex neurological circuitry. As we work our way down the evolutionary tree, self - consciousness becomes a less convincing characteristic of life. It is very difficult to justify whether a plant, or small bacteria are conscious of their own surroundings let alone themselves. Their structures are built to merely produce certain physiological outputs under certain external inputs e.g. photosynthesis. Under this light, consciousness is not a necessary condition for life but merely a sufficient one. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In order for us to really explore the necessary conditions for and most basic characteristics of life we must focus our attention to the oldest living organisms known to man. These organisms are mainly unicellular (single celled) ones such as viruses and bacteria. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kgKxuane1Sw/U-E0GERg7FI/AAAAAAAAAwk/cbggxCqMcN0/s1600/e_coli.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kgKxuane1Sw/U-E0GERg7FI/AAAAAAAAAwk/cbggxCqMcN0/s1600/e_coli.jpg" height="250" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Bacteria are part of a huge family of prokaryotic organisms which do not have a membrane bound nucleus. These organisms are much simpler than eukaryotes which do have membrane bound nucluei and this category contains a wide range of organisms from simple celled organisms to mammals. Bacteria contain a nucleus which contains all the DNA, RNA and the nucleic proteins which help build the organism. The rest of the bacterium is made up of proteins which chemically breakdown the environment and use the products for energy to fuel their metabolism. If bacteria grow to a fixed cell size due to an optimal environment they then a-sexually reproduce through a process could binary fission. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Binary_Fission_2.svg/512px-Binary_Fission_2.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Binary_Fission_2.svg/512px-Binary_Fission_2.svg.png" height="191" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">1) Bacterium at maximum size. 2) DNA splits. 3) DNA strands move to the poles of the cell. 4) A new cell wall starts to form between the two strands. 5) Two seperate cells have formed. 6) The DNA strands coil up.<br /><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/i-7YQXusDR0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As you can see from the video bacteria are extremely simple examples of life, they metabolize and they reproduce. Basic metabolism means to carry out vital chemical transformations which sustain the structure of the organism and allow it to reproduce. However when we look at bacteria and other unicellular prokaryotes or simple celled organisms we wonder whether there must have been much simpler organisms or molecules which showed signs of life but were closer to inanimate matter. There must have been a gradual transition from basic chemical reactions of elements to basic units of life. This bridge, which could answer the origins of life, is still unknown to humans. Many speculate and others experimented that shows signs of basic chemical reactions occurring in bubbles which split into more bubbles carrying on the reactions. There is one important question left unanswered which is important for our discussion... what came first DNA or proteins? Or was it some other similar molecule such as RNA? I think whatever it was it must have contained a molecule which induced specific reactions and it must have had some kind of structural integrity. For it to be differentiated with normal chemical reactions and so forth this basic building block of life must have been able to copy itself and reproduce.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The replicator which in organic life is the gene, is the unit of selection, which is the main protagonist in evolution. All selection acts upon genes, selecting those with higher fitness or those more desirable (human selection e.g. dog breeds). The gene is a part of a DNA molecule. Life became more complex through the natural selection acting on the random mutations of DNA strands which occurred during splitting and reproduction in the early molecules of life, favoring those organisms which reproduced more than others (through faster reactions or growth rates etc.). Over time simple organisms conjugated and evolved into more complicated and larger beings as genes would be favored if they instructed within the same organism. All organisms are essentially vehicles which have evolved to help the genes which instruct them to survive generation after generation. This is the idea proposed in<i> the selfish gene</i> and more so in <i>the extended phenotype</i> by Richard Dawkins. Essentially all life is is simply the selection of different genes either by natural selection or other manual selection.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/images/genes.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/images/genes.gif" height="295" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>How Could Culture Have Any Relation to Life?</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/adventure_collection/images/search_headers/activity_interests/main_culture_history_ruins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="169" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/adventure_collection/images/search_headers/activity_interests/main_culture_history_ruins.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We must focus on what we have said about life, ignoring all the complicated characteristics, and keep the replicator and unit structure in the forefront of our minds. When we think about defining culture we do tend to conjure up some vague collection of words which associate all human endeavor ranging from art, literature, philosophy, television and science. What I want to argue is that culture is essentially a category of life which differs to physical life only by nature of the building blocks which construct the replicator (the gene) and all of the phenotypes (organisms) and phenotypic effects of said genes. Cultural life may also differ in the selection dynamics and mutation, replication dynamics. However there is still a replicator. In virtue of our prior discussion I must then propose a sound argument which describes the basic replicator in cultural life and outline some selection mechanisms and phenotypic effects. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Replicator!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Dawkins originally proposed a memetic theory of ideas in <i>the selfish gene</i> and he developed this idea in the <i>extended phenotype</i> and <i>the god delusion. </i>This theory proposes that cultural units of information can be defined and separated as memes or a collection of memes. Memes are cultural units of information which seem to become copied and replicated in the cultural world (known as meme pools) through cultural processes such as word-of-mouth, SMS, email, TV, internet, facebook, letters, magazines etc. these memes are then 'selected' due to their fitness in cultural environments. Some memes flourish in certain cultural environments and go to the abyss in others... memes also resemble genetic mutation in that each time a meme is replicated from one brain to the other its form may change and each selection environment can either favor these changes or not. Cultural selection essentially acts on memetic mutation which is actually more volatile and rapid compared to genetic mutation. This might be a lot to take in now, so let us reverse and describe the meme a bit more.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As we said.... a meme is a cultural unit of information which is replicated through time and takes part in selection games (different selection mechanisms in a variety of environments). Let's look at some examples of memes. We can look at the classical world of art. Each piece of art can be said to be a meme as each piece acts as unique units of culture and has a specific structure. Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is a meme which has survived a long time. Many people would argue that once the painting has gone the meme surely must go? Not necessarily because the meme has been replicated through time... during its original unveiling it was just one of itself but over time artists sketched it.... photographers captured it and as major printing, television and the internet came along it has spread. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Mona_Lisa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Mona_Lisa.jpg" height="320" width="211" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It has succeeded i.e. survived in many meme pools, in the meme pool of art it stands as one of the most well-known (well spread) pieces of art and has survived selection criteria such as aesthetic appeal, history, significance and the fact it was painted by Da Vinci. Its success in many other areas of culture are due to unique memetic mutations... for example focusing on the mystery of the smile or these obvious memetic mutations:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mural.pt/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/mona_lisa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://mural.pt/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/mona_lisa.jpg" height="320" width="230" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0279/4099/products/687-raw-mona-little-collector_4.jpeg?v=1383855640" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0279/4099/products/687-raw-mona-little-collector_4.jpeg?v=1383855640" height="320" width="266" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The memetic mutation on the right is more of a memetic combination in which two memes, in this case Megan Fox and Mona Lisa, come together and then become a unique meme. This does not happen in physical life but can occur in cultural life. There maybe many different forms of life in the universe and many different ways life can behave. The success of any memetic mutation or combination wholly depends on selection. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One replication occurs when one meme is copied from one brain to the other. The meme does not necessarily have to be accepted by any brain at all. For example I could send you a song which is a unit of cultural information and you could dislike the song. Either way I have copied the song in some form to your brain, the meme has spread. However if you liked the song most likely you would share it with someone else to enjoy. Now you can see something that resembles selection. Those memes which are more likely to be accepted are more likely to spread and become successful. The opposite can also occur, for example the idea of Rolf Harris could spread from brain to brain solely because it is disliked and rejected. However, I won't go into this in detail here, on the whole ideas which are more easily accepted and simple information wise will become more successful. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Memetic Selection!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/anthonykosner/files/2012/10/imgur-the-simple-image-sharer-current.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/anthonykosner/files/2012/10/imgur-the-simple-image-sharer-current.jpg" height="275" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The internet has made memetic selection much much more easier to witness, especially with simple image sharers such as imgur, instagram and reddit. On these sites which act as simple memetic environments we witness the clear competition of memes against the other. The selection rules are not as simple and depend upon human psychology and the general climate of culture at the time.. this is all very complicated but we must remember that there must exist selection rules for some memes to succeed against others.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
On imgur successful memes are upvoted (resembles acceptance) and shared. As it attains more votes it usually attains more shares which act as true replications. The upvotes enable it a higher probability for it to be shared. So successful memes are those which become upvoted and shared the most. In the meme pool, successful memes will eventually mutate and this is where selection will kick in, those mutations which attain slightly more upvotes and shares than the original will prosper... those mutations which do worse than the original will die out. Over time the mutation will become superior. Memetic combinations will occur often and if two successful memes come together the new meme could potentially become even more successful through the accumulation of upvotes and shares.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This is a simple and easy way to show the selection process of memes. This process has been occuring since human culture really began, even in language development, easier phonetics will prevail etc. however not on the same scale or time duration. Memetic replication and mutation would have happened much slower during the middle ages than now. This phenomenon does not occur in physical life. Genuinely evolution is very slow and does not vary its time scale as much as culture could. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Phenotypic Effects!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As genes have come together over time to form complex organisms etc. to them survive through time so have memes. One contentious and famous meme with a large number of phenotypic effects is religion... the belief in God. Over time this meme has mutated into many different forms i.e. different religions with many different dogmas (combination of other memes with the main meme). The great similarities between all these memes, some things which was most definitely integral for the success of the original 'God' meme are its worshiping and fundamentalistic rituals. For example, most people who accept a particular religious 'God' meme have a great tendency to reject any other meme if it contradicts or undermines the 'God' meme even if it is done irrationally. It seems the meme is essentially manipulating human brains to aid in it s survival. How does this aid its survival? Well put simply.. it stops all other memes which could potentially overhaul its status as most successful meme in one great big swoop. Take Muslim communities for example... their society has been wholly focused on muslim faith and dogma for centuries because they believe that their view is 100% correct and perfect. They are fundamentalists. However we can now look deeper and see that the meme behind the muslim faith encourages this behavior in order for it to survive through time. It has worked.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
An interesting question can be made here... if religion, anthropomorphism and the idea of God etc. came before science how is science so prevalent today? Well one reason is this, many of the first scientists were also religious e.g. Newton the meme of science as we know of it today did not exist then, it (as a collection of other simple memes) has evolved since then. The simple memes that resemble science.. such as a empiricism and mathematical logic were coming together then in a meme known as natural philosophy. Science then did not explicitly go against religion and even if it did many of its believers hid this characteristic so as to ensure the gradual acceptance of science itself. Through different accumulations of empirical and theoretical ideas (memes) science grew and was successful in the cultural meme pool due to its success in predicting how the world works and industrial inventions. Science is also a successful meme as it is adaptable i.e. it changes if some of its constituent memes goes against experiment. The beauty of science is that if any theory does not hold to experiment it is discarded in favor of (memetically mutated) other theories which explain the new phenomena. We are witnessing, and have been witnessing for hundreds of years as a species, a huge memetic clash between religion and science. Will the phenotypic effects of religion win over the useful, adaptable and rational science? In general we are seeing a decline in religious belief... maybe it's because many realize that they have not yet accepted religion but carry out its rules out of fear rather than reasonable acceptance. This is why I think science will win this memetic clash, those who accept and share it have accepted it through reflection, experiment and with conscious inquisition of the world around them.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So back to phenotypes, other than religion many memes, upon acceptance, do encourage certain actions to enhance their survival or success in the meme pool. One notable phenotype shared by many memes is the bracelet wearing phenotype... so if you accept a meme say '#FreeGaza' and have it on your person than it is easier for this meme to spread without you really expending too much energy into it. It is more likely to be spread with people seeing a specific bracelet and knowing it stands for a certain meme than people actually speaking to others etc. Also the phenotype itself can be easily spread if it is fashionable or useful. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I really do think that there is a case to made for culture being a form of life in so that life is defined as that which has units of replicators. Culture is of course much more complicated than physical life and in a sense does depend on physical life itself. However as with all physical processes, entropy wins, chaos takes over, complexity has strength.... as physical life becomes more complicated maybe there comes a point where a new form of life extends from physical life and forms rules and dynamics much different to its origin. </div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-6496440199696690072014-07-22T04:39:00.000-07:002014-07-22T04:48:00.773-07:00The Pornography Industry: My Experience and General Views<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ecKqMLYmF6c/U85MxJm7nqI/AAAAAAAAAv0/Uj-hEuho95Q/s1600/Create+paintings+from+photos+-+Google+Chrome+31052014+045358.bmp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ecKqMLYmF6c/U85MxJm7nqI/AAAAAAAAAv0/Uj-hEuho95Q/s1600/Create+paintings+from+photos+-+Google+Chrome+31052014+045358.bmp.jpg" height="274" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"> No other film
industry is as contentious or worthy of debate as the pornography business,
which depicts sexual acts, real or performed, to ease the world of sexual
frustration. Its existence has been questioned by the religious community,
politicians and the general public. Porn exists in its form today not only due
to the huge demand that it sees fit to supply to but partly because it is
protected by freedom of expression. In the United States and the United Kingdom
especially, any group can express themselves freely in so far as the messages
they express do not carry a high chance of inciting violence. Pornography steps
on the edge in terms of freedom of expression legislation, as some label it as
an industry which promotes sexual, domestic and general violence towards women.
Porn has stood the tests and generally isn’t deemed to incite violence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="page-break-after: avoid; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">It seems the majority of the supply of
porn is aimed at gratifying males rather than females, take a look at these
recent porn search keywords from around the globe which illuminates the
dominance of the male consumer.</span> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoCaption">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ICYeZPvTCRA/U85M_euVdNI/AAAAAAAAAwE/1W5mQMyCeco/s1600/Global+Internet+Porn+Habits+Infographic++PornMd+Sex+Search+-+Google+Chrome+21072014+084452.bmp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ICYeZPvTCRA/U85M_euVdNI/AAAAAAAAAwE/1W5mQMyCeco/s1600/Global+Internet+Porn+Habits+Infographic++PornMd+Sex+Search+-+Google+Chrome+21072014+084452.bmp.jpg" height="170" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-un2QA3yJVuc/U85M_QMmbTI/AAAAAAAAAv8/-5E3D_DfaDo/s1600/Global+Internet+Porn+Habits+Infographic++PornMd+Sex+Search+-+Google+Chrome+21072014+084519.bmp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-un2QA3yJVuc/U85M_QMmbTI/AAAAAAAAAv8/-5E3D_DfaDo/s1600/Global+Internet+Porn+Habits+Infographic++PornMd+Sex+Search+-+Google+Chrome+21072014+084519.bmp.jpg" height="194" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bEUoeFmqkeM/U85M_W7i9KI/AAAAAAAAAwA/uqzv1Lc0q4I/s1600/Global+Internet+Porn+Habits+Infographic++PornMd+Sex+Search+-+Google+Chrome+21072014+084625.bmp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bEUoeFmqkeM/U85M_W7i9KI/AAAAAAAAAwA/uqzv1Lc0q4I/s1600/Global+Internet+Porn+Habits+Infographic++PornMd+Sex+Search+-+Google+Chrome+21072014+084625.bmp.jpg" height="199" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Keywords
such as ‘hentai’, ‘milf’, ‘pov’ (point of view of male pornstars), ‘massage’
and ‘anal’ all feature pornography where females pleasure males and not
necessarily the other way round. This is not just in a few countries but
prevalent around the world where internet and pornography are allowed. This is
significant in that the sexual needs of men are assumed to be higher in value
or they could just be easier to satisfy. Either way, females are left not only
with a limited supply of pornography for them to use but also feel as they are
being objectified by most of the pornographic world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Many
feminist and women’s rights groups have fought legally and culturally against
the objectification of women in porn. Few have succeeded in changing
legislation to restrict pornography, the most powerful change however occurred
in 2009 which witnessed a prosecution right against extreme pornography.
Extreme pornography is any image or film which is deemed pornographic and
contains content which shows humans in a life threatening situation or in any
position which puts them at a risk for serious injury. Feminists, rightfully,
are still left dissatisfied with the pornographic industry with its degrading
and male orientated content. Some have taken a different approach by taking
matters into their hands and creating a market for female porn, this has given
rise to the feminist pornographic movement.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">Erika Lust</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> (</span><i><span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt;">Erika Hallqvist</span></i><span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt;"> ) </span><span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">is a feminist porn director and producer
from Sweden who works in Barcelona. She has been at the fore front of this
movement in recent years and aims to provide great cinematic content with high
quality film and exciting plots to please the female and male community. This
is what Erika has to say about regular pornography:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">‘</span><b><i><span style="background: white; border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 12pt; padding: 0cm;">At the University of Lund,
even though I was studying, thinking and reading about porn, I didn’t actually
like any of the porn that I saw,” she remembers. “The first time I saw a porn
film, I had the same reaction that many women have – while I was aroused by
some of the images, for the most part I found it unsatisfying. The audiovisual
quality was awful. I didn’t identify with anything that I saw. The women did
not look like they were enjoying themselves, and the sexual situations were
totally ridiculous. We’re modern women! Not slutty Sharons, horny teens,
desperate housewives, hot nurses, and nymphomaniac hookers, always looking to
service pimps, multi-millionaires or macho sex machines. Not always looking to
please rather than be pleased. I wanted to know: where was my lifestyle, my
values, my sexuality?’ – Erika Lust (http://erikalust.com/about/)</span></i></b><i><span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">I have had a unique
experience in that I have worked as a male performer for Erika Lust during my
year abroad in Barcelona studying physics. I starred in two films of her
Xconfessions project which entails performers acting out confessions and
fantasies written in by people from around the world. From my experience I can
say that working with a top feminist director really changed my views of
feminist porn. I once thought it was being made in pure spite against males
however the movement is really focused on creating realistic, intimate and high
quality cinema. It is more of an artistic movement than simply providing quick
and ‘not thought out’ content to serve sexual arousal. Erika Lust and similar
companies are flourishing culturally and financially as they are forging a
whole new market for themselves and women especially are putting their faith
and money into companies which can fulfil their unique sexual demands. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Most men, like I
once did, assume that feminist porn would not fit their sexual demands at all.
However they could be in slight error there, as the porn produced by feminist
companies does not lack natural attractive females, sexual passion and many
other things which males find instinctively arousing. Maybe the reason for the
dismay of males might be due to the fact, that for years, they have been
subjected to a superficial and fake pornographic world in which silicon breasts
trump naturally voluptuous women and unrealistic female roles become a
subconscious desire in the real world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #252525; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Ethically feminist
porn promotes natural and equal sexuality; it does not encourage the gross
humiliation of either gender. It really is the future for porn as it not only
keeps the industry alive (the demand will never go as we are humans) but it
also serves as a cure for the patriarchal, male serving and simply ‘crappy’
productions of regular porn. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-1813537077364675962014-06-02T19:21:00.000-07:002014-06-04T17:01:57.341-07:00Short Story: 'Tinder Malfunction'<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia; font-size: x-large;"><b>TINDER</b></span></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia; font-size: x-large;"><b>MALFUNCTION</b></span></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
By Luke Kristopher Davis
</div>
<div style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 0.56cm;"> This
is where I forgot the rest of the world. All the shit that clogged up
the arteries of my perpetually meaningless life evaporated away,
dispersed into the infinite nothingness that existed outside of me. I
stared into my own eyes in the mirror as if I was searching for
myself beyond the flesh that was me, but I knew there was nothing. It
was some bullshit mental game I played with myself to get me pumped.
Sweat droplets slivered down my face. I loved that. My jet black
hair, I smiled to myself as I remembered one waitress who told me
that it was like James Franco's, glistened under the artificial
lighting. I could hear only my own breathing, my pounding heartbeat
and the seemingly endless electronic playlist that I always listened
to. As I curled one of the 22 kg dumbbells in my arms, keeping the
elbows tucked in and not rocking my arms or body as to isolate the
bicep and destroy more muscle fibers, I examined the muscle
striations on my shoulders and the veins in my bicep and forearm.
After two repetitions I made eye contact with myself again and
performed more repetitions alternating each arm until failure.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.56cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
placed the weights in the dumbbell rack and wiped my face with my
towel. One guy excused me so he could use the same weights, I looked
at him and examined if he had a lower body fat percentage than me, I
didn't think he did as his face seemed more round and he lacked the
vascularity that I had. The rest of the gym gradually came into
focus. It was open plan, white walls and floors, extremely clean.
There was an abdominal class happening to the left of me with a
mixture of men and women all in great shape. As I walked towards the
fountain to fill up on the water I saw some great legs, my eyes
followed the curves starting from the calves along her firm
quadriceps and they circled around her ass which was emphasized by
her nike leggings. She left the fountain and marched her way back to
the treadmill she was on, her blonde hair, locked in a tight bun,
didn't move a millimeter as she traveled across the gym. I began to
fill up my bottle but still looking at her ass as she returned to her
running pace, my mouth started to salivate, eyelids flickering and
eyes rolled back as I imagined my face squeezed between her
sweaty legs with...</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Hey
bro, how much water do you need?"</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">My
jaw snapped shut. Water was flowing out of my bottle.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"...Can't
ever get too much water right..."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
replied still looking at the hard young body on the treadmill. My
watched churped, it was 8 pm. I made plans to see the guys from work
in 'Ascent', a relatively new contemporary bar in town, at 9:30 pm so
I savored the view of this hard body and made my way to the parking
lot.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
Jaguar F-type is engineered to deliver sports car driving that's
instinctive, intuitive and alive. My Jaguar was black, with real
leather seating, great authentic music system and a driving
experience only fit for my salary. When I drove through the congested
streets of London the car didn't make me feel instinctive, intuitive
or alive it didn't make me feel anything. I only drove it to compete
with my friends and to showcase my success which will grant me an
advantage in picking up women, wealthier friends and greater economic
opportunities.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">As
soon as I returned to my modern apartment, I showered, shaved and put
on a shiny navy Armani suit with a white Tommy Hilfiger shirt with no
tie, button undone as to show class but to not hint at an over
exhausted work ethic or conservative outlook. Just before I left for
Ascent, I drank a whey protein isolate shake which was stored in the
fridge and took three creatine tablets, as to maximize muscle
recovery. I knew we were going to eat sushi or some form of protein
nutritious meal whilst at the bar, so I didn't need to eat any of my
pre-prepared meals.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Ascent
was my kind of place. Everyone dressed to impress, wearing sleek
suits and the women wore tight dresses and heels accentuating their
hard delicious bodies without looking like complete coked up
gold-diggers. The bar's decor embodied minimalism, the art on the
walls was abstract ranging from works in the style of Mondrian and
modern minimalist artists in London. The layout was of a circular
type. The bar was in the center of the space and surrounding it was a
dancefloor and surrounding that was a great number of luxurious
booths which contained wide, comfortable sofas for cliques and groups
to relax in. The music never escaped the hypnotic electronic beats
which the clientele favored, the songs never contained lyrics, well
sometimes the looping of a meaningless word or some vocalist making
oohs and aahs to fit the melody, but the music was all about the
repetition of artificial beats. It was a Saturday night, so it was
busy. I noticed Tom Brady, an investment banker from the States, who
was part of our social group at the bar probably buying a bottle. I
looked around the place to spot any nice pussy whilst approaching
Tom, but I didn't have enough time to really look.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Hey
Tom! They don't sell any Thai prostitutes here you know!" I had
to compete with the thudding of the electronic beat.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Yah,
I'll take two bottles of grey goose! Two bottles!" Tom had his
hands on the bar, shouting to the female bartender who had a nice set
of assets.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">He
didn't hear me, so I digged him in the ribs to catch his
attention.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Tom!
Are you on the vodka again!?" I smiled and placed my arm round
him.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Get
off me Nelson, what are you are fucking faggot! Hahahahaha! Yeah I'm
on the vodka again, so what! We're always on the vodka!" He
seemed a little intoxicated but still knew what he was doing. We
never got too drunk.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
female waitress returned with the bill.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"That's
£300 pounds please, what soft drinks would you like? The same as
usual?" I heard her, but I don't think Tom did.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Whaa!?
Yea 300 bucks no sweat, take my Amex" He gave her his card
without looking at her.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"You're
still using Amex in the UK!? You need to hook up with a platinum
Barclays card!"</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Fuck
you Nelson! I got money flowing outta my ears, I don't need no
fucking Barclays card! Hahahhaha!" Tom couldn't quite shout loud
enough for me to stay interested in what he had to say, thankfully
enough I enjoyed this music. I gazed aimlessly around the bar whilst
I wandered whether we would actually order any small dishes of Sushi
here, the state of Brady led me to believe that we wouldn't. I was
pissed for a few seconds, as If betrayed by my predictions. However I
calmed myself and turned towards the bar again.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
hot female bartender gave his card back and we made our way to the
booth where she and her other filthy bartender friends would bring
the bottles and soft drinks. Our booth was towards the end of the
room, if you imagine the room being some sort elliptical in nature
and the booth was tangent to the farthest point from the bar, which
was one the of loci. I could only see Paul Roth, one of the high
frequency traders in our hedgefund, in the booth.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Nelson.
Heard you cashed in gold with that short last week, nice." Roth
said, dusting off his Klein suit trouser leg.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
felt a sense of pride but I wanted to play the whole thing down, as
if it was nothing.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Yeah
could have waited a little more time though, could have 'cashed' in a
bit more" I said, trying to sound disappointed. Tom flung his
body on the booth sofa next to me.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Fuck
Nelson, you need to fucking live your achievements." Tom said,
looking into the room probably searching for ass.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"What
like you did last week taking that whale back last weekend huh Tom!
hahaha!" Paul Roth was sharp with his insults. He laughed at Tom
and I laughed too. Tom looked a little offended.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Fuckkk
guys! She had a tight pussy alright, that's all it was. I thought she
would do some crazy shit cause she was a fat fucking whore. You know
what these Tinder sluts are like! But she was frigid as fuck!"
Paul and I were still laughing at Tom.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
thought to myself never to take a fat body home. Why should I? I
could get the best hard bodies here. Then another thought alarmed me,
what the fuck is Tinder? I didn't want to ask the guys straight up as
they would have thought that I was a complete dumb cunt, so I weaved
it in somehow.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Why
did you meet her through Tinder?" I asked Tom, analyzing the
Grey goose bottle but not actually pouring any.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"You
fucking retard Nelson. Geeezzee. Tinder is like the marketplace of
horny sluts. Sometimes I can't be arsed to meet some pussy from
scratch, put on an act... tell her how much I make in a week and
listen to her Nelson. Fuck! Sometimes I just want to go on some app
and meet a chick I know wants the fuckng D."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">We
all started laughing. Roth looked slightly disinterested as he tried
to search the place for people he knew.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"What's
the best thing a girl has done to you from Tinder then Tom!?" I
asked him with a smirk on my face, I reclined into the
sofa.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Well....
this one chick, she's a wannabe model type chick y'know... so when
she saw that I had money and hard rock abs she probably thought
I knew people in the industry. So we matched right, fuck! I knew we
would match..."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Tom
was interrupted by the two female waitresses who bought the bottles
over with sparklers, everyone looked at us but Roth was still trying
to find people he knew, Tom looked pissed because he was interrupted
and I was watching Tom waiting for him to finish his story.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Fuck!
Where was I!?"</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"You
made a match on Tinder..." I replied immediately, trying to seem
uninterested.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Yeah..
so she was desperate for opportunity right.. fucking whorebag... so
she was going to be a dirty whore right! Well we ended up fucking on
the kitchen table whilst she wore lingerie! Hahaha, fucking slut
right!" Tom looked at Paul then me and then Paul again.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Paul
looked at me with a silly smirk on his face and Tom stopped
laughing.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Brady
you nerd." Paul laughed and got up.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Fella's
I have to be with the wife early tomorrow morning. Ciao Gents."
Paul did the buttons of his Klein blazer and walked towards the exit,
he didn't touch the bottle of grey goose.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Roth
does your wife still not know you're fucking other women!?" I
asked Paul before he left.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Probably
not, either way I don't care Nelson." Roth left a tip on the
table and made a swift exit.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
knew there wasn't any hot ass tonight, so I felt the urge to leave
Brady too, go home and check out this Tinder. I mean you couldn't get
more efficient at pulling girls than that, show them what you have in
a few photos without being too obvious, get a match then let the fun
begin.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"I
have to be up early tomorrow too Brady, see you in the office."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
left Brady, who was in a slouch next to two grey goose bottles on his
own in a booth in Ascent. As I walked out, the bar played my favorite
electronic beat.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> I
came back home, which was deliberately lit dimly so as to set a
relaxing mood for when I walked in, to reduce any sort of stress. My
apartment was contemporary and followed minimalism, everything bought
from Ikea as to create a unified idea of the space that I was living
in. Consistency and simplicity were always the priorities. </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Still
in my Armani suit, I sat on my corner sofa and started to download
Tinder. 'Tinder is how people meet. It's like real life, but better.'
As the glossy loading bar slowly filled across the screen all I
thought about was what I could do to the girls with firm tight asses,
big racks, long legs, smooth delicate feet, blonde hair, curly
brunettes with voluptuous lips which would fit just so perfectly
around my cock.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
began sifting through. Too fat. Too fat. Doesn't moisturize. Probably
has chlamydia. Nice tits. Great tits. Asian. Too black. Nice. blonde.
I do this for two hours. Glued to the screen. It's 1:00 am, better go
to sleep to ensure enough recovery time for my muscles. I turned off
the lights, brushed my teeth using first Colgate pro-white, then a
whitener with baking soda then Listerine.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
woke up and the first thing I did was check the Tinder app. I had a
few matches. A blonde who seemed hot enough and probably worked out.
There was also a brunette who had great tits but I prefered blondes.
I wanted to message the blonde, now I didn't want to sound too eager
for sex as females do not like to be objectified however I wanted to
shock her a bit with a different opening message, maybe something
that said I was confident and I found her attractive but I could have risked losing my chances with her. Also something that hinted at my love for
making it rain with blood and that she would most certainly be
fucking murdered and mutilated. I knew just the opening line. 'You
have eyes to kill for'. She replied and I immediately knew she was
interested. This was from past online dating experience in which I
gutted, decapitated and repeatedly beat vulnerable women who were
only searching for lust, love or quite simply an escape. Feeling
assured that I had captured another hard body to play around with, I
placed my Iphone 5 which had personal gold plated buttons into my
Bose speakers and played an electronic pop song which originated from
the seemingly endless electronic playlist.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
walked to the Ikea knife holder on the kitchen side, which really
went well with the cutlery inside the drawers, and slowly ran my
fingers across the knives. Maybe I should start fucking her face in
the bedroom, whilst she's drawling and gagging for air and wanting a
good pounding I could bend her over the sink. My cock started to get
hard just as I imagined her vulnerability and how my rock hard body
would look like commanding her body as if she was a rental car made
for me to drive around in and look good for all the guys back at the
hedge-fund. I imagined the stories that I could tell the guys, maybe
I'll take some photos when she's all in one piece. Then after I could
slit her throat and dance around in the fountain of her blood. My
watch churped. 12:00 pm. I thought I had better go to the gym and get
pumped up for tonight.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
couldn't do the double gym day as I didn't have time, so I
incorporated leg day, which is vitally important for a strong and
hard physique as activating the gluteal and leg muscles increased the
amount of testosterone and growth hormone in your body, and cardio
day which is obviously important for reducing fat, cholesterol and
stress. As I loaded the barbell full of weight onto my deltoids, I
stared into my eyes and saw the emptiness of my person, I did not
know how I came to transform into this Johnathan Nelson I could not
remember how I used to be. Then I began to squat, with perfect form,
until 80% failure. The next set I loaded more weight and stared more
intensively into myself. I am forming, through this physical
activity, a perfect male body. I could never attain this perfection
and I could never escape from imperfection. I began to squat again,
listening to only my breathing, heartbeat and the droning of the
electronic beat of the seemingly endless electronic playlist.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
parked my car just outside Zizzi, I checked the rear view mirror to
ensure that my face was in perfect order and that I looked just right
for this Tinder encounter. I saw a leggy blonde, probably didn't
squat or workout too much but went running, walked past my car
towards Zizzi. She was wearing heels, a nice white and black dress
and a black leather coat all probably from the high street. Cheap.
She waited outside pulled out her phone. I combed my hair back
meticulously as to reshape my hairstyle and I straightened my
eyebrows with my fingers, as to ensure their refined felt-tip like
shape.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Transcendence
was like Ascent. A place embodying minimalism, the surface of things
was smooth and void of any depth. I made a reservation there at one
of the best tables.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">We
arrived at the entrance of Transcendence and I saw that it was
completely full, apart from our table of course which made me felt as
if I had a destined place to be and this feeling reassured me and
added to my confidence. A smartly dressed man in a traditional yet
fashionable waiting suit escorted me and... fuck I forgot her name...
to our table. He gave us a small menu of the specials and a wine
list.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"This
is really nice, feel like an actress or something here you know
haha" She looked at the menu but obviously felt out of
place.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Do
they do pizzas or chips ? Haha! Just kidding" She giggled to
herself.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
looked around and searched for anyone I knew not really paying
attention to her. 'At Transcendence we believe in exquisitely refined
ingredients, lavishly delicious wines and an unforgettable dining
experience.' I already knew what I wanted: Tuna seared sesame steak
finely placed upon earthly asparagus and drizzled in a thai
sauce.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"I'm
going to have the Tuna steak, have you decided yet?" I began to
get impatient, but the thought of fucking her blonde brains out eased
my impatience.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"I
really don't know what I want... I am so indecisive with these
things... decide for me hehe!" She still searched the menu.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"You
will have the baked Dijon Salmon with roasted cashews and mint
sauce." I said smirking almost neurotically but my good looks
obviously carried the charm off.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Wow!
I like a man who's decisive... " she blushed slightly and
leaned back.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"I
guess I'll try that then."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Her
hands rested upon her lap whilst her cheeks glowed a slight red, I
wasn't sure if she was still blushing or if it was the cheap make up
she wore. I thought of conversing with her so the waiter would get
the hint that we were waiting.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"So
you say you do fashion right? What designer intrigues you the most?"
I asked trying to care about the incoming reply.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Well
I am really into Dolce, Kors and Alexander Mcqueen... for me I prefer
designing my own stuff rather than y'know following the crowd
hehe. So what got you into banking then?"</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">She
leaned forward and rested her head on both her hands, she was
certainly interested and gave off a sexual vibe. I really began to
feel impatient.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"If
this waiter doesn't come now, I will nail his hands to the menu
hahahaha" I laughed nervously.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">She
laughed with me, of course she laughed with me, she was a stupid
fucking whore.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"hehe
relax I am sure he will come soon, so tell me why you got into
banking?".</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
got into trading because I was a greedy man. I believed in
capitalism, money brought materialistic opportunities. Money, that is
of all capital, could help you live a longer more prosperous life and
it could buy you a jaguar F-type. For me, money and the quality of my
existence went hand in hand. The only reason for my survival
was to increase my private capital. I lived for the money and for the
short term highs it presented me. There was no other meaning to my
life, that is my life as this Jonathan Nelson.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"My
father got me into the business, you know, following my fathers
footsteps," I said patronizingly.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"That's
great you have a close relationship with your father, I wish I could
say the same". She looked down at the table.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Bingo.
Daddy issues. The waiter came to take our order.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
evening slowly unfolded, I became engrossed in the lavish atmosphere
and only slightly impressed with the food, she gradually became drunk
and high off the wine and the transcendent quality which she was not
accustomed to. We finished our evening at transcendence and I payed
leaving an exceedingly large tip definitely more than the quality
deserved. I did not drink at all as I drove. The real reason for why
I didn't drink was that it would dampen the highs when I spilled this
girls guts all over my covered Ikea furniture. I took her to my car
and she made a move to kiss me. I stared at her blankly for a few
moments then I eyed up her body and forcefully pulled her lips onto
mine. She strapped herself in whilst giggling. I drove back to my
place putting my favorite electronic beat which is from the seemingly
endless electronic playlist.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"This
music is so boring.... hehe it's soooo monotononousss!" She
tried to push buttons to change the music.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Don't
fucking touch my electronic playlist!" I shouted at her,
slamming the steering wheel.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">My
face was red and I looked angry as I saw myself in the rear view
mirror. She took all this in an amusing manner and began
giggling.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"You
look hot when you're angry hehehe! hmm" She said in a seductive
tone.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">As
I pulled up into the parking space outside my apartment I re-touched
my hair and straightened my eyebrows with my fingers. She tried to
feel my leg but I promptly moved her hand suggesting her to wait.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
looked around the orange lit street to check if anyone was out. I
opened my door and swiftly went round to take this medium-hard body
to my apartment. She was stumbling a little bit so I helped
her.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"wooo
hehe wooo! you're so hot!" She exclaimed.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
temporarily put my hand over her mouth to shut her up.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">We
walked up to the door of my apartment, I opened the door and quickly
shoved her in. She fell over on her face but she started to giggle
after a few seconds. I closed the door behind me, looking through the
fish-eye to see if any of my neighbors saw us. I turned and saw her
on the floor face down, her heels looked so good on her. Her smooth
slightly sprayed tanned legs ran all the way up to her plump ass. I
could see her pants from this view. Red. Just like the wine we had in
Transcendence. Red. Just like the lips of the curly brunette hair
slut on Tinder. Red. Just how this night will end.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
picked her up and took her to my room and laid her on the bed, she
started to try to undress me but I stopped her.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"I
need ... to... I need to.. use the bathroom, just give me a second.
Then I'll come and undress you." I said reassuringly.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Okay
hehe don't be too long." She descends back onto the bed rolling
around on the most comfortable duvet Ikea sold.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
ran into the living room and checked everything was covered, the
corner sofa, the office chair, the floor everything. The kitchen
knives were there. The sink was full of water. I went into the
bathroom and splashed water on my face a few times, I looked into the
mirror and saw my eyes. They were not soulless like before. Meaning
and instinct filled my superficial eyes. I was about to commence an
act which made me feel intuitive, instinctive and alive.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">She
stood next to the Venetian blinds, which were closed, in just her red
underwear and heels. Her dress was laid on the bed next to her
leather jacket. A wave of aggression, sexual rampage and complete
desire to fuck struck my body. I pushed her against the wall. She
could feel my heavy breath on her neck.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"hmmm
yeah hehe go hard on me mr.banker" she whispered as her face was
against the macaroon cream wall.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Her
ass was pushing against my cock, which was still in calvin klein
boxers and under my Armani suit trousers. I starting groping her
rack, felt so firm. My jaw slowly dropped and eyes began to roll back
as I became enveloped in sexual mania. I grabbed her throat and
started kissing her neck whilst still thrusting against her on the
wall.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"I'm
so wet for you".</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
couldn't care how wet she was. I threw her to the ground and she
looked as if it hurt. Good. Her face still read as if she wanted
more, but a sign of fear crept into her eyes. I took off my clothes
and grabbed her hair and fucked her tight little mouth. She was
pushing back on my legs to breathe. But I was in control. She was
vulnerable. I had the power. I let her breathe and she coughed and
held her jaw.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Be
more gentle! God! I am not a fucking doll!" She shouted backing
away from me.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"I
don't like where this is going!" She shouted again, even
louder.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
was nervous as to whether the neighbors heard her. So I walked up to
her slowly, with a empathetic look on my face, kicked her in the head
as hard as I could. She was not knocked out but she was becoming
dizzy.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"uuuuh
please... please.. just.." her mouth was being closed by my
hand. Blood from her mouth oozed through my fingers.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
dragged her over to the sink, bent her over and started to pound her.
I imagined how I looked like when I was fucking her hard. I heard her
moaning and wincing as if my body contained too much power. My mind
and body began an ascension into a place where the mundane Jonathan
Nelson could not reach, all other noises and peripheral vision
ceased. I felt like an almighty God striking down on this filthy
whore.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">She
was crying. Begging for mercy.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"uh
uhhh Please! Please! Just let me go uh uhhh Please!"</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">She
tried to fight but I began forcing her head into the sink which was
full of water. I continued fucking her. I was still in my ascension.
I lifted her head and she gasped for air. I grabbed her hair from
behind so that her ear was next to my mouth.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Never
fucking touch my electronic playlist!" I shouted in her ear.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
grabbed the knife, from the ikea set which goes even better with the
plate set, and stabbed her multiple times. I felt the knife smoothly
enter her body and quickly halted as it could not penetrate in any
more. My hand covered her bloody mouth so she couldn't scream. I then
slit her throat and blood jetted across the kitchen sink. As this
happened I could hear my favorite electronic beat. I bathed in it. It
released me.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;">
</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">My
watch churped 9:00 am. Another week of trading options, shorts and
managing funds. I walked into my office and saw Brady and Roth on my
desk with their trademark smirks.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Fucking
hell Nelson!" Brady shouted slapping his knee and opening his
arms.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
was a little confused, I hadn't done anything praise worthy since I
cashed in on the short the other week. </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Roth
got up and pushed Brady.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"So
did she do anal huh Nelson!? hahaha! We saw you and that fucking
blonde whore at Transcendence!" Brady laughs.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Roth
looked curious but in a way also uninterested.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"No
anal Brady you ass! I met her on Tinder she came back to mine for
some blow and doggy that's it." I dismissed the grandeur of
Brady's excitement and made my way to the desk hooking my pinned
Pierre Cardin suit jacket on the wall.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Nice
one Nelson, still better than Brady's Tinder fuck." Me and Paul
started to laugh.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">"Yeah
fuckers nice! Well I've got to check up on the renewable energies
market so go blow yourselves." Brady rushed out mimicking his
finger up his ass as he does so.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Paul
shook my hand and followed Brady. I really wished someone would
fucking axe Brady in the fucking head, he's one of the dumbest men I
know and he earns nearly the same as me. I stood up and viewed the
bustle of London from my office on the 10th floor, I saw the
reflection of myself in the window. My eyes still void of meaning, I
still have not found anything beyond myself. I had taken lives of
beautiful girls not because I hated them, but because it allowed me
to ascend above the mundane materialistic life which I lived. I could
not escape this convergence to a more perfect, superficial me. I
could not find anything beyond it. I was simply the embodiment of it.</span></span></span>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-10867144085424316562014-05-20T07:04:00.000-07:002014-05-23T04:38:08.253-07:00Physicists Propose Breakthrough Experiment to Test Breit-Wheeler Theory<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7S1F3o8jbAo/U3tbqwGCK9I/AAAAAAAAAvA/QxaPx0c0Nxk/s1600/photon_photon_collider_proposal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7S1F3o8jbAo/U3tbqwGCK9I/AAAAAAAAAvA/QxaPx0c0Nxk/s1600/photon_photon_collider_proposal.jpg" height="159" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Physicists from Imperial college London have devised a simple yet ingenious experiment to finally verify the Breit-Wheeler pair production theory. This theory has been around for nearly a century, scientists have assumed its truth but as with all theories they must ultimately survive experiment. The Breit-wheeler theory proposes that if two highly energetic photons (particles of light) collide they can produce an electron- positron pair. This pair production is one of the simplest ways in which the universe can convert light into matter, thus it carries importance in tackling problems of how matter actually came about during the early universe.<br />
<br />
The experiment consists of two important parts. Firstly electrons are accelerated to near light speed and focused into beams using high energy lasers, these beams then become incident on a gold target which allows the electrons to pass through but they become deflected. When a particle becomes deflected it loses some kinetic energy, this loss of energy, in the case of electrons, turns to high energy gamma rays which are extremely high energy photons.<br />
<br />
These photons then travel through the Hohlraum, which has been made into a thermal radiation field through the firing of high energy lasers on the gold cans surface creating photons similar to that of stars, the photons from the first part then collide with the photons created from the radiation field. This collision will then produce electron - positron pairs which can then be detected using simple electromagnet equipment.<br />
<br />
The ingenuity of this experiment is the use of the thermal radiation field which is used in plasma physics, the team at Imperial realized that the hohlraum could be used in creating a photon - photon collision. Now a race to build and carry out this experiment is on. A nobel prize surely awaits the theorists and experimenters.<br />
<br />
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-71838580286223390752014-05-10T09:30:00.000-07:002014-05-17T02:19:25.498-07:00An Evolutionists Point Of View: Why People Think Social Media Is Bad For Us? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://thoughtfulwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/socialMedia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://thoughtfulwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/socialMedia.jpg" height="182" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
A video titled 'Look Up' created, performed and directed by Gary Turk has caused quite a stir in the online world for implying the idea that social media is detrimental for our mental health. The video has reached ~34 million views and has a 255000: 8000 like to dislike ratio, which indicates that Turks claims have hit home.<br />
<br />
The description of the video contained this interesting claim:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">[We live ] in a world where we continue to find ways to make it easier for us to connect with one another, but always results in us spending more time alone.</span></blockquote>
I believe, and many other people believe, that Turks claims hold some ground but I want to know specifically why they would hold any truth value at all. So we have to translate this claim into an hypothesis or something we can analyse using scientific reasoning so that we can try to work out the cause of this phenomenon.<br />
<br />
So Turk's claim could be put like this:<br />
<br />
Humans have developed (and will continue to develop) social interfaces which reduce the amount of energy needed to communicate valuable information. These social interfaces correlate with symptoms of loneliness.<br />
<br />
It is quite obvious that typing or using a headset is much cheaper, in terms of energy, than talking or socializing with someone. For instance I could send my friend a message on facebook which would require my brain, fingers and some fibers in my arms to work and consume calories. However if I were to actually talk to my friend I would use my hands, arms, facial muscles and brain which would consume more calories and we have not yet taken transporting my body to find my friend into account. Even on the internet apps can make communicating much easier.. with predictive text, snapchat (click of a button) etc.so it is fair to say we are making communication much easier in terms of energy.<br />
<br />
This wasn't the contentious part. The contention is the correlation between making communication (linguistically) easier and loneliness. For us to understand this claim we have to take note of the differences between real human interaction, which I will call RHI and social media interaction which I will call SMI. Well during RHI you can see, feel, smell and hear the body of the persons you are communicating with. For example when I am talking with a girl, I subconsciously smell her distinct pheromones, her body language towards me (if she is close, closed, open or far etc.), her eye contact, the way she stands and any touching involved (steady on there). All these sensory inputs are used by our brains as indicators for sexual attraction, if they are friend or foe and how we measure up to them in terms of social status etc. our brains have evolved to do this. However in SMI we do not have most of these sensory inputs. I say 'most' because on apps like skype we can see the faces of people and gather information, but we miss other major sensory inputs. On the extreme ends of SMI, like texting or whatsapping, there is minimal sensory input. However on SMI we can use videos, memes, funny emoticons and different txt speak to communicate information on how we feel and so on. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X3ZWE7nDSlg/U25M1c9H0sI/AAAAAAAAAus/qPwmwHT7e60/s1600/bilde.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X3ZWE7nDSlg/U25M1c9H0sI/AAAAAAAAAus/qPwmwHT7e60/s1600/bilde.jpg" height="211" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The important difference between RHI and SMI is the sensory indicators that we have used for thousands of years and our human and chimpanzee ancestors have used these too albeit differently. They provided us with clues which increase our potential to mate, which is important for the survival of our genes through time, or for our inclusive fitness. For example a female who doesn't show signs of attraction by not twiddling her hair or something of this nature we could save energy by stop trying to 'woo' her and try a different female. This saves energy, time and makes our efforts to reproduce more effective. Also social interactions can distinguish between threatening and non-threatening behavior without a complicated linguistic language.<br />
<br />
So because social interaction is good for our inclusive fitness it would seem useful for our brains to reward us for doing so, this makes us do more. How can our brains do this and tell when we are actually socially interacting? Well the sensory indicators are unique to social interaction so when our brains receive these sensory signals it can also release endorphines or other chemicals which make us happy and good. This can also happen the other way... it would benefit our genes fitness to 'punish us' when we are not being sociable i.e. to feel lonely so that our brain will think we need to do more social interaction.<br />
<br />
But as modern humans developed a complicated and more precise language more emphasis (by evolution) was put on developing areas of our brain which dealt with linguistics. Fast forward to modern day world where we have a greater population, bigger social circles and less time to socialize (with work, learning etc.) a demand for time and energy saving communication came about. This demand was first met with letters, then the telephone... morse and so on and so on until we get to the great internet. We still use our sensory indicators of course. But what we have witnessed is that the evolution of SMI has happened quite fast and has strayed further away from normal humal interaction i.e. RHI.<br />
<br />
Our bodies still only think (have been genetically programmed to think) that social interaction is only happening when we have the sensory indicators and so on. However as SMI has strayed further away from RHI our bodies have not adapted quick enough to know that using SMI is also social interaction. This means our brains will perceive the situation that we are not socializing and will go into punish mode. This could be why we all perceive to be lonely when in fact we are not, it is just that our bodies do not know this. This is only because cultural organisms (ideas, memes etc.) evolve faster than human beings. The evolution of memes is completely different to genetic evolution. This fundamental difference could be the root of the problems we face and could face in the future.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.planweb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/evolution-of-the-internet.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.planweb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/evolution-of-the-internet.png" height="144" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is not the case.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Are we adapting to SMI? No. Why? There is no genetic selection pressure to adapt to it. Well this is what it seems to be, but I do not have any evidence for this claim as it would take a very long time into the future to see if people who feel lonely when using SMI willl gradually get wiped out from the gene pool. I believe that the selection pressure, even if it does somehow exist, is negligible.<br />
<br />
So Gary Turk makes a valid point. The fast evolution of SMI could pose a problem for us if it keeps straying away from RHI. However we could develop technologies which simulate the sensory indicators of RHI which tricks our evolved brains into thinking that we are taking part in RHI but using SMI and therefore produce the chemicals etc. which rewards us for socially interacting. A good compromise.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-10705331053034094932014-03-20T09:37:00.000-07:002014-03-20T09:46:07.884-07:00Governing Dynamics, Gentlemen, Governing Dynamics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sHL2UWhP0RY/UysO5MMtLnI/AAAAAAAAAuE/Cxm7SUntQc8/s1600/Fountain_at_Lincoln_Center_New_York_City_TauntingPanda_Jan_17_2005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sHL2UWhP0RY/UysO5MMtLnI/AAAAAAAAAuE/Cxm7SUntQc8/s1600/Fountain_at_Lincoln_Center_New_York_City_TauntingPanda_Jan_17_2005.jpg" height="207" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
These fountains hold many secrets about how the universe works. We can start teasing out these secrets by asking basic questions such as; How does the water go up? Well the water is pushed through a piping system, the push that gives the water velocity through the pipes is caused by a difference in pressure. Why does a difference in pressure cause a force? This phenomenon is a consequence of Newton's classical laws of physics. Pressure is simply a force exerted upon a unit area, when there is a difference in pressure across a surface e.g. the circular disc of air which lies between the atmosphere and the pipe entrance. Then there is a difference in force. This implies that the resultant force is non-zero as the difference in pressure gave rise to a difference in magnitudes of forces. According to Newton's second law, when a resultant force exists a system is moved from equilibrium... basically free molecules or objects will accelerate in a direction. In this case the water from the higher pressure tank (greater force) will move towards the area of lower pressure (the atmosphere) at an acceleration proportional to the difference in pressure. Hence we see jets of water.<br />
<br />
We can ask another basic but more interesting question... why does the water stop going up and then why does the water fray/ spray when it does? As soon as the water escapes the pipe i.e. pierces through the surface, the force due to the difference in pressure stops acting. The water coming out of the pipe will experience gravity as a resultant force (it always will experience gravity in the pipes but gravity dominates once it exits them) which acts towards the center of the earth. The water jetting up will decelerate and at one point it will stop in order for it to go back down again. Let's imagine we are now water droplets on the top of the jet of water from the fountain. We were moving upwards but gravity has decelerated us until we have stopped. Now for us to go down it would be simple to just go down the same way we came up... however below are other droplets moving upwards that are in fact catching up with us. As the other droplets hit us... they cause us to go left right... or in a direction other than straight down (which is in fact nearly infinite amount of directions) we cannot calculate what small molecules exactly do ... so we assign probabilities to which way the droplets (and us if we stick to our imaginary scenario) will go. So zooming out we see the water fraying because many droplets go in many directions which comes across as a spray. The wind will also affect the likelihood of the different paths the droplets will choose to go back down to earth.<br />
<br />
There are yet deeper and harder questions, for example, why does the water flow the way it does? This question is the quest of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics and is an extremely hard question to answer, because the many molecules moving through pipes etc. is extremely complicated. Maybe every time you push water through your tap... it will never flow the exact same way, some molecules will be out place. We can then ask why molecules... atoms.... matter itself behaves....<br />
<br />
This is just a preview to how the real world and the basics of everyday life are doorways to the governing dynamics of the universe. What I mean by the governing dynamics are the fundamental mathematical laws to which the universe or simply certain systems, may it be a neuronal circuit, population dynamics or the workings of the atom obey. Looking for these dynamics... these rules and understanding them is the object of desire of someone who wants to know how the world works. Some may say it is sort of religious, looking for the divine nature of the universe.... but to me it's just fun.<br />
<br />
Why should we look for the 'governing dynamics'? Firstly, it's useful. Understanding and consequently predicting events in the world can help us in furthering life expectancy and increasing a healthy and happy life. Secondly, some of us are curious. We want to know and we will know (hinting at 'We must know. We will know.' spoken by the great mathematician David Hilbert) how the universe works, like some bodybuilders get a 'pump' from lifting weights... those with curiosity get an intellectual 'pump' from uncovering a beautiful mechanism of the world.<br />
<br />
<br />Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-8766370093684625912014-02-24T02:22:00.000-08:002014-02-24T02:37:36.625-08:00Truth and The Bounds of Reason<br />
<b>100th Article! </b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.200000762939453px;"><i>There never comes a point where a theory can be said to be true. The most that one can claim for any theory is that it has shared the successes of all its rivals and that it has passed at least one test which they have failed. - A.J. Ayer</i></span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lO7jTuh1BgM/UwqG5rnsOlI/AAAAAAAAAtw/5bWZw3beRt8/s1600/download-wallpaper-free-universe-space-galaxy-univ-23979+(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lO7jTuh1BgM/UwqG5rnsOlI/AAAAAAAAAtw/5bWZw3beRt8/s1600/download-wallpaper-free-universe-space-galaxy-univ-23979+(1).jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Language</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Language is a powerful tool for an organism, it enables it to communicate vital information to other organisms, which may or may not be in its own species. Languages differ in complexity according to the spectrum of evolution, the further back you go on the evolutionary timeline the means of communication between organisms will be much simpler. Language is therefore evolutionary advantageous to have and it primarily functions as a tool to increase chances of survival and reproduction.<br />
<br />
However an organism might exist with a highly evolved and functioning brain which has the capability to develop a complex language which has functions which are not strictly related to pure survival or reproduction. Humans are the only example that we know of at present which exhibits this linguistic characteristic. Our language of course fits the evolutionary trend, we need it to communicate about food, sex and other mundane things but the complexity of our language has evolved so that we can communicate about abstract concepts.<br />
<br />
One of the most intriguing and important aspects of our language is that some statements can be true or false. We are told many things everyday, about daily life, in the classroom, by the news reporters on the television and in the books that we read. Is there a simple, logical and rational method to quickly decide what is true and what is false?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Statements Within A Logical System</b></div>
<br />
What I mean by a 'logical system' is a set of pre-determined rules and definitions, a statement within such a system can obey or disobey these rules and definitions. For example the easiest logical system to use is mathematics. 1+2 = 3 obeys the definitions and rules of numbers, 1+5 =9 disobeys the rules and definitions. Another example is this; A married man has a wife or husband obeys the definitions which we assigned to the word married i.e. anyone who is married has a wife or husband. One can quickly see that a statement obeying these rules is equivalent to the statement being true and disobedience to these rules is akin to falsehood. This is simply trivial. What this means is that to decide whether statements in a closed logical system (only determined by a set of axioms or 'rules' ) are true or false, one only needs to check if they obey the rules. The truth or falsehood of these statements are either certainly true or certainly false, that means we cannot have any doubt either way.<br />
<br />
So it seems all mathematics is simply trivial. Apply the rules and you can work out all the truths in the system... so it should be easy right? Wrong. The system of mathematics is extremely complex and even if a human creates a set of simple axiomatic rules, to prove a statement within that system may require completely different logic or thinking power. For example Fermat's last theorem can be easily stated but it took Andrew Wiles 10 years to solve it and it required studying of many different areas of mathematics which seem completely unrelated. This is the oddity or beauty of mathematics.<br />
<br />
We now have a method to determine the truth of statements within a logical system.... but these are trivial and not related to the real world. So how can we decide what makes a statement about the real world true?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Statements about the real world </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>If I state something about the external world, there must be a way to somehow check that what I have said relates to something in the world. If I said all swans are white, I can go out and see if they are really are white or not... if they are my statement is true if not my statement is false. Is this truth certain and 100%? No, because I can only observe a finite amount of swans... there may be swans which are black but i have not yet observed them. Because I cannot possibly observe all objects everywhere and at all times there may be an opportunity that I could observe an object which makes my statement false, it is this doubt which makes all truths about the world APPROXIMATIONS. This is the essence of empirical... or scientific truth. In the infinite future there may be a possibility that we could witness something which prove us wrong.<br />
<br />
However to state that swans are white is true, in the sense that, if you observe a swan there is an extremely high probability that it will be white. Most people state empirical truths as if they are certain but it is in fact impossible for such truths to ever become certain.<br />
<br />
This implies that as you do more observations to justify a statement and accumulate more evidence for it, the statements empirical truth becomes stronger. It is exactly the same for scientific theories (which are just collections of carefully worked statements) the more evidence in favor for a theory... the more 'true' it is.<br />
<br />
People state that if we apply mathematics to the real world we could get certain truth. This is not true however because certain truth only exists in closed logical systems. The universe is not closed or more precisely our knowledge of the system (the universe) is finite which means we do not know all the rules to the system... which as you guessed it implies that there could be a rule which overturns certain present truths = uncertainty.<br />
<br />
This method of verifying statements with observation seems simple yet we witness confusions and controversy when it comes to the existence of supernatural things. We must be consistent and apply our method to all statements about the world. We all know that the moon exists because we have all observed it and astronomers have measured its gravitational effects, this is the same of all common objects. However if I claim that an object exists which governs the world and is its creator I would expect to collect evidence of its existence before my claim would hold any truth value. There is no present evidence to verify claims about supernatural beings like God, ghosts or vampires so any statements claiming their existence are simply meaningless. Note that these claims are not false because a statement about the world can only be false if evidence contradicts its claims. There is no evidence either way about statements about God etc. so we render such statements meaningless... which in my opinion is worse than false statements. False statements at least lead us in the direction of truth by ruling out ideas and what not.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The bounds of reason</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> </b>We must realize that when we observe the real world we are using our sensory equipment and our cognitive tools which have been carved out by natural selection. So how we perceive the real world is relative to how our bodies interact with the world. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One could argue that as language is a construct built upon the structure of an organisms brain... and if truth exists in the world of language does this imply that truth itself is relative to the organisms brain? This is a hard question. If the answer is yes then physicist who look for universal laws of nature are simply looking for universal 'human relative' laws of nature... does this mean there search is pointless?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I believe that as nature fits so well with mathematics i.e. the natural phenomena that we see in the world obeys nice mathematical systems.. could imply that the universe is itself a closed logical system. The laws which we discover via science are merely the uncovering of the laws of closed logical system of the universe. We can only approximate to these laws. So in this sense we are really working out something external but which we are still a part of. This is a very hard concept to get your head around. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There is an idea, promoted by string theorist Leonard Susskind, that the universe itself is a hologram of a mathematical construct... a hologram in the eyes of observers in the system? We don't know... we don't even know if questions like this make sense or are even worth talking about.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So the physical limits of our brains could pose a boundary to how much we can reason from nature. We are doing pretty well so far and with the advancement of complicated, huge and intricated experiments such as the LHC and with the progress of computers we could witness AI which surpass our own cognitive limits. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2013/brain-month/images/month_of_brain_web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2013/brain-month/images/month_of_brain_web.jpg" height="320" width="291" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-75465005761921271092014-02-18T17:22:00.000-08:002014-02-18T17:22:06.695-08:00How to actually gain muscle... put simply.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.shiggi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HodgeGainz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.shiggi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HodgeGainz.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
1) Calorie Surplus: This means your calorie intake should be more than the calories you need to maintain your current physique. Calculate your maintenance using the Harris-Benedict formula. Also eat much more than this.<br />
<br />
2) Eat good food. No junk food. Junk food has nothing in it which can benefit you, yes it has calories but the damage done is much more than the good done from simply consuming calories.<br />
<br />
Recommended foods:<br />
<br />
Oatmeal<br />
Brown rice<br />
chicken<br />
salmon<br />
tuna steak<br />
muesli<br />
bananas<br />
apples<br />
garlic<br />
onion<br />
peppers<br />
spinach<br />
steak<br />
milk<br />
whey protein<br />
nuts (like brazils)<br />
<br />
if you eat these types of foods throughout your eating period to go way beyond your maintenance then you will gain weight and if you exercise properly too.... it will be mostly lean mass.<br />
<br />
3) Weights and HIT training. Yes do cardio... but HIT is a different type of cardio it is high intensity and high impact. Studies indicate that HIT training produces more testosterone and increases the bodies ability to burn fat. I do 1 minute high and 1 minute low for 30 minutes on the stepper nearly everyday in the gym.<br />
<br />
With weight training, split your muscles but don't be too strict! If your triceps feel like they can do more sets even though you did them yesterday.... kill them again until you feel it the following days. So have chest, leg, shoulders, back and arm day but activate some other muscles during those days just to ensure muscle fibre damage.<br />
<br />
Never count your reps or sets. Do drop sets and do each set to failure. E.g. bench i do say 100 kg then drop to 90 kg. Do it again. Then as I tire I go from 90kg to 80kg ..... i keep doing this until I end up with 40 kg or less. This forces usage of all fibres in the tissue. Apply this to all sets in all muscle groups.<br />
<br />
4) Rest. Have at least 1 full day of rest but only rest when you cannot activate anymore muscles... one day you will feel like everything is fucked.<br />
<br />
5) Don't be too precise. This can lead to failure. Just ensure you are way above your caloric maintenance, you are eating lots of good food, going to failure using drop sets (volume training). You will see progress in 2 months maybe more. Keep going, just keep going.<br />
<br />
6) Welcome to obsession. After a while you will become an addict, this makes things easier as you will automatically go to the gym. Just ensure that you are doing it for yourself so you reap the benefits.<br />
<br />
<br />
GET BIG OR GO HOME!<br />
<br />
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-12313637822256533672014-02-07T04:31:00.000-08:002014-02-07T04:31:32.307-08:00Footage of Russian Men Abusing and Attacking Members Of LGBT Communty Is An Absolute OutragePlease watch this degrading video, which depicts beatings and humiliations of gay people, to become aware of this despicable attitude which some Russians have. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/zMTbFSJ_Tr4/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/zMTbFSJ_Tr4&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/zMTbFSJ_Tr4&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
Russia has been and is still being criticized for making it illegal to spread material relating to the non-traditional sexual relations, basically this means that in the eyes of the justice system publicly showing gay material is wrong. The justice system in most developed states is the most powerful institution. The law is the apparent protection of the civilians of its state from actions or offenses which are deemed wrong. So if in Russia the spread of homosexual material is seen as an act which is so wrong that, the justice system has to protect the people from it, this will only send extremely misguided messages to people. That homosexual relations are something wrong, something which can cause harm or impingement of freedom.<br />
<br />
Nationalists in Russia beating minorities is a common thing... don't believe me? Watch this...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/klkyfbnS0TA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
but the attack and degradation of the LGBT community is far worse. As some Russian groups interpret the law to mean that the LGBT community is a group which is wrong, sick or any sense lower to them they feel it is right to take the law in their own hands. Why stop the spread of gay material when you could just stop the spread of the gay community, surely this is more effective? This could be the logic that some people use to justify these actions. With nationalistic egos already settled within them and groups of men with the idea that violence is a perfectly acceptable tool to express their hatred, these acts are probable and will only get worse.<br />
<br />
Many of you are probably asking that the Russian police force should take these groups down and really stamp out these attacks. However we must remember that the police force are normal humans, with their own set of beliefs, if the common and accepted mentality is to hate on LGBT community then the police WILL NOT go out of their way to stop this.<br />
<br />
This is completely unacceptable. When I saw the video which a friend posted on a social network I actually felt huge anger and sinking of my heart. I rarely feel this. Normally I assess if acts are wrong by simply carry out the rule that: if an act restricts ones freedom without consent... it is wrong. Here the rule still applies but it seems it struck a huge emotional cord in me.<br />
<br />
Every person has the freedom to do and say whatever they want IF and ONLY IF this does not impinge the freedom of others. If two men stand before me and kiss, hug and hold hands my freedom is not restricted. No harm has come to me. Personally I actually encourage this as I like people enjoying their freedom as much as they can. Even if I completely felt disgusted, it wouldn't matter. They still have the right to kiss, hug and hold hands.<br />
<br />
However not many people share this easy going rationale and some groups in Russia seem to lack the understanding that people are equal and hate crimes are completely wrong and the reasons as to why they are wrong are wholly justified. So what is the solution to tackle this hatred and violence?<br />
<br />
As we said before the law carries huge power across the territory of the state. No hint of inequality to the LGBT community should exist within the law... so this means making gay material okay to be viewed wherever heterosexual material is viewed. The police force must increase their effort in stopping all violence and giving out severe penalties and sentences to those leading or taking part in abuse against LGBT's and any minority group. The big players on the internet need to make a conscious effort to not ban videos of hatecrimes, but to keep them there, so people all over the world can witness this disgusting behavior and to share their concern towards this.<br />
<br />
This means that pressure will be exerted on these hateful groups from all corners of society so that their crimes come to a gradual halt and that the next generation will sprout up in a more learned environment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C93lpB_2f-o/UvTR1RfeXqI/AAAAAAAAAtg/OCGhCDhU9yc/s1600/GayRights.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C93lpB_2f-o/UvTR1RfeXqI/AAAAAAAAAtg/OCGhCDhU9yc/s1600/GayRights.jpeg" height="320" width="308" /></a></div>
<br />
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3057175923885890217.post-54011267973519612072014-01-26T13:17:00.000-08:002014-01-26T13:23:42.923-08:00Oh For Fuck Sake: Malaysian Media Censor Pigs Faces<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wPqlkJOw_ZQ/Ut_U7eZpk6I/AAAAAAABWFk/vgtLDWtp3qE/s400/Censored+pigs+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wPqlkJOw_ZQ/Ut_U7eZpk6I/AAAAAAABWFk/vgtLDWtp3qE/s400/Censored+pigs+3.jpg" height="319" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
A Malaysian printing press has censored the faces of pigs in an effort to not anger the Muslim community who make up the majority of its readers. There is no piece of legislation which dictates that pigs are not allowed to be seen (facially) in the media but the press obviously thought it could potentially agitate readers.<br />
<br />
The Muslim faith condones the consumption of pork as said in the Qur'an:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fefdfd; color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine...</span></blockquote>
this is another religious absurdity. If the Qur'an said don't eat chocolate, or ice cream or even roast dinners the Muslim community would follow it. There is no rational criteria here for not eating anything... it is only following religious dogma.<br />
<br />
It's just funny. Can you imagine a normal weekday morning in a muslim household.. the father is reading the newspaper while the children eat breakfast after prayer and the mother is dusting some shelves... only for the father to spit out his coffee (if that's allowed) all over the table in shock. After seeing pigs faces. Oh the travesty. Oh the horror. Oh our souls be damned.<br />
<br />
I think it is secular, democratic and in our rights to mock views which have no rational basis. How else, besides proving them wrong (which is not enough for some people to stop believing in them), could we safely get these absurd ideas to shrink in the cultural meme pool?<br />
<br />
I hope this adds to the huge, and I mean gigantic, pile of religious humiliations and nonsense that still keeps coming up in our culture.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile this piece of news has spread around the farms.... the president of the pigs gave this reaction:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://m.memegen.com/mhvc78.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://m.memegen.com/mhvc78.jpg" height="284" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04440529914768650397noreply@blogger.com0