Monday, March 16, 2015

The Frame of the One

the frame of the one:

how does it start, anyway? you know yourself. if you accept the concept of time zero, with nothing before then, who is to say that God or anyone, created you, given that you as one person existed from the beginning of time immemorial. you did not even create yourself. you just were. there is, and was, no explanation, and never will there be one, for why you, or greater reality exists.

i am. what else, or who else exists? are they the same? if not, how different? what am i? what parts constitute me, and what parts constitute any person, for that matter?

if i could find one other person, in a leap of induction, many more might exist, surely that is the case? the question then becomes, well, how many in the quantity of person?

now you have Earth 3D all around, social networks, computer networks, family networks, business networks, etc., all groups or sets composed of such persons. the question becomes, are they really connected overall? are there some, for practical purposes, isolated groups separate from the main mass of society?

even if everyone is connected does that mean however that there is little or no affect at a distance? electronic transmission fades, meetings don't happen, even if they did, their resulting influence on me is negligible, for i don't remember it even if it did happen.

maybe i am in a network of 4 million or even 4 billion, computer code streaming across my personal electronic field. this is only apparent now, certainly not at time zero, the first day, or even 100 years ago.


Saturday, March 14, 2015

The Archetypal Mumbling Schizophrenic Talk

the archetypal mumbling schizophrenic talk:

the voices triggered it, who knows? i didn't know. so no one's telling me anything other than that i have changed. from what?

who's that? back in 1992, things were different, things were slow, like there was plenty of time, but who knows, i was only twenty. didn't know that, life would be this, hard to go back.

trying to make sense of one life, trying to deal with anyone that comes along, listening to this, listening to that, unfocused and in denial about the frighteners in life.

where am i in this question? i, you, it, what is it? said something that you like, isn't it? do i fit? sorry, what is it about? i think, what's new about that?


Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Economics: What Determines Interest Rates

what determines interest rates:

it has long been assumed that the government drives interest rates. for example, Base Rate is determined by government institution and this is still closely followed. is the government really in charge anymore, now in the early 21st Century AD?

up to recently, as and when the Base Rate was moved, private banks and the bond market would follow suit, within a day in an orderly manner, without the question of differing demand and supply for different financial products, be it money in the bank, yield assets, or revolving credit, or whatever the product was, becoming an issue.

the natural mechanism was like thus, the Prime Rate or Base Rate was adjusted, if you like, higher, so that the government trying to exert control over inflation, by reducing demand generally and in particular for money, decreased lending to private banks. private banks then increased their savings rates to compensate for this and bring in borrowing from private individuals. private individuals would then favour bank savings over bonds and thus bond yields would go up as well. has the government now lost control over general interest rates in the economy?

many people may have multiple borrowing products, be they property mortgages, revolving credit like credit cards, etc. any cursory research on the web shows that these interest rates vary widely. demand and supply for credit is often the main determinant of the particular interest rate. concern over debt repayment is another.

what determines demand for any borrowing product? the easiest to obtain may make it the most expensive. mortgages might be hard to get, while anyone in formal employment could get a credit card. it is as if there are invisible barriers to obtaining credit or loan sometimes.

how, for example, does demand for credit card debt drive government interest rates though? what is big demand in the economy anyway? high technology, tourism, social related services? the government may market bonds still and lend to private banks, but does it still play any role in the free market for those economic demands? older people are thought of as more cautious and why, they can't gain formal employment anymore yet still need an income source and bonds are often targeted to them. does traditional interest rate theory play any part for younger people? the credit card substitutes cash money. because credit card debt becomes expensive, people eventually prefer to save money, lowering private bank savings rates. as private banks can raise money from private individuals without recourse to borrowing from central government, the Base Rate must be lowered to compete with private bank interest rates.

ultimately though, from observing the consumer market, when a new product enters the market, and there is huge demand for it, this drives demand for money and thus raises interest rates, like the household machines the washing machine, the refrigerator, the computer, etc.


Sunday, March 8, 2015

An Iota of Doubt

an iota of doubt:

but i am that, but a lingering shadow in the mind
and it was good, it was nice, great knowing you, and all

were it not for me, you lost, less direction
perhaps it was much for me, and perhaps it was mere fancy for you

doubt clouded the act, each to their own
we were in the nebula, caught in the social whirl


Sunday, March 1, 2015

The Calculus of Y = 1 + X power 2

the calculus of Y equals One plus X power Two:

if we plot X, like west to east, and Y, like south to north, zero in the lower left corner, and plot the coordinates of X = 1 then Y = 2, and X = 2 then Y = 5, and then X = 3 then Y = 10, we discover a line could be drawn roughly linking these coordinates that resembles an increasingly northerly sloping graph.

obviously, the area if we consider that, depends on the line and its distance to the X axis, so one could say that, the rate of change of area depends on the line drawn. logically, to continue, the rate of change of the line depends on the gradient at any point on the line, which is, a line drawn as parallel to the graph as possible.

if we examine the graph at X = 1 and Y = 2 the gradient looks steep but is obviously going to become much more steep as X goes on. Y/X = 2 and this seems like the gradient depending on how the line is drawn. notice that, ignoring in the equation, 1, that if we multiply the power by X we could write dY/dX = 2X, and that, if X is still 1, that dY/dX = 2. is that the gradient of the line?

if we, so to speak, if you like, reverse engineer that, to examine, how to obtain the area under the graph and, call it integration, we discover that the equation could be like X + 1/3 X power 3. think about it thus, reduce the power, multiply by the power, ignore that without an X after it. and thus in reverse, call it integration. if we let X = 1 then the integral would be 1 + 1/3 which equals about 4/3 which seems about right too.

can anyone prove that there are 3 dimensions to space? even the Universe contains a virtual reality game concept. and i've imagined how that works. imagine turning right, the empty grid of the visuals in front of you shifting left and so on.


Monday, February 23, 2015

Legal Wrangle of Innocent Misadventure

legal wrangle of innocent misadventure:

at age seventeen, as one would expect, the grand tour an adventure, misadventure, promises little but trouble. but due process might deliver only such an outcome.

why seventeen, and not sixteen? legal consent is nebula, a clouded affair, can you smoke, drink, not sleep, behave in an adult manner, sex engage?

choice of initial voyage, passage and activity once there, may be difficult, control over details minor and great, present a problem.

it is right to engage oneself with the need to obtain sustenance, and to return. agreement in stages and turns at every possible juncture is a requirement for civil progress.

redress might be inevitable, the penalty of preconceived union and damages unforeseen could be gross, it may be extended in nature, delaying any end to perchance.


The Father

the father:

pater noster qui in caelo est
ubi est tam, nunc discedimus
dei nomen est, quod sumus in saecula saecularum
diem esse in loco praevit
res in caelo est, is qui est


Put a Spell, a Word on That

put a spell, a word on that:

as observing a dream would aid recall, observe the magical process. i would hardly call everything sudden about change magical, or anything appearing out of nowhere, but this is not the basis of judgment for what is magic. remember vaguely what it looks like and admit what words come to mind.

put a word on that! the word binds the magical process to the word, as a spell can alter the situation to be seen.


Saturday, February 21, 2015

The Tragedy of Menemeides and Amronoeia

the tragedy of Menemeides and Amronoeia:

their fate archetypal, of one couple well matched to begin with, of course everyone so thought. but as their fates entwined so spoke a seer tragedy would befall, so certain was she. what other people merely pass through their minds, but remain speechless for nought.

but penury and illness passed through the land, the sky was bleak, and their need urgent. what some only reveal through their heart, they spake thus and so fell abandoned.

regret turns to passion, selfish in aim, heartless in desire.

Amronoeia was the fair maiden of many tongues, so enguiling in her form and manner that men flocked towards her through her portal, each chancing for fortune's sake to be thus. but she chose Menemeides, a vain feckless suitor, favoured by Athene above all, whilst Afrodite Ouranos merely observed with concern. whilst Pan mused, with caution, Zeus spake nothing of courage and fell silent. the other goddesses chuckled with glee, harbouring resentment, so jealous of she that they did without even the purest ambrosia, for weeks on end.

on the spur of first light, Menemeides passed in bliss, to return to the essence of his soul, whilst Amronoeia could only mourn the passing of youth and her beauty so fragile, wedded forever in the memory of only Demeter.


Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Common Rule of Engagement

the commons rule of engagement:

weighing any decision in considering opposing outcomes, not just only for the worst, but for indeed the most truly positive of outcomes that could arise in the future, you must consider first what might happen within weeks, if not for ever after, and what could happen within the hour.

to approach is a frightening prospect, but also, to ignore is unacceptable. you see the eternal dilemma? that chance meeting happens is inevitable too. it must be said that things like saying hi and how are you, are universally acceptable so why not?

what do you expect? of yourself, as i have said before previously a few years ago in the post, In Play, you must explain yourself to yourself, without directing the play towards the other person. a player talking is a person seemingly without social motive. if the other person thinks about you not so much but rather your motives, perhaps that is inevitable. are you prepared to go all the way, or not? this is the most crucial question, i think in all social play.

to engage with one, is surely a social death about another person, without question. if i am with you, how can i be with it, the other person? hence jealousy turns to envy in all cases. but who said being a player wasn't dangerous? it only takes seconds for the audience to react badly.

all the way? why not? because i have other business? because i have problems? how did it happen? that i am here and you are here?

to invest in socializing is one thing, but it may distract from one's social ambitions elsewhere. i may seem distant, but at least i'm always thinking!


Tuesday, January 27, 2015

The Metaphysics of Real Space

the metaphysics of real space:

first the visual bias, hence the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model, that what we see guides our way is true for all, but the blind.

it seems there are only 3 dimensions of space. but how is it that we can see and hear things at more or less the same spatial location around our head? is it because there are in fact more dimensions than 3? or is it that real space is so densely packed with light least bits of matter and sound least bits of matter in a variegated fashion?

or are there layers like a sandwich? a layer of sound least bits of matter behind a layer of light least bits of matter, for example? alternating layers perhaps?

if theoretically it is easy to call that, well maybe there are 4 dimensions of space, we however find it so hard to imagine that perhaps it's not true?

i am not a solipsist, the very thought turning to belief disturbs me greatly. but who does anyone really know apart from their neighbours stuck to them in real space? they say one little thing here can affect the whole world but is that even true? are there people out there who know nothing of me and for which i have no affect? personal bubble spaces may be connected in the sense that from least bit of matter to neighbouring least bit of matter there is a long chain but does one personal bubble space at one end of real space affect much the personal bubble space at the other end? it seems unlikely that people at the central zone of real space are solipsistic.


What I Remember Most

what i remember most:

it was a shock, for i never expected that from anyone. while even recent memory becomes stained, what you said is imprinted on my mind. there was talk, i remember that, however the one thing you said to me is what i remember most.

you were at ease then, happy to develop and discuss ideas and stories. the concept of action is always fuzzy to begin with, the way it looks is what concerns most. of course how it sounds is critical too. we don't live in a world of silence. planning for the future when so far away always seemed a haphazard process, but of course, many things are inevitable.

why is it we can only remember clearly perhaps only one statement from any conversation? is it because it was shocking? or made us happy?

patience is a virtue. timing is important. but what is remembered is that what you said came to pass, in full fruition.


Monday, January 26, 2015

The Thing I Wanted Said

the thing i wanted said:

what can one remember of the talk it had? memory is much like a prancing, squirming beast, difficult to tame and not readily servile. only offering so much, was it hard for you, or easy? i know well part of what you meant, but now only a strip of information remains.

how much do you mean of it? was that what you wanted me to know?

well, said and meant, only one the thing i wanted said. after all, how much could i really say at the time? you'll work it out.

for now, i am backed into a corner by decisions i made long ago as a young man, and so indeed so much for destiny. fate distracted me. what sense i can make of it?


Friday, January 16, 2015

The Odds on That

the odds on that:

correctly flipping and predicting coin throw at rest is very difficult. the odds are against but it happens. what does that mean? psychic for a few seconds?

first throw predicted correct is easy but to 10 throws? that's hard. but has happened with me several times. the odds are like a thousand against.

the odds of predicting 2 throws is like 1 out of four. not bad, but probably not good enough for realizing what the immediate future will be.

let's think about odds in theory. 1:3 what does that mean? 1 right versus 3 wrong? or 1 out of three? in gambling terms 1/3 that's a payout of one third of the bet or stake. like a payout of 3/1 pays three times your stake but a winning bet also returns your original bet size. so five pounds on a horse or dog payout would be a win of 15 pounds plus five the original. three pounds at 1/3 is a win of a quid. not too bad really, but that's like backing a favourite. it doesn't impress anybody, a shame really!

what are the odds on that? that it will succeed? betting, yes please!? the surprising thing about gambling given that you could win, is that the sequence of a winning streak actually is calm throughout.

but what is the point of gambling? is it to prove that you are psychic or to win a huge sum you could spend? i think originally it was to gain knowledge of all things mathematical and to be able to predict!

of course, spending a win always feels good!


Friday, December 26, 2014

Ironic Insanity

ironic insanity:

it's easily done. you're led to believe, certainly by the age of twenty or thereabouts, on earth, that first of all, you're a mortal, you're going to die and perhaps that's the end, that the universe and earth are billions of years old, that you're surrounded by billions of people, and perhaps the most pernicious, that everything moves, you move, objects move, other people move.

but what if that's all wrong? that the truth is the complete opposite of what you believe? it's as if someone wanted you so crazy, perhaps Descartes' demon, so that what you believed was actually the furthest away from the truth so that you would find the truth almost impossible to accept when it was put to you.

first of all, death in the original sense is probably not real. time goes on and on and you, your mind, with it.

secondly, what if Earth history were mostly false and the correct date October 20, 443? Year 444 will be a leap year and January 1, 444 will be March 9, AD 2015. consider that much of Earth history is about people that were never real. what if lots of other people you know are not real? that earth is mostly populated by robots, to use the ancient word, or philosophical zombies, which i guess is the academic term, or NPC's or non-player characters, a term from computer gaming, and that the real people are hard to find? not to say that you never meet another real person on Earth, of course. that perhaps the real population of this reality is much less than the billions purported?

and finally, about motion. it's even hard to express what the truth is, as the falsity is so ingrained in the mind. there are several ways to put it. "physical motion is not real". that's the first statement that came to me. "perceived motion is not real". "motion is only virtual". "the concept of motion, that things move in space, is not real, and only virtual, in the sense that you may see an image and think things move but they don't in actuality". of course, you, wherever you are in real space, are there forever and i am here, where i am, forever. when you walk forwards, your body is not really moving in space, you merely see what is in front of you coming towards you. put mathematically, you are not moving relatively with respect to the room, what is actually happening is that the room is moving relatively with respect to you.


Saturday, December 6, 2014

An Opinion on Pride Confidence and Arrogance

an opinion on pride confidence and arrogance:

in language, words may have a fuzzy meaning, several words may mean more or less the same thing, such as in the case of pride, confidence and arrogance. generally, recently, pride is rather neutral, it could be good or bad, confidence is thought of as good, and arrogance as bad.

having thought about it today, let me offer my opinion on what each word may really mean, in essence, and how the three words could be differentiated.

pride is something like, "i am very good and i deserve all the good things in life".

confidence is something like, "everything's going to work out great for me".

and finally arrogance is like, "i am right", to the extent that other people seem wrong, or at least less right than myself!

so as you can tell, defined as such, the three are not quite the same thing. but what am i? now i've been accused of all three in the past, but really, i protest! pride is not something i've felt a lot of. am i very good? how can i be when i'm this paranoid thinking about evil things happening? do i deserve anything? what does deserve really mean anyway?! confidence, no! i'm thinking about things going wrong all the time! so i'm left with, if i am guilty of any of the three, arrogance. i am not wrong! perhaps i am right!


Saturday, November 29, 2014

About Person Talk

about person talk:

now talking about actions, that you do or the other person does or that you do together, is rather self-explanatory, and is, if you like, the bread and butter of a lot of conversation. in a way, it expresses the reality of time itself, an unending series of actions. but, if you will, time never "grows", past configurations of states of matter may be lost, and quite truthfully, a lot of this action is not easily remembered. do you remember exactly what you were doing, in whatever form you were, 200 years ago? probably not.

where it becomes more personal perhaps is when you express your feelings or thoughts about what you are doing, and so it becomes more revealing. learning about the other person you are talking to and revealing things about yourself, your own person, is probably the primary purpose of talking. think about it this way, from first principles, i am me, of course, but you, at the start, are an unknown quantity. we trade information about each other, our likes, our wants, our values, our outlook on life. and perhaps, if close enough in real space, even our emotions. i digress, there is a scene in the film, Closer (2004), where the female character exclaims in reply to a male character proclaiming his love for her, "where is this love ... i can't feel it". well, this could be interpreted literally, like they are actually so far apart in real space that they cannot feel each other's emotions, and that's what i first thought. can people really separated by a huge distance in real space have a real relationship? and don't other people, quite literally, "get in the way", given that there may be dozens of personal bubbles in space between them linking the two together? to return to the point, "getting to know someone" is how it starts and really is a never-ending thing. people change from day to day, though you may consider the bulk of personality to be fixed.

of course, on earth, there are, if you like, "facts" about people, though in themselves they are not truly revealing about the real person, things like their name, their job, where they live and so on. assume there are millions of people on earth with the same name, millions of people living in the same city, etc.

to truly reveal yourself is to talk about your emotions, of the eight, want, happy, love, shock, fear, anger, hate and sorrow, perhaps we mostly talk about the first two, what we like doing, what makes us happy. the fear is, of course, and no one really talks about this, is that if it goes wrong, you can make someone feel your hate of them across real space. i guess this is the real reason why people are shy, are nervous about meeting other people, there is a palpable fear of emotional incompatibility. who wants to feel something like 500 million volts of another person's hate flowing into their body? on the other hand, you may truly feel another's love for you inside.

and also, rather a lot of talk about person is about what they think, their opinions, which ultimately express their values, what they think is good, or not. as our thoughts are variable, so even our opinions may change.

there is a theory that if two people end up meeting in the same place on earth, they must have quite a lot in common to start with. obviously, they were both for earth, at the same place on earth at the same time, there must be something to talk about, even though, in actuality, they may be something like light years apart in real space. also, for those who hear voices, if they are not hearing their own thoughts, they are hearing those close in real space probably. assuming real closeness in space means similarity of personality, again there is a lot to talk about.


Saturday, November 15, 2014

Talk As a Function by PART

talk as a function by PART:

it is easy not to think too much about talking all the while and yet still talk quite passably, even effectively, but at some point an understanding deep down of the purpose of conversation is useful.

as strangers to each other at first, what do we know? i am where i am, you are where you are in space. there is a fixed, unchanging distance between us, and perhaps, if we are still strangers to this day, many other people between us. who knows how many real degrees of separation are between us, how many personal bubble spaces down the line you are? as an aside, are we all linked like a chain or are there masses of personal bubble spaces stuck together in parts of space or both? now this world, this earth, is, if you like, a virtual platform where strangers can meet, even if all that is possible in actuality is a kind of speaking hologram in front of us representing another person.

PART is an acronym. P is for person. there is always a curiosity about the other person, what are they, what are they like? your job first of all is to satisfy the other person's curiosity about you. you have to reveal things about your person. what do you like? what do you value? personal details, etc.

once you get to know someone a little, when you're with them a lot, talking often moves on to A for action. what's happening? what have you done? what are you going to do? indeed what are we going to do together?

R is for relief. Ian Fleming wrote a James Bond short story, Quantum of Solace. it's about a failed marriage where they did not provide each other with a measure or "quantum of solace", that is, a certain kindness perhaps, or relief as i call it here. all the time that there is a relationship, you have to express, if you like, that you do indeed like the other person, that you wish them well, show some consideration, otherwise it's a non-starter. put it another way, simply, that you have to make them feel better, give that quantum of solace to the other person which Fleming wrote about.

finally, T for truth. everyone has questions about everything. if you can tell people truths they didn't know, all the better.

of course, this is all very simple sounding, but essentially, talk does not escape the boundaries of these things, does it?


Saturday, October 25, 2014

Not What Happens at Death but What Happens at Birth?

not what happens at death but what happens at birth:

what happens when we die? it's a common question. but a better question may be what happens when we are born? at least here we may have some idea, some memory, and also it may offer some answer as to what happens when we die.

now i am here and you are there, forever fixed in space. there is no changing that. the material or substance or matter that we are exists in all time, immovable. but what we think and what we see and hear changes constantly. it constructs our "lives" on earth, our sensory experience. it is important, i feel, to note that these things are volatile. they can change in an instant. it is a fallacy to assume everything developed gradually over a long time because of the very nature of our senses.

now to consider what happens at death, and there is much about this out there, there are three general possibilities that we all know of, and have been much discussed. you could come to some kind of "end", that is, black out forever, though this is conceptually difficult being that what you are is a conscious being with a large sensory field. or you could reincarnate and live again on earth in a different life. or you could "move on" to another life not on earth that is different from what came before. but the fourth possibility, and i have not seen this discussed elsewhere, is that you revert to what you were before life on earth, before being born in this world. it's a kind of mean reversion, so to speak. so what happened when you were born on earth?

just because we may not clearly remember anything before life on earth does not mean we were somehow created in an instant at our earth birth and we did not exist beforehand. lack of memory does not equate to non-existence beforehand! this is a fallacy.

now my first memories of earth are dream memories. life on earth began as a dream that i woke up on earth in. first memories of being with my mother, then with my father and then fully awake with my father and sister on a plane about to fly to Honolulu from Taipei in August, 1975. my passport was stamped in Hawaii on August 29. i was three years old. now there were about a dozen dreams in sequence. i must have been asleep for about four days. however, the dream sequence matches my life history about a year up to when i awoke in the dream. a year squeezed into four days!

now there are various themes and conclusions here. one, life on earth is "living in the dream", because that is how you enter earth and what it still is. two, in a dream you can't remember facts about your waking life. therefore, because earth is the dream world and you're "still in the dream", you can't remember what life was before earth.

but what i am, has that radically changed because i was born on earth? i don't think so. i understood language at the time i was "born" on earth. there was stuff i didn't need to learn and already knew. so i learned all this before i was born on earth? most probably.

this raises the interesting question of how we are selected for our lives on earth. i don't think it's random. all those who spoke Russian before their lives on earth born in Russia? all English speakers fated to live in an English speaking country? all probably yes.

now how do i remember this birth dream sequence so clearly? now it is an observation that we tend to remember things that are shockingly new. and the earth birth dream sequence must have been so.

think of the dream world as the passageway between worlds. we go many places in our dreams. so what is death but yet another vivid dream that will call the end to our life on earth?


Saturday, October 4, 2014

Power over Time

power over time:

and in the beginning there was that that was original, and really, these are probably the most common things in the world that we take for granted, the trees, the sky, and the human, etc.

and soon enough for all the original people who existed from time zero, once it had been noticed that time passed, there came the question of immortality, whether anything would perish in the future. now there is the argument that anything that truly exists in real space cannot cease to exist, that something will always fill its space, but the question is whether through time, something will change so much never to return to its original state that it could be considered as having "died". thus the question, "Am I original?"

the point about things being "original" is that these things were not "created", they always were, always existed. but creation soon followed, and some things began on day one. on day one, people did things, people discovered things, and what that means is that people therefore "created" things. now it's obvious to us in the present day that people can share things, that reality is interconnected in real space, signals are passed through real space all the time. data flows back and forth. we have scientific models of electromagnetic radiation and electric current, whatever the explanation, that communication is possible is generally accepted.

what that meant in the early days of time is that if someone did something or saw something, that meant that someone else somewhere else in real space might be able to do or see the same thing. this is what real "creation" boils down to. if one person was originally human, someone else might be able to be human too.

there is the present science/religion dichotomy but i would suggest that both represent extreme opinions about reality such that they can only contradict each other. science does not contain much room for god and much religion perhaps rather exaggerates the power of god or gods.

a part of the problem with the word "god" is that it has always been an emotional word. it naturally implies great power. it is innate in the impact of the word itself. when people first heard and thought about the word "god", it implied things like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, to borrow from religion.

whether we would consider people as gods or not, given the natural implications of this word, nevertheless, everyone has "created" something since time zero or indeed been the original source of something. the first human is the "god" of human, the first person to see a house is the "god" of houses, the first person to see and eat an apple is the "god" of apples, and so on. even if we do not accept the existence of gods, nevertheless there is always someone who is the original person who did something or saw something or is something.

my concept is that everyone has some degree of power and everyone was a first about something. does this mean that some people have huge powers compared to others that would qualify them as "gods" in the traditional sense? and power over what? it needs to be realized a person in real space is a large concern. how much power can anyone have over other people elsewhere in real space?

and what of modern science and technology? a lot of science seems to assume that somehow science and its laws always rather existed and that people only discovered or accepted them. posit that great scientists were actually gods that created science! great inventors were gods of technology!

let us now examine how god or gods are represented in religion. clearly there are two camps, monotheism and polytheism, either one god only or many gods. the bias in my argument thus far is obviously towards polytheism, the idea of many gods, in fact, that everyone is a god of something, perhaps even. everyone has been the first to do something, see something or be something even. i would not reject all religious stories as false, some must contain an element of truth, but that they are often distorted, embellished and partly made up. what i am saying is that some of the gods in religion, be it Greek or Indian or Norse or whatever are based on real people, but they are certainly not the same as that depicted in the myths and legends.


Saturday, September 27, 2014

True Crazy and Acting Normal

true crazy and acting normal:

as someone who was forcibly committed or sectioned to mental hospital not just once, but twice, in my twenties, the inescapable conclusion is this: acting not normal is actually really illegal! it is the unspoken law of society on Earth - you will act normal, or you will be imprisoned!

as i see it, you can be as crazy as you wanna be, but for your own sake, act normal around other people! that means no talking to yourself, even if that is almost impossible when you hear voices. the stereotype of the schizophrenic wandering around whispering to himself, oblivious of everyone else around him, is a true one. what needs to be realized is the intense nature of what is going on in this situation. the voices and the people they represent seem more real than the surrounding people you can see and touch. an ironic possibility is that of the somewhat simulated reality, where the people around you, for the most part, are truly not real people, only simulated people and the people you talk to with voices are, yes, completely real, yet you cannot see them! also, another big thing for acting normal is appearance and hygiene, you simply have to maintain this or people will pick up on it. i rather wish i had been taught how to act normal at school, it would have been far more useful than such esoteric studies as some history and religion. it's stuff a grownup really needs to know! many Christians believe the world is about 7,000 years old, indeed the old Russian calendar before Peter the Great adopted the Julian Calendar, was based on this assumption. my own bias is to think the world is much younger, shockingly so, only over 400 years old, but i digress.

i often suspect that there are far more schizophrenic people than accounted for by official statistics. they say 1% but what if everyone is to some degree? and what if most people just can successfully hide it? by acting normal, of course! Earth is somewhat at least, i believe, hallucinatory in basis. now i'm older, i find it hard to believe that everyone i see in the streets is real, and i've seen odd things, people disappearing, and appearing, out of nowhere. they say many people hear voices but are never diagnosed mentally ill. and it doesn't seem possible that "science", or whatever it is, works perfectly all the time. i think everyone has had some experience where they've wondered to themselves, what just happened? maybe they saw something odd that doesn't make sense. when i was very schizophrenic, i had too many strange experiences to ever fully believe again in the received "normal" world and its teachings of what's what.

and meanwhile, people who have been completely normal up till now, who have never questioned existence on Earth, perhaps they believe things that are false, have been easily led by modern science and its teachings, and are actually truly crazy about reality and metaphysics. one thing i have gone on and on about is that physical motion is not real! you do not really move! nothing really moves! it just seems like it! read my previous posts.

but how much can someone function if they are fundamentally crazy about metaphysics and reality? will they not one day hit the wall, so to speak, because they are insane about how reality and the world really work? the reason i am interested in metaphysics is because of my schizophrenia. if it hadn't happened when i was 20 years old, i might still be a dozy, normal person, just accepting the world as it seems. but when you are shaken up mentally, it leads you to question everything.


Saturday, August 23, 2014

Metaphysics - Strength of Affect

metaphysics - strength of affect:

it may seem too simplistic to term all that exists in reality, "matter", for the world is complex, and surely not everything is made up of the same thing and it certainly doesn't seem so. and the word "matter" is unavoidably linked to the world that we see, we think of objects as being made up of "matter", even though the visible world is somewhat illusionary in the sense that it does not reflect the fundamental structure of reality. but the word "matter" seems substantial, it implies existence, so i use it in the sense of something that actually exists in this space of this reality.

what would an outside observer make of this reality? that there is an intrinsic intelligence underlying everything perhaps, that things are ordered logically. there is a "mental component" to much of reality. otherwise, physical laws would not hold, there would be no order in the world, the world would not "make sense".

the first few days of time, what you might call "creation", may have been somewhat haphazard, but there was some clever thought as to how things should be, so happenstance first, and reasoning somewhat later to explain how it fitted in with everything else. first there was rain, then there was running water. and the egg came first, it appeared before the chicken. and someone drew an animal, then it appeared, and so on. throw out the concept of logical evolution and imagine a young world with some of what we would now think of as modern 20th century Earth things already present, a world of anachronisms seemingly. houses existed yet no one had built them by hand, the original world had trees, yet no one had planted them and they had not grown to size, they always existed, and so on.

but the visible world is at the "top", if you like, what are "under" it are "concepts" from which what we see are derived. some may be eternal like the tree, and some may not be original, were created after the start of time. i put it that logically, that which we are most used to, find unshocking and most normal, are things that are eternal, that existed from time zero. anything later has more novelty.

at the micro level, considering "least bits of matter", how do they interact with each other? i have examined "seeing the world", put it that our eyesight, our field of vision, is like a 3D television set wrapped around our heads, that we actually, in reality, never shift position and are fixed in real space. an object "moving" is merely a picture being translated across the pixels of light in front of our heads. that works because neighbouring least bits of matter copy the state, or the colour, of the pixel next door, that's how objects seem to move.

there is a "strength" to visible light, it makes copies of itself. this is one example of how neighbouring matter reacts to that next door and the most apparent, but surely neighbours have an effect on change in other ways, not just forcing copying. if we think about a local group of least bits of matter, what decides the change in state of each least bit of matter? posit that each state a least bit of matter assumes has a potential to affect its neighbouring least bits of matter, has a certain "strength of affect". but its neighbours are changing too and their states have competing "strengths of affect". the answer is that the strongest decides.

what is impressive about reality is that it is built on simple "logic rules" or natural laws to create a complex visual "world" in which we can experience "life". what is at the "top", what we see and hear, depends on the order created from "below". and the logic contained is quite strong.


Saturday, July 19, 2014

Being Able to Accept the Small Loss

being able to accept the small loss:

in gambling, you are always going to suffer losses sometimes. and actually, if you gamble long enough, you will have a huge losing streak at some point. this is inevitable.

i don't think i fully understood this before i began. they don't advertise this. they don't say, according to mathematical probability, a run of up to ten losses in a row is not even that uncommon after playing long enough. i suppose i was born optimistic, thinking i could win, and i can see now how this could be dangerous, always assuming everything's going to work out.

how you react to a losing streak determines quite a bit, actually. twice, i couldn't stop. i just bet larger and larger chasing my losses. this is not what you should do! you should accept the small loss, stop and walk away.

a win may not make much of a difference but a huge loss, all the money you have and even more if you've borrowed, could ruin your life.


Saturday, June 28, 2014

The Head Stone in the Land of Illusion

the head stone in the land of illusion:

and the head stone knew for certain then that physical motion was not real. movement was virtual, therefore material objects, the planet, the stars, the universe, all were not quite what they seemed. it thought to itself, i'm a lump of thinking matter that can see pretty lights and hear music and voices, that's all, and keep that in mind, for i'm in the land of illusion now.

how did it get here? dreams had become waking life. the mother in its dreams at the beginning had become its mother in the land of illusion. it realized that this was a world when the boundaries between dream and waking life were blurred. sometimes it thought, i don't feel real, none of this is real. and sometimes people in dreams seemed more real than people in waking life. the land of dreams lay between the old world of its past life and the land of illusion that was Earth.

and when will i leave this land of illusion, the head stone wondered. it concluded that like in the beginning of this life, it would start with an intense dream of somewhere else, for the land of dreams lies between all worlds.


The Unique Memory Trace

the unique memory trace:

when the thinker is active, the mind at its most conscious, it is easy to forget what you were thinking only a short time ago. when thoughts race through the mind hopping from one subject to the next, we find short term memory limited. it is not uncommon to forget thoughts from only ten seconds ago. on the other hand, we have clear memories of some things that happened years, even decades ago. we remember the mood and atmosphere of the time, what we were thinking, what we were doing then.

for time is not a linear, one dimensional journey where the future must be different from the past, rather, much of time is made up of cycles, things that repeat. we wake up, do what we do in our waking lives, go to sleep, dream and wake up again. we have habits. but are these memorable things? what do we remember?

when we think about the past few years, it is rather the things that were new at the time that we remember clearly, that stand out. it is the new flavour at the time, so to speak, that we remember, be it a mood, certain thoughts, or what we did. whatever it was, it left a unique trace in the memory. so therefore our memory is biased towards the new thing of the time. what is old and oft repeated holds no strong association to any time.


Tuesday, June 17, 2014

On Free Will

on free will:

the problem with the debate on "free will", about whether it exists or not, is it is hard to define what it is, in the first place. "will" is easier to understand, but the word "free" is somewhat nebulous. what does it mean exactly, for "will" to be "free"?

instead let us examine what cannot be denied. in many cases before we do something, some action or other, we make a conscious decision to do it. we think about doing it beforehand. never mind where the thought comes from, really, or whether it came as "free". but if we had to think about it most metaphysically, perhaps our decision engine, if you like, is like an electronic gadget, where electric currents flow, creating options, say four possible choices usually, and then the engine defaults to the option with the largest current, or perhaps it chooses the first option with current that flows, or the second. i think, where this could be construed as not being "free will", is where an outside agency interferes with the process, as in "pushes your buttons".

what influences our decisions? mostly our personality. this is a thing which limits what we do. we are people who would never do certain things because it is not in our personality to do those things. at an extreme, a person who does very little and avoids almost everything, could that person possess what we call "free will"? "free" rather implies the opposite of restrictive. you could say such a person had "restrictive will". and if life is deterministic, it is mostly determined by personality, is it not?

finally, let us look at a common social situation. in a room are several people, some friends perhaps, some strangers. all are on their best behaviour. now, if say one of them were alone in the room, she would act very differently, perhaps it is her house and everyone else is a guest, but the presence of other people, outside agency, is affecting her "will". she can't be "free" unless she is alone. this is a world, and perhaps a reality, full of people, who affect each other, so how much "free will", in a sense, could there be?

i think in the best sense "free will" is independent agency, where you make your own decisions as a person, and make the best decisions, all things considered, out of all the choices there are, given the circumstances.


Saturday, June 7, 2014

What of Memory If There Is Change?

what of memory if there is change:

it is a characteristic problem in dreams that everything changes so fast that you lose things. i have a recurrent kind of nightmare where for example i am about to travel in a plane, but i've lost my passport or something else i had earlier. the world of dreams is very unstable. however, in contrast, the world of waking life seems very stable and almost permanent, but is it?

the very essence of time is that things change. you may argue that time is most real in dreams, where everything changes fast. and if things change can anything last? can you have reliable mental memory or material records that we trust will not become corrupted in time?

if i wrote something in a book in a dream, i would not be surprised if either the entry changed soon after or even if the entry or book disappeared later never to be seen again. however, in waking life, there was a time when i would be surprised if a book changed magically overnight and a passage disappeared, because i thought the world was more stable than it is. but that's time, if something were truly to stay the same, then time could not be real.

now all this is worrying, i fear my memory is at best only a partially true record of the past, where there are cases where vivid memories have been conflated and i think events happened at the same time but didn't, where some details are now false and never happened, where if the past had certain flavours to it, the flavours of my memories are now mutated, and so on. and why is this so? because time slowly destroys memory through change.

i admit to a minor crisis, where my memory does not quite agree with material records, paper and electronic. logically it's easy to say, well, either your memory is wrong or the records are, or perhaps even both, but they can't both be right at the same time. the confusion is real and disturbing. if my memory is that wrong, i'm in big trouble. if paper or electronic records have mutated to something inaccurate, then they are unreliable and lying to me.

and you then think, if only there weren't so much change, nobody can remember it all! and if material records are subject to inevitable change as well, naturally, and are therefore unreliable, what then? from experience, living randomly and impulsively leads to fragments of memory which are hard to piece together a few years later. one of the biggest problems is conflation of bright memories, and where you assume that other events, less well remembered, happened then or there as well, when they didn't. this is pretty much the case a few years afterwards. however i think that very many years later, your memory is cleaned out somewhat and what's left tends to be true and the confusion is gone, even if only because lots of other memories have been lost.

on reflection it seems that anyone who does a lot is simply not going to remember much. if you really wanted to keep memory organized you would have to devise some kind of repetitive schedule at the very least, like fish on Fridays, then you could say, well, it was a Friday, so then i probably had fish.


Sunday, June 1, 2014

Errors in the Matrix

errors in the matrix:

i borrow the term "matrix" from the films but what i mean is that life here on Earth cannot be quite what it seems, that the material world is somewhat illusory. some of these errors in the matrix are obvious, like when you teleport, as happened to me in Durham, England, in 1993 and 1994, or when you suddenly skip a short distance ahead when you're walking, a mini-teleport, if you will. that happened to me, my father and sister in the underground lobby of the Louvre, in Paris, in 1998. these are clear visual mistakes, things that go against the rules of movement in the matrix. the audio mistakes are more subtle, like when you can bend the lyrics of a song to what you are thinking, when your mind takes over what you're hearing.

but there are other things less obvious. if you're careful, and observant, and your memory is good enough, you will notice other errors. first of all, in my experience, text, what you see on a printed page, is not reliably permanent, is actually unstable. there are instances where i'm sure the print has changed. for example, the first time i read a certain novel, there was a certain passage i remember which i couldn't find again on rereading it. it had disappeared. i am talking about the same book, not reading a copy of a later edition. i've found discarded railway and Underground tickets in London dated in the future. railway timetable boards have changed instantly in front of me. recently, looking through old credit card statements yesterday, something else has come to my attention. now in my memory i bought Sony earphones at Bluewater, in Greenhithe, in 2009, but i also remember after that i found the unopened earphones package with the receipt one day and the receipt was printed showing the transaction as being at the Sony store in Orpington, so after that i assumed my memory was wrong and that i had actually bought it there, not at Bluewater. but now the credit card statement confirms that it was bought at Bluewater in May, 2009. now i have not bought so many Sony earphones that i have confused them with another. i can only conclude that the matrix, the Earth system, had the actual source record for the receipt corrupted or mutated to show false details.

now things like this make you think you are losing your mind perhaps, or that your memory is faulty. but if your memory is correct that means the text has changed, and that you can never rely on text to stay the same. it is fortunate that i've seen text change instantly in front of me or i would keep questioning my memory, assuming that the text couldn't change.

and another thing i've noticed and i've read about elsewhere on the web on glitches in the matrix, but am not sure about, is seeing people walk past me twice. now i wasn't paying attention to where they were all the time exactly, but am i seeing repeats?

as someone with the diagnosis of schizophrenia, i am expected to hallucinate and i do know i do hallucinate. you see where this leads, hypothetically? if i hallucinate, am i hallucinating everything? everything and everyone on Earth? am i totally alone in my own world of hallucinations? once the error in the matrix becomes obvious, becomes apparent, you instinctively move mentally to dismiss the entire world as a falsity. this is extreme, but a natural reaction.


Saturday, May 24, 2014

Talk As Play Match Like and the Pitfall of Different Interest

talk as play match like and the pitfall of different interest:

to the objective observer, a successful conversation reveals that the talkers are alike in some ways, one of them reveals something about himself or herself and the other, in essence, responds that they are the same that way. what is success? obviously, where both are happy about the talk. and you can sense the truth of this theory about success from playing match like with like in personality, values and interests by thinking about what the opposite is, a disaster in conversation, namely an argument where it is apparent that both are not the same, that they have sharp differences.

where even two people have the same interest, they may have different levels of interest. one may be only slightly interested. given that you like to speak about what you're interested in, and most people are interested in themselves, an obvious example of what could go wrong is that you say too much about yourself, more than interests the other person. it would require some fascination with the other person to be a captive audience.

talk reveals what seems very real in your own world. you should be aware that these things may not figure so much in another person's world, they may not be important to them, they may not even think about them. as an example, if one remembers such and such happened when together with the other person, but the other person doesn't remember at all, it is awkward to mention it and be met with puzzled indifference.

and where talk starts going wrong, before full blown argument, when the other person is in a bad mood and suspects the worst of you, it is probably wise to say as little as possible. it's like everything you say will be used against you, that is, it will only trigger a chain of bad thoughts in the other person's mind about you. everything you say will be given a negative interpretation. or that they think you're lying.

but rather coldly viewed, to say anything to another person is always a risk, it's inherent in life. we start off knowing very little about the other person. it's actually very easy for it to go wrong in the beginning, until you have some idea of the other person, you really don't know what is safe to say, what you have in common.

subjectively, good talk seems almost to have a kind of glamour injected. mutual personal values are confirmed, essentially, we both think such and such are good things, we both want to have such and such. one validates the other.


Friday, April 11, 2014

The Destiny of the Head Stone

the destiny of the head stone:

one of the first questions the head stone ever had was where am i? for there was something to see, even in the beginning, which makes sense because otherwise it surely would have been blind. and the magical light in the cone-shaped field in front of it was deceptive for it implied movement. later, it concluded finally that where it was, really, bore no relation to what it saw. images may seem to move, but the head stone was truly forever immovable, like a piece of jade embedded in the rock of space.

another question in the beginning was, of course, were there others like it? as time became apparent would it meet them, be able to see some representation of another person? or at least know something of what lay far beyond it in space? how to communicate with someone else through the senses? the first moments of time were deceptively quiet and solitary.

be that as it may, it was destined to be born into the later world, really a vigorous exercise of the senses, even if such life is mostly a visual experience, a son et lumière for the mind. and like all shows, its life in this world had to come to an end. time is elastic, the return to what life was before was inevitable.

and it would think back on its period in the world, its life there, what it was to think for a time that it was someone living in a universe with billions of people on a planet called Earth.


Saturday, April 5, 2014

The Reactive Mind

the reactive mind:

"what i'm saying is that people are impressionable. they go by what they see. and that's obvious that materialism is built on a visual impression of the world, what we see is thought of as real. and dreams, because what we see is usually less clear, that's thought of as not real, because it's less than what we see in waking life."

"wait, what's your argument, that dreams are just as real? or they're both not real? because i would go with both not being that real."

"maybe they're equally real or equally not real, if you see what i mean. my point is that we place dreams on a lower status just because we see in waking life much more clearly and it's a more stable world. we prize clarity and stability. you could say the mind is a big snob about the clear light of waking life."

"that philosopher who wondered whether he was a human dreaming of being a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of being human? that you could say both are true?"

"right. the mind reacts upon waking that the dream wasn't real but what if it was?"

"so you could be sharing a dream with real people just as you could be with philosophical zombies in waking life?"

"right. zombies without consciousness, human illusions, simulated people, hallucinations of people, non player characters, whatever. it is interesting that when we consider that a lot of people on earth may not be real, doesn't that mean we're hallucinating? that everyone on earth falls into the schizoid camp of people? that everyone is schizophrenic?"

"but you're equating hallucinations with schizophrenia. but yes, i agree, but not everyone is clinically diagnosed schizophrenic. i have a theory though. all real people may be schizophrenic to some degree, it's just that most people hide it better than those that end up committed to a mental hospital. they have better coping mechanisms. think of it this way, there's a statistic i've read that over 10% hear voices or auditory hallucinations. and if this earth is a simulated world, that means 100% see visual hallucinations of people. why are only 1%, that's the statistic, diagnosed schizophrenic?"

"what you're saying is most people are just better at acting normal so they don't get locked up in a psychiatric ward?"

"exactly. but that's just my theory. it's like acting not normal is illegal and they're well aware of it."

"probably from a very early age, i guess. and i've been trying to remember the first part of my life better. i'm still sure how i ended up here on earth was because i dreamed of earth and then woke up in it. born at the age of three. on the one hand, you've got the theory life on earth is a dream, then you have the theory it's a computer simulation, or that's it's a grand hallucination, but really i guess it has elements of all three."

"it's the frame of reference. like if you think it's a simulation then the question is who created it. the idea of god as the programmer just pops up like that naturally. but i think a lot of people don't ask who created your dreams last night, right?"

"it seems there's no getting away from the concept of god though. everyone on earth feels powerless really. and so everyone can imagine what god is. it's like it's one of the most common concepts that everyone arrives at. what if there is someone with power over it all, even if it's just someone who manages to hack the Matrix, if you like?"

"but is it run on what could be like computer code? are dreams coded too? what if, by inventing the computer and programming languages, we've made it run on computer code in the background?"

"and it wasn't before? so earth was fundamentally different before the advent of the computer age? and now it does run on something like C++? because now the code exists? and this is out there but like maybe before Newton's Laws of Motion, mechanical motion was different? humans somehow made motion work to the laws? who remembers?"

"right. once something new exists, it could change everything in the universe."

"what is the unconscious? is it just the material connecting our senses and the thought in our heads to everything else running in the invisible background? is it a random chaotic swirl happening around us?"

"yes. it's not easy to think about what really goes on, the metaphysics of reality. but all this talk of a simulated reality is the reaction to the Matrix movies, it really popularized the concept. the schizophrenia theory of earth and creation is not as popular."

"it's a loaded word. people fear madness. and chaos, which mentally is what schizophrenia is."

"again, people want stability. full on schizophrenia violently bends reality. it frightens people. it's like taking a sledgehammer to the world that is actually very delicate."

"the question is, if earth is hallucinatory, let's go with this, what makes it so stable?"

"maybe it's the code behind it now. computer science. now everyone knows and imagines the medieval world as a magical, chaotic place and time, it's fully in the culture. the thing is, what if we dismiss those that dismiss that as superstitious nonsense, and consider that's what life really was, nobody made it up later? ancient times really were the world of swords and sorcery?"

"and science banished that away and replaced it with today? science killed the magic? i don't know. i have my doubts sometimes that reality is even older than a few hundred years. i mean i've heard it's the Year 443. that means Year 1 was AD 1572 equivalent. it's like the dream world is constructed in an instant, and so could earth be therefore, i guess."

"that's true, it's just conjecture. but that's the way to think, i think. try to find the truth in everything. consider everything if it were true at first, without prejudice. hopefully eventually what is false will become obvious."


Saturday, March 29, 2014

Talk Illuminates the Mental Board

talk illuminates the mental board:

such was a time when talk was magical and wonderful, for it confirmed we were not alone. it is in essence why we talk, we don't want to be alone. to contend with the idea that you might be alone is a miserable experience. is anyone who suspects solipsism might be true happy? the concept that within the reality there is only one person. of course there might be other people but they would be in separate realities surely, not connected at all?

but given that there may be many people in this reality, each a head containing consciousness, the prospect becomes intimidating, does it not? the situation is complex. if each head were like a lollipop contained in its own zone of personal space, the space of this reality is littered with lollipops, stuck forever in place. through whatever the real process is, the lollipops can communicate with the other lollipops, and talking is the most obvious form. now presumably, the lollipops next to you are the ones most familiar to you, let's assume distance has a real effect, even though some communications may keep integrity over large distances. and probably you share values and language after so many years together. this localization makes those far away, those beyond your neighbours, perhaps hundreds of degrees of separation away in space, seem almost alien.

beyond the initial joy of not being alone and having someone to talk to, complications inevitably arise. each has its own values, what is good and what is bad, and to what degree. you might argue there are universal values and this is true, like death is bad, whatever death is, as we who are living cannot truly define death, it remains a vague original fear in the mind. of course those who live on earth now have another incarnation and death holds a modern meaning now, different from what it originally meant. i don't think the original fear is ever lost though. and so the problem becomes what to make of opposing values.

outright hostility because of it seems the threat. if i hate something and you like it, does that not mean i hate you? that is the premise of the fear associated with talk. if we assume there are a lot of people, and they act as a buffer, it perhaps just means indifference in actuality. if we can preserve at least civility with our closest neighbours, perhaps in the final judgement, disagreement with those far away does not matter much.

for talk reveals our values, it cannot not do so. generally, we speak of things we like most of all, unless we be toxic containers of hate spewing thoughts of what we don't. if we conceive of a mental board indicating that that we think is good and what is bad, the other person talking to us has a real effect. if they think something is good also, we feel they confirm our opinion, again the sense that we are not alone.

of course, there are other things apart from personal curiosity about the other person, we like to learn truths from others, and we want them to make us believe things are not as bad as we think, and of course day to day we talk about what we do. also, as it is as sound, like music, talk is an art, it may have a quality not easily defined, and is more than just the functional exchange of ideas.


Saturday, March 22, 2014

Understanding Reality with Words

understanding reality with words:

"the thing is, none of us were born knowing a lot, right? how much did we know at the start of time, assuming our consciousness existed even then? but now we know a lot more, we've built up complexes of meanings for words that are related to everyday life. now the search to explain reality inevitably involves using these complexes as metaphors, if you like, to describe how reality works. so the old either or argument is whether reality is mental or material, material in the sense that the things we see and can touch are real. these are the schools of idealism and materialism or physicalism."

"it's easy to see why materialism is popular. we're highly visual."

"right. we're impressed by what we see and touch. idealism is a pulling back from sense perception, doubt comes in. is it all in my own mind kind of question."

"yeah. it's not easy to believe in materialism when you find your mind can influence what you see. really, someone who completely believes in materialism is someone for whom everything completely works, like as in scientifically. i don't think any highly schizophrenic person can be a materialist. imagine seeing what are called "hallucinations" all the time, really bizarre things, hearing many voices you can talk to, just like with other people you can see, and so on. materialism soon seems the theory of a hopelessly naive person living the perfectly "normal" life where nothing weird happens. the idea that the mind is greater than what seems "material" soon occurs. the schizophrenic may be ill, per se, but the instability mentally that occurs during a psychotic episode shows this to be the case. i may be "hallucinating" but what if i can touch the "hallucination", what if i can talk to the "hallucination"?"

"the irony is that most of Earth may be described as a "hallucination". i mean a guy may be "normal", not clinically schizophrenic, but if the world is full of philosophical zombies, illusions of people, is he not hallucinating?"

"that's going on hallucinating meaning not real. i suppose maybe you could argue that everyone on Earth is actually schizophrenic, it's just that most don't know it, they hallucinate people all the time, assuming philosophical zombies are real, and that they all have the potential to blow out to full clinical schizophrenia at some point."

"i think the word that came up after i became schizophrenic was "belief" or "believe". because the onset radically alters your beliefs and you think if only i could "believe" i could make things real."

"do you mean like magical thinking?"

"yeah. like believing if you did something, something would happen, against all scientific reasoning of course. but like things happened. at a railway station, i was looking at a train timetable and then it instantly changed in front of me, the whole board, and the same day, i looked at the railway map, at a map where all the towns of the UK were in different places. it was like i stepped into a parallel universe for a day. if i believed any of it, things might have turned out differently on the day."

"actually that sounds dangerous. maybe you shouldn't travel when you're very schizophrenic."

"that's the frightening truth about schizophrenia and idealism. it is all in your own mind. if you're mind's breaking down, it's actually dangerous. there's no comfort that there's a solid material world out there that's stable."

"but what is beyond mental and material, if there is anything? because now we have computers and that brings in a whole lot of new concepts."

"right. so now we use computer metaphors to describe reality, like it's a "computer simulation", it's a "simulated reality", "bits", "information", "data" and so on. but there's another word that is a factor in all these explanations, it's the word "personal", like is there is a creator who programmed it all in the beginning, a person."

"maybe it's because people want to believe that there is power over it all, that there is a god, if you like. to think that it all is chaotic, non personal, and the situation is highly volatile is kind of frightening. it's like everyone's trapped in a bus going at 120 miles per hour and there's no driver at all!"

"but let's say it is all personal, it's mental, but it's the unconscious in control. what is the unconscious? we all know what consciousness is, we identify ourselves often as our consciousness. i think, therefore i am, but what if i personally am a lot more than what i think, and part of that a lot more is the unconscious?"

"maybe that's what the collective unconscious is, it's like an invisible cloud spread throughout reality that connects everyone. and everyone's head is a pinpoint of consciousness."

"yes. the head is small relative to what surrounds it. the idea of personal zones, assuming everyone is fixed in position in real space, where in that zone everything is more closely linked to and influenced by the head there, where does one person become another person, where's the border?"

"what if, using the computer analogy, it's not all personal, because that's too egocentric, it's all data, or bits? and like even a pixel of light we see is a bit?"

"yes. it's easy to see how new things change the way we think about everything. it's like a new frame of thought appears through which we filter everything old to try to refine what we know and make sense of things."


Saturday, March 15, 2014

Ask of What You Think

ask of what you think:

"so your thought process is often a little vague to start with. maybe what you're thinking about has been in your subconscious for a while and only now you're really thinking about it. what comes from the subconscious may seem random and disorganized. it's the conscious thinker's job to organize it, if you like, to have it make sense and to question the assumptions it rests on. it may be thinking of an action, for example, something you should do. well, the first assumption you've made is that the action is possible and the second is that it is a good thing. if we examine the action part, we need to define our terms, what exactly is the action? if we express this as a sentence, what does each word mean exactly? then we can consider whether it is truly possible or not. the second part is an opinion and based on our own personal value systems, what is good and what is bad."

"most thoughts don't come into our consciousness with everything so clearly defined. i guess the subconscious is like a melting pot of ideas, mixing and combining them all the time. and what's going on in the subconscious is often not pretty, it's based on fears."

"what makes the conscious mind different from the subconscious is that it asks questions and isn't really satisfied until it has answers."


Monday, March 10, 2014

From a Dream to Earth

from a dream to earth:

it was something like this, a series of dreams that were snapshots of life as a three year old. it covered a period of about a year in my life history, although i estimate the time i was asleep was only for a few days. i question why i remember the sequence so well. it must be because they were particularly vivid dreams almost like waking life. certainly the last dream became such. i awoke in the dream. i had come to Earth.

i cannot remember the day before i fell asleep and was truly born on Earth. i guess life was very simpler. i am not solipsistic by nature, even though for short periods i did consider i could be alone, even that the world was created the day i was born and that was why i could remember nothing beforehand. of course i dismissed that. from experience, i know that in a dream, memory is destroyed or unavailable and that is probably why i remember next to nothing about my previous life. i am still held in the "dream" of Earth.

to the paranoid suffering on Earth, it is not hard to imagine that an external demon, much like that of Descartes' concept, has lured us to Earth and imprisoned us against our will. because we are powerless in the process, it seems there are greater forces at work, but is it really personal? i confess, given a choice, i would not have come here. but also, i have dreamed far worse nightmares, Earth is not the worst prison. it is the lack of power that is frightening. i didn't ask to be born here.

what is the way out? can we return from whence we came? it seems logical that the exit is the entrance, we can only leave through a dream as well. i guess that before i die on Earth, dreams will become more vivid, more lucid perhaps, and that one day i will dream of elsewhere and wake up there. i will have died just as i was born.


Wednesday, March 5, 2014

In Your World

in your world:

"in your world that might be a famous person, but i've never heard of him."

is there a metaphysical significance to that? could it be that we are really living in our own worlds, our own versions of Earth, only it just seems that we are living in the same, standardized Earth, with the same people in it? the invention of the computer and the internet showed us what was possible first of all and introduced concepts that we could borrow from to better understand the metaphysics of reality.

"ok, what if this person only exists in my world, i mean, i know when you say "in my world" you generally mean the place where you live, the people you know, etc. and that's individual but you assume that the media is the same, right?"

"maybe it isn't. how far you can test it is doubtful too. maybe you could look it up, this guy you're talking about, on the internet, and show me that he exists, but how do i know that you haven't just delivered that media to me through some channel in real space, just now, by us being together? and that he really didn't exist in my world before, but now i'm with you, he does? if you see what i mean."

"so real people meeting each other involves some kind of trade of information?"

"yes. so it opens up channels, i don't know, i'm tempted to say subspace channels but that's something else on Star Trek, maybe "interpersonal data channel" is better. i don't believe in the concept of the external world so how else could it work? i mean, of course, the data channels are open even when we're not together but presumably they're even more open when we are."

"so say we live in a more or less standardized, common Earth. i guess for it to be 100% standardized, it would require some central "Earth supercomputer" and maybe that doesn't exist. everyone has their own local Earth supercomputer, like everyone's an internet server, so to speak, in their own right."

"yeah, so data flows back and forth and yeah, obviously you each have some kind of supercomputer to render all your visuals, everything you see, and hear of course."

"and maybe data gets corrupted, there are errors in the transmission."

"and signal noise. that could explain how we live in slightly different versions of Earth. like we all live in parallel universes. because of poor connection. but i had an experience, where i was waiting to meet someone in a public place, and they appeared out of nowhere, literally."

"that happens to me too. we were going abroad and we were in a large train station and my father had wandered off and i was getting worried because i couldn't see him and then he appeared suddenly, just like that, at a distance. it's things like travel where you get paranoid whether the whole thing actually "works" or not."

"and then i was upset once, very emotional, and then either the dvd player broke or there was no electricity or something but it wouldn't come on. and then when i calmed down, it worked."

"i mean you could explain it away as, "oh, it's all in your mind", it was just an electrical fault, but the worrying thing is that if the external world is not real, it really is all in your own mind! weird things, frightening things, happen when you are very emotional."

"yeah like machines break. maybe it's harder to meet real people, assuming lots of simulated Non Player Characters, not just because there may be few real people, but because everything has to work, there has to be an excellent connection between real people."

"i don't know. real people. in one way, i think it's more frightening. what if you don't get along? a virtual character, someone simulated, you don't really care, right? it doesn't matter."

"well i don't know about that. what if the NPC came from someone else's, a real person's, database of characters, maybe they're not real but they're just like someone real, and they would know how you treat one of their simulated people."

"my army of illusions against someone else's? i still think it's less intimidating to deal with someone simulated and wouldn't you convert a character from somewhere else to someone more suitable in your own matrix? i don't know. but trade is good, right? when i was a kid, i really don't think i could write that easily. i mean, like when i was 6, we had to write an essay each weekend on that week's lesson on Native Americans, one page. it wasn't easy for me. maybe i could write better in a previous life and just forgot, but it's like, when i go to a book store and see all those titles on the shelves, that's got to come from elsewhere, other people have done all that, my unconscious or local Earth supercomputer may be able to create simulated people and a few snatches of speech but it's hard to believe it could come up with thousands of different books."

"think how much your world has changed. and you're not alone is what that shows. there are a ton of ideas out there."


Monday, March 3, 2014

The Extremes of Thought

the extremes of thought:

"you know i can't say it's true for everyone, but i think it tends to be that when people think, they think in extremes, in superlatives, or that something applies to everything. it's like they add words like "all" or "infinite" or "maximum", something like that. an example, the word "god", i mean that gives the impression of a person who is all powerful, all seeing, knows everything, infinite magical powers, present everywhere and so on. or when people make generalizations about nationalities, or gender, etc., it's like, without actually saying it, they're still implying it's true about everyone. it's like a common fallacy of thought."

"well, "god" is an extreme example, it's just that the word has that impact, you know? it just suggests all that naturally. but maybe that's why people don't believe in god, put like that, it's hard to imagine anyone really being that powerful. i mean what if a lesser version of a god existed, like just people who were powerful in ancient times, you know, who did things that determine what the present is today, like inventors or creators, but then again, maybe you wouldn't call them gods, i don't know. i mean it occurred to me, i had this idea that maybe someone drew a picture of a cat in ancient times and then cats appeared after that, you know something more prosaic like that. but anyway, i think the truth is that it's hard to think of exceptions or that something is only partially true, simple thought tends to initially assume the statement is generally true, that it's qualified by the word "all"."

"like space, for me, it's hard to imagine that real space, this reality, is infinite in size. i mean theoretically, the universe, which would be virtual if the external world were an illusion, could be infinite but that's only because the space of the universe is not real space. it's far easier for me to imagine and believe that the size of reality is finite. i mean maybe my own personal bubble in space, if you like, is part of the outer limit of real space and i sense there is nothing beyond that, who knows? but there are far more questions about time."

"here we go. time is change. real space is made up of discrete particles of matter and these change. that's what time is."

"or least bits of matter. even mental things are matter. everything in real space is matter."

"so it's sort of like philosophical idealism for you but mental is material, is a form of matter, in your concept. the problem for you is that the state of the language at present assumes materialism, "matter" generally means something else, something that exists in an external world, and therefore as it is, mental is not "material", is not "matter", to a lot of people, if that makes any sense."

"it's just that it's far simpler to call everything that exists truly in real space, matter."

"anyway, at least some of these least bits of matter change and in all time is a set of states that these can have, right?"

"yes, you can't assume that everything changes. the question is whether an individual least bit of matter's set of states is infinite or finite, i mean, even if change is discrete, theoretically you wonder still if the set were infinite."

"that's confusing because if the set were infinite, it would suggest that time would be continuous, because if change were continuous, obviously the set would be infinite, but maybe not the other way round, an infinite set does not necessarily mean that time is continuous. but i agree theoretically even if change were discrete, the set might still be infinite. but emotionally speaking, would i prefer to live in infinite change or finite? i mean first, you think, finite, well maybe that's not so good, i'm being limited, but then you think infinite, well, that includes all bad things as well, so rationally maybe it's not such a good idea? i think the length of time a state could last also changes. obviously, like, we can vary the length of time between blinks, for example, while still looking at the same thing, something like that."

"it's like a grand tapestry of life where everything that could happen is depicted in one huge picture, that's what finite is."

"and the whole question of immortality and death, though. again we can't help but think in extremes, what is immortality? perfect health, infinite time, free from illness and physical damage, fine food, beautiful gardens, wonderful life, etc. again, it makes it hard to believe in. and death, my thinking gets very confused. first what would it be in a metaphysical sense? when something ends? well what is time if not everything ending and becoming something else? and if you tried to stay the same forever, wouldn't that be the death of time? isn't there a contradiction there? time is a killer, it kills off the past? i mean what could real immortality, that is the opposite of death, what could it be?"

"but time repeats, at the micro level, and maybe even as a whole, at what you could call the end of time. this time now, unless it's a complete repeat already, like it's actually the year 40 trillion or something and we've already done like 300 repeats of this life but we still think the date is 13 billion or even Year 442 going into Year 443, it's a time of great change in general. actually hopefully it's just a once through event, i really don't want to repeat this lifetime."

"yes. maybe time is very "thin" now and this is not to be repeated, like once on earth is enough, never mind having to repeat this lifetime over and over again. but we think finite, and then little, but even if time were finite in a metaphysical sense the numbers are still huge. but back to thinking in general, we tend to think the word "all" about statements, but time and space make a difference, like maybe something is only true sometimes and not others and maybe something is only true somewhere else."

"like maybe it's true for someone else, somewhere else, but it's not true for me. also what about overestimation, something's true but it's not really that important?"

"well that's a problem of the mind, we can only focus on a few things or even one thing at a time consciously and everything we think, it blows up in our minds, so we overestimate it's importance. it's like, something was a huge deal when i was sixteen, but now i think, what was i thinking? and the mind is a fickle thing, because in actuality, we forget, we can't keep things in our conscious mind, but that's just time for you."


Saturday, March 1, 2014

A Sense of Progress in Time

a sense of progress in time:

"you might think, or rather like to think, that the world is stable, that history proves that progress is true, that time moves in a linear fashion, much like the timeline on a historical chart, but you might be wrong. there is that one idea of time which we entertain that time really is linear, the arrow of time and all that."

"but if that isn't the case, what is? the future seems different from the past. we learn from our mistakes, and so on."

"the essence of the theory that time is linear which infects everyone is that the future really is different from the past, in short that time is endless change different from the past, to infinity perhaps, or even that there is some catastrophic end to time, that everything must freeze or something like that, whereas that can't be the case. imagine a world like that, maybe i see red and blue today, but from tomorrow i will never see those two colours again, i will see completely different new colours, and the same again the next day, the past is irretrievable and life is violent change all the time."

"so what you're saying is because we experience the same things again, that we can take it for granted that some things are constants, that actually that the past repeats itself? we actually go back in time for a repeat?"

"exactly. which is a relief, don't you think? but it's not a repeat as a whole, i mean, imagine your own space in your own world, wherever that is, as mapped out with something like Cartesian coordinates, one axis goes out forwards from your body, one axis left and right, one up and down, sitting down to your computer, assuming you sit in exactly the same position and look at the same pixel of the taskbar on the computer screen in front of you at two different times, you may see the same shade of blue of the pixel for those exact coordinates, but of course everything else is different, your thoughts at the times, maybe your legs are crossed differently, etc. the point is we get localized repeats but as a whole, as in eternal return, perhaps never."

"your theory is that what seems like physical motion is an illusion, that actually everything is fixed in space and that each thing that makes up the stuff of reality can repeat?"

"yes, imagine if we were blind. motion wouldn't seem so real then, would it? so if time at the level of each discrete particle that makes up the stuff of reality, or least bit of matter, if you like, is merely a collection of changes in state, the question is whether this is finite or not. of course, if it were infinite, it would suggest that time would be continuous, would it not? however i posit that time is discrete. the question is how finite is the number of states that could exist?"

"so a simple discrete particle may only have a dozen or so states and it would look like it was leaping back and forth between them? there's the state at the start of time and it's like it's moving away from that and then coming back and then away again or something like that. but if the number of states is finite we'd end up repeating later sections of time as a whole surely, if not the start of time itself?"

"i guess so. though perhaps the time each state lasts could be variable. i think what gives progress meaning is the sense that things are getting better or rather even, that bad things have stopped. i came up with some of these ideas years ago, for example, in the 1990's but it is only recently that i've written about them, so it's like an idea popped into my head in say 1993 and then faded and came back in further thought again and again over the years but it's only now that this idea and others fully matured and manifested in this blog post."

"i used to believe a lot of things that now seem just wrong. so progress, in the positive sense, is that an idea becomes bigger and bigger until it manifests in a greater way. progress in the negative sense, it's that we stop believing in falsity. i can't stop thinking, are we more or less susceptible to false beliefs? it's so easy to be crazy. and it's frightening when we suspect we are. like relationships with people, what if we're completely mistaken about someone and their emotions or intentions?"

"it happens, but it's easy to make too much of it, i think. i am me and you are you, and we're all alone in a sense. connection brings a sense of immediacy that perhaps isn't that real. of course we have real neighbours in space and that doesn't change. it's all well and good to think about time, but space may be more important."

"like who your real neighbours are and what are they like? i mean, it's fine perhaps some of us live in a Matrix-like world that is Earth and maybe we "meet" real people in it, but what if the two people who do so are like 4 billion light years away from each other in reality? how does that work? it may seem like someone i meet is 4 feet away from me, but actually is light years away in real space and is just a hologram, in effect, to me. a real long distance relationship."

"you wonder how that works, is speech rendered accurately as to sound, or is there some guesswork in the system at either end?"

"and people are shocking. like you have in your own mind what people are like, but maybe that's just the people actually near you and people far away you meet are different, not what you're used to."

"the thing is, hoping to know everything about reality is like hoping to know all other people, it's not going to happen. the other thing against materialism, apart from the external world being an illusion, is that it makes everything seem non-personal. when i think of space i think of areas of personal spaces, beyond my neighbour is perhaps someone else who i only connect with through my neighbour."

"like what is the maximum degree of separation in reality? it could be over a thousand degrees! and what if two people a thousand degrees of separation apart got married in the matrix of Earth? wouldn't everyone in between know about it? or maybe the connection between them is secure?"

"but the signal, assume it's good, they might never know, perhaps. and maybe we're not aware of the communication traffic going on through us. but you never know, they might be a famous couple in the news."

"well it's always seemed like we weren't that alone here, maybe we live in a densely populated zone or we're somewhere in the middle of space. i imagine someone at the very end of space might think either that he or she were completely alone and living in solipsism or that there were only a few other people that existed."

"or that we are in a lonely area of space but that connection is great."


Saturday, February 22, 2014

The Problem of False Memory

the problem of false memory:

of course, ideally, we'd like memory, what there is of it, to be true, but inevitably some of it is false, perhaps only a little part even, but that is enough to make us uneasy, if not question whether we are losing our minds.

as an example, i remember December, 1985, on winter school holiday, as a time of staying up late watching television. in my memory, a few years afterwards, i saw the film, Night Shift, on a Thursday night but also that it was New Year's Eve. now New Year's Eve, 1985, was a Tuesday so Thursday is perhaps a false memory. now for a long time right up to today, i thought i had seen the movie on a Thursday and therefore not on New Year's Eve, but having just discovered TV Tango's website and checking the listings for December 31, 1985 confirms that it was on CBS that day though of course this record may be false as everyone is confused. i thought for years that i had conflated two memories, and before that, that i had seen the movie on New Year's Eve and that December 31, 1985 was a Thursday. now one avenue of thought is that actually yes it was and somehow the calendar had changed after that but that is unlikely as i remember that August 27, 1986 was definitely a Wednesday and assuming the calendar hadn't changed between the two dates and that TV Tango is correct, December 31, 1985 was definitely a Tuesday and i saw Night Shift that night. where did the memory of Thursday come from? i did also have the vague memory that New Year's Day was Wednesday at the same time as thinking i saw the film on Thursday, so pretty confused there.

my dream life has some continuity as well, like a parallel world where i have a different history with the dream versions of people in waking life and in that they often happen in dream versions of places like schools i went to or old homes i lived in. it happened where i realized i was in a dream but struggled to remember whether such things had happened in waking life with people i knew. what i conclude from this is that memory is very bad in dreams, false memories are ever present, which explains why we remember so little of what happened before our lives on earth. that i was born into earth, this world, means that i had an amnesiac break from what went before, my previous life, perhaps i was asleep for days, if not months, dreaming and eventually captured and propelled by my dreams of earth into earth.

so i've muddled days and confused memories or that things had happened slightly differently or that the order was hard to determine, but most disturbingly, have i memories of events that never happened at all but which i have vivid details of in my mind? well, hopefully not, and nothing stands out.

what about when we cannot remember something, like a name, but obviously we have not forgotten entirely because when we check or ask someone, we instantly recognize that as the thing forgotten? there is some residual memory that exists even though we cannot bring it into conscious thought. how does this recognition work? i think it is something like an incomplete electrical circuit and when we introduce the missing element, the current flows and we recognize. now i digress, if the theory of eternal return of time were somewhat true, wouldn't we have a buildup of residue that got bigger and bigger with each repeat of events, that we might predict the future accurately? i don't think we do. and residue must exist, perhaps some of it's ancient, for some things feel familiar to us, without us being able to explain why.

what about the start of time? let us assume our minds always existed, predating earth. it is easy to think, because we don't think we can remember what happened before our lives on earth, that perhaps it is a solipsistic nightmare and that earth began when we were born. what do i remember of the first day? when i think about it, i imagine a scene of the ground covered with pebbles and stones, a reddish brown colour, not much visibility, there was fog, walking forwards slowly, looking around, seeing trees, and alone at first. now presumably, the first day was a shocking time and thus more easily remembered than any other day.