| Transforming Communication established |
|
| Transforming Communication established |
|
by Dr.
Peter Meier, MeaningGiving
Informatics (BGI AG), CH-8048 Zürich |
| List of Content | 1. Questioning the Contemporary
Mentality 2. Con-science and Science 3. Open Questions and Nagging Doubts 4. Contemporary Trend 5. Ultimate Manipulation 6. Mind Over Matter, Sin, Man and God 7. There is a Path in Truth to fulfill ones Life Chat |
This site has been encouraged by Some of his word plays have partially been used to highlight and rectify what I red between his lines; it is in no way meant to discredit his contribution, in fact I am in depth to him for what it triggered in me... |
||||||
1.
|
Questioning the
Contemporary Mentality The
British novelist (and physicist) C.P. Snow argued in the golden 1950’s that
contemporary culture had acquired two contentious heads, the scientific (what
goes on) one and the other the humanistic one (how can people be convinced);
each unable to understand (as long as nobody asks the question: why is it
as it is?) the other and both committed to commandeering the conversation. |
|||||||
 |
What is it that creeps up in real people when confronted with
words without spirit? A sense of unease, perhaps, some persistent feeling, as the
century slips into the darkness, that the larger structures of mental thought and
sentiment are disembodied, disorderly somehow, certainly fragmented; a long moment in our
collective experience is coming to an end. How are we going to cope with this transition, how can we make use of what we know from the past in a present that has entirely new possibilities to deal with the old human detriment? In addition let us ask: Why are we here in terms of who created us and what for and last bur not least how are, should we honor the truth about it? In term of what ultimately matters, life-fulfillment, I do not believe that we are here to deal with the large-scale structures of space and time or on the other hand, jiggle with the fundaments of the quantum world. Life is fulfilled amid the very large and the very small. However we are called to learn from all levels - perceived in truth they all represent God the creator, towards what is essential, and not as an excuse, to side-track form him, or worse, to attempt to substitute (replaced with in a seemingly more comfortable way in terms of the mammalian mid-brain) God with idols, Ce/ethics/culture, mind etc. |
The underlying thesis for the point
of view raised here is that any why-question can only be answered as more or less
meaningfully either in terms of - personally-relevant answers such as conveyed by God, his prophets, his word, popes, religion and by personal insights, - personally-neutral global, encultured and local habits, moral, ethics, rules and lawes in terms of e=established C=communication the topic of the humanities, e.g. what has, should and will happen in the outer, physical and the inner, mental space (geography) and time (history), - content-free causalities such as the laws of nature as derived from physical science in terms of how matter-energy relationships and last but not least - excuses such as "accidents", "luck" or as Machiavellit put it "Fortuna", e.g. mental constructs. Depending of the age, the center of Ce gravitates towards one of the above sources for answering why-questions with the corresponding consequences...about which the word, our personal conscience and the work of God has given us ample orientation and instructions... |
||||||
2.
|
Con-science and Science The established intellectual life is still as divided as ever; not so much as intellectuals want to make us think between science and the humanities but between those who understand the deeper meaning of the second law of thermodynamics and those who do not - those who believe in a Creator who has the final answer and ask for it in view of their life-fulfillment and those who assume that matter contains all the answers in itself and that it is just a matter of more powerful collisions in bigger accelerators to get at the ultimate fragments... The latter are thus incapable of following even a rudimentary scientific argument when it is against their prejudice, while the former are mentally open for a surprise - why shouldn't your creator surprise you sometimes? After all, Shannon defined information in essence as what conveys a surprise; and who began with information other than God the creator?
|
|||||||
| When
were you yourself last surprised up to the
point of modifying your basic assumptions accordingly as Saul did when he became Paul? If
instead of a potent feedback you prefer Kelloggs for breakfast you have, in my view, no
right to call yourself a scientist, you might at best be other-determined
and at worst a scribe; a human being who prefers personally
neutral books to the book of life, nature and the Bible in order to legitimize his or her position
power.
|
Sometime in the 17th century, the dry tinder of discovery, struck uselessly throughout so many long centuries, blazed suddenly into life. The physical sciences came into creation. Before the 17th century there was no-thing, and afterward, every-thing. | |||||||
 |
Myth places the miracle at the moment Isaac Newton
conceived the idea that gravity might control both the fall of objects toward the
center of the earth and the movement of the planets in the night sky. But the miracle was
in fact divided, one half physical, the other mathematical, and it was the
mathematical miracle that struck the deeper. Before the laws of nature could be revealed
and then recorded, the real world had to be re-created in terms of the real numbers. But it took the representation of the real world in terms of the real numbers that created the breakthrough in being able to substitute it on an information level. It turned out to be rich and compelling enough to convince enough people to make use of it in the entrepreneurial sense. But it was only with the fall of communism, that the last philosophical and political resistance to freedom of information fell at the cost of more than hundred million lives. But that struggle is by no means over, it continues irrationally and begins to dissolve more and more normal minds in the name of postmodernism. |
The real numbers—not only the natural, or counting,
numbers but zero, the negative numbers, the fractions, and the irrational numbers as
well—entered the Western imagination in the 16th and 17th
centuries. With these strange rich numbers in place, the number system is in a certain
sense complete in terms of its potential to map every form and shape as precisely
as desired. It takes modern reactionary science to go back to number and particle
crunching... Converging sequences were given voice, and strange series contemplated; hidden for centuries from human sight, an array of mathematical operations and processes became for the first time visible. The creation of the real number system and its perfection in the calculus represented an inward explosion, one that took place against the backdrop of a larger, outward explosion: Human beings since time immemorial had used the numbers to count and to measure and to reckon. As the animals trooped aboard the ark, Noah, no doubt, ticked them off on his fingertips, two by two. |
||||||
| The
redesign of tangibility with freely available information was under the aspect of
continuity in all matters and that, in itself has now shown to be an even deeper trap
than the staleness of just being able to count what is at hand with the fingertips. It
pushes people into the now prevailing sense of being errands in a
deeply meaningless universe ruled by blind chance on all levels. It takes Buddhism
as a substituting representation to make the unbearable bearable by projecting a path
into Nirvana, the nothingness in which all pain, the
unresolved discrepancy between the tangible and its representation with information is overcome.
In other words, all the achievements we owe to personally-neutral science cannot overcome
the problem of pain and so in the end, it was, in the eye of post-modernism just an
illusionary detour from what philosophy aimed for, speeding up death. Thus the solution
of the problem of pain with death, which is so inherent for man without God, has now
been globalized and that is really why we have come to an end that has to be opened with
timely exchange of project-oriented competence, TEPOC. Thus the above mentioned redesign has confronted us with
the ultimately unavoidable one!
|
Still, a representation can only do so much, namely, re-convey an aspect of reality, the familiar world finding itself peeping from an unfamiliar mirror. In the end any cat thinks it is the cat’s miau and thus requires to substitute any other sound with its own. Thus representing reality however good it is, cannot replace the human urge to substitute what does not fit its prejudgment. However, Communism has brought the age of substation (of life with mental power) to an end after it had not only substituted the bourgeoisie and the farmers, but also the material aspect of nature (Tschernobyl). | |||||||
 |
The
now prevailing age of substituting representation that
substitutes everything by out-sourcing what cannot represent itself in the
"free" market is equally doomed to disappear. This is so, because life
and the laws of nature do not obey this requirements of the present man-made
system, and yet they are more sustainable than anything humans can ever achieve. And, of
course, a system that inherently outsources life and the laws of creation is no longer creative,
becomes closed and thereby ends up self-destructive unless somebody opens-up
the otherwise unavoidable ends by generating what is required within the
innate principles of creation to transcend any man-made power, rules and
habits...
|
The larger promise of any mental activities and above all the physical sciences has always been, certainly for its (mis-)users, that some striking revelation lies behind the new, the odd and unfamiliar representation, some way of coordinating appearances that allows the enforcement of a sense of order on the vagaries of things. | ||||||
| By
making use of the underlying more sustainable laws man can substitute (if
necessary with weapons) the less sustainable prevailing human order with a
"better" one, an ideal. For discoverers of such laws, the world they can, and beyond that, hope to affirm, is not merely describable, but comprehensible. To them it has, not just a rational but a meaningful structure. For creationists among them it is animated by a great plan, designed by an even greater creator. The hope is that the infinity of its facts may be compressed into a few omnipotent laws. Hopefully when it comes to apply them, there is a form of concepts adequate to express the complexity of the possible experience in giving meaning to those laws, e.g. allocating resources in such a way that they form a symphony, a machine, a robot, a system, a culture rather than a cacophony as happened when the magician's apprentice unleashed unknown powers... Each theory is embedded in a continuous mathematical representation of the world; each succeeds in amalgamating far-flung processes and properties into a single, remarkably compressed affirmation, a tight intellectual knot. The supreme expression of each theory is a single mathematical law, one expressed as an equation: a statement in which something that is unknown is specified by contingencies arranged in a certain way. And each of the great theories contains far more than it states, the laws of nature fantastically compressed, as if they were quite literally messages from a timeless intellect.
|
An individual can designe a weapon by using a
lower quality (content-free physics) to substitute a higher one (personally-neutral
politics) which aims at substituting him or in his view God, his Lord and protector via philosophy
and its rhetoric aimed at controlling the mass. In human history, there have been only four absolutely fundamental physical theories: Newtonian mechanics; Clerk Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism; Einstein’s theory of relativity; and quantum mechanics. These human achievements stand out in history as being more sustainable than the staring stone statues on Easter Island; blank-eyed, personally-neutral, beyond any change reasonably imaginable and monumental in their validity. Your PC runs, because its designers have orchestrated the relevant laws of physics that allow it to manipulate the desired information and programs. |
|||||||
3.
|
Open Questions and Nagging Doubts Looking anxiously into time and space humans have always asked, when shall I find love, when happiness, when God? Without that questions answered, the past lies fixed back somewhere; the future is indeterminate but equally meaningless, lit up by only a few large and gloomy certainties: decay of man-made (closed) systrems, death and taxes to the collective. Human beings are suspended between the unknowable and the inevitable, the place they seem to have so far always occupied and the place, the intellect suspects, they will always occupy.
|
The great physical theories provide an exception to this depressing human condition; but are they given over to humans for the conquest of time? Under their influence, the universe becomes temporally transparent, at least in fragments. The conquest of time is written into the symbolic instruments of the physical sciences, their very way of describing things. | ||||||
| But
how about asking about the operating system Ce, within which physics is merely an
application program used by the e=established human way
of C=communicating with each other to form culture. And it
is this collective mental dissemination mechanism that in the end determines how equations
such as E=mc2 are manifested in mankind: for bombs or energy
production and the latter to produce weapons, tools or information which again
can be used for war and peace towards collective Ce or personal life-fulfilmment.
In both cases the results are instruments of remarkable power. However, each seems
to be designed to inhibit its synchronization with the other and both demand
increasingly more of all available resources, including the human ones. Nice perspective, eh: The mutual inhibition (e.g. between content-free technical systems and personally-neutral management - take the squeaking financial systems) at the cost of wasting no-sustainable resources. Subtle is the way it reveals in miniature at the onset of thinking catastrophes based on myth such as the one about evolution and how it penetrates the future of humanity - by misuse of personally-neutral absolutes (laws of physics) with man-made Ce-systems and its price, misfit, sin, death and chaos.
|
The instruments of discovery within the physical sciences are
differential equations. Like equations everywhere, they express a relationship but conceal
an unknown. Solving the equation is, just as in elementary algebra, a matter of
uncovering the unknown, and the extraordinary feature of the calculus is that it clears
a way in which such equations may in general be solved. On the other hand the corresponding instrument of Ce is rhetoric and its impact on the masses are the emperor's (Ce) new clothes, fashion, trends, values etc. in the "free", e.g. social Darwinian market "free" from all consideration of laws of nature, ecology etc., free to make Ce dominate humanity instead og God. However, on close looks, in the end all those emerperors are naked. This is in reference to the Anderses' fairy tale, "The Emperor's new Cloth". |
|||||||
 |
The predictable future is the exuberant manifestation of the
Western scientific imagination: In physics, predictions command a degree of accuracy that
must be reckoned miraculous. Quantum electrodynamics penetrates the very
heart of matter to something like twenty decimal places. It is as if, in determining the
distance from New York to Los Angeles, theory and measurement would diverge by no more
than the width of a single human hair. We are talking about a degree
of representation unparalleled in any other intellectual accomplishment and in the entire
experience of the race. It has enabled human beings to achieve a specification of
points and places in the future utterly at odds with our habitual inability
to say where our keys may have been misplaced, or our hearts lost. On the other hand in contemporary culture, to be sure, prophecy is a debased currency, the prophets are bunched up on television offering opinions about politics, astrological advice on love and work. This highlights the incredible discrepancy in which Ce is giving meaning to the meaningless, matter and in the demeaning of creative life in order to side-track from personal life-fulfillment in the name of as many as possible. This cries for meaning-giving informatics to call the bluff and rectify the incredible thinking catastrophes the unavoidable consequences of which this generation is about to go through!
|
Science started with rhetoric and that lasted up to
Newton. Then mathematics took over for two centuries and it seems we are sliding
back to rhetoric, however, technologically speaking, on a much higher and a global level. Mathematics as outlined above secures the continuos and perfect representation of external form, appearance. Rhetoric allows the substitution of everybody that does not go along with the politically correct dominance of the golden calf, e.g. appearance. Today those two pillars of science, denotational personally-neutral rhetoric in the service of politics justified by the humanities, and mathematics in the service a content-free technology, justified by physics sustain the same temple in which human resources are scarified to uphold Ce as the substation of God. |
||||||
4.
|
Contemporary Trend Chaos first: The Ce-trick of justifying the misuse of words is very simple: Certain systems are called both deterministic and unstable. An example that appeals to simple minds and hooks them into appearance is a baseball bat balanced on its end. Left unperturbed, it may, according to the simple laws of mechanics remain upright until the end of time. This is one of its destinies. Given a tiny tap, it falls over promptly, thus embracing a quite different destiny. Now watch this tricky sentence written by a "scientist" about this scenario: "Chaos arises when the bat is embedded in the flow of time". The fact is, from where it is, the pertubance evokes a set of natural laws and when that set is too complex for nummerical mathematics to master easily, then the intellectuals call the thing involved unstable. Driven by their righteousness and armed with their disseminating rhetoric, they see to it that we become instrumental in spreading such non-sense! Let us face it, this is mental magic and the justification for it is their (not mine) inability in doing the hard mental work! From that point of view our ancestors could have said "a stone is unstable" just because they could not predict its fall. However, they know what happened when it fell on their head and had second-thoughts of substituting that experience light-hearted and simple-minded. And later on they were grateful when Newton could predict the stone’s fall.
|
Now mathematical science is undergoing dissolution in most
people’s mind because we experience less and less predictable future; rhetoric
has managed to make science the scapegoat, thus re-establishing the dominance of Ce
over science. Quantum mechanics has been twisted by esoteric minds to introduce a note of alien
doubt not just into the deterministic scheme, but into creation and managed to put God
into a popular collar of uncertainty. Never mind that quantum mechanics and
similarly relativity in their essence are far above almost everybody's understanding and
meaning except those who work with it. In fact, philosophically speaking they are just
misused to mystify the real purpose, to glorify chaos, randomness and, for whom
that is not convincing, misuse the consequences of such thinking catastrophes, complexity
as self-fulfilling evidence. Thus chaos and randomness is created in uneducated
brains by non-sequitur (conclusions that do
not logically follow, e.g. mental trickery) for that purpose.
|
||||||
| I
hope you understand how chaos is mainly created; by subtle thinking catastrophes
and all this talk about "chaos" is just obscuring this. Example? Both ordinary
language and ordinary life seem hideously sensitive to small perturbations. An errant
hiccup might have induced Gavrilo Princip to miss the Archduke entirely at Sarajevo, with
Bosnia-Herzegovina becoming, over the placid decades since 1914, the Switzerland of
Southern Europe! Chaos is a cultural corrosive, one dissolving the tight connection between the fulfillment of individual life and the Ce-system promoted by its wardens like scribes, mangers, general and self-appointed popes. It induces uncertainty about our very nature as creatures of a creator in his creation. It is something artificial that results in a pragmatic sense of inescapable error that clouds the future and intellectuals know nothing better than to conclude: "We do live amid ineradicable uncertainty." And that after they postulate a universe+life evolving from the Big Bang according to the laws of physics only, and call, what they cannot calculate, e.g. their impotence, blind chance...
|
This is simplifying Swiss history and besides the fact is, the
leading people’s mind’s were readied for a war, with or without a hiccup as a
baseball bat balanced on its end "is ready to fall over", and guess why, because
the intellectuals at that time did not do there homework; the soldiers had to learn
it the hard way in Verdun while the former went on arguing at the survivors expense: However, the proper answer to what appears as chaos has always been, is and will be as long as there are living being, the exchange of project-oriented competence, TEPOC. When have you engaged yourself the last time in TEPOC and how much have you inhibited it in the name of abstracts such as Ce? That is the question for the answer of which we are all responsible and for the defaulting of which there is NO excuse! |
|||||||
 |
The
smokescreen of complexity caused by intellectual randomness: If chaos is assumed
first, the rest must be self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus a mechanism has to be invented to
create chaos in the mind of those to be substituted, while pretending to be in
order oneself by representing it. Generals know about the self-made order for
their troops in projecting chaos on the enemy: This, however, is to remain within the realm of rhetoric. The mathematician attends not to paintings but to binary sequences—strings of 0’s and 1’s. Now a computer program is itself a string of symbols (binary numbers, in fact). A given string is simple, Chaitin and Kolmogorov argued, if the string may be generated by a computer program significantly shorter than the string itself; otherwise, it is complex. This tight little declaration begins to explain the succumbing of scientific minds to rhetoric by the large irrelevance that now envelops mathematics and thereby all sciences. Science is now giving up its basis, namly that everything can be represented by appropriate data that it can be understood on that basis, because everything makes sense in a menaingful order. Thus creativity is asked for in finding that path to get the appropriate data, verifying their truth and obtain an understanding in the service of life fulfillment... Guess who introduced that "philosophy": Jesus Christ! Do you understand now, where there are such powerful philosophical endeavour going on to twist people's minds about it with all imaginable trickery?
|
A trite and a tired concept, randomness denotes a
statistical property of sequences, but one that is difficult to discern and even more
difficult to define. We shall see how certain intellectuals produce such sequences... To side-track
from their own randomness they continually need to "revived" the
interpretation of the consequences of their mentality, the chaotic Ce-tendencies in
contemporary culture. Here is an illustration: A painting by Jackson Pollock is complex in the sense that nothing short of the painting conveys what the painting itself conveys. As I look at those curiously compelling, variegated, aggressive streaks and slashes, words fail me. In order to describe the painting, I must display it. The interpretation given to us by the Old Testament read in modern terms: Chaos and random complexity are like hell, in order to get it, you have to let go everything else and immerse in it for ever... |
||||||
 |
Simplicity
of representation, we are told by the intellectuals works amid the very large and
the very small, and it is there that things may be
mathematically represented appropriately. On the other hand most things in human life seem not simple but complex. What if that is just true because we see life through the glass darkly of things and refuse the living word? Intellectuals with their dead words pretend they cannot be more simply conveyed; they are what they are, unsusceptible of compression and claim that this is an easily demonstrated, an indubitable, mathematical fact; thus riduculing the meaning of the life of jesus Christ!!! However, there is no such thing like a mathematical fact, mathematics should represent facts and not substitute them like rhetoric. It is a typical thinking catastrophe that failing to manage something like God or nature, means that is unstable, complex, bad etc.; in short the intellect works by substitution with a representation that suits its prejudice. Neat, hey how the pre-trans-trap is set up: Perfect the art of mapping the forms of things and apply it to life to "proof" that life is not simple (e.g. no mere form) and then declare its obviously higher quality compared to that of things chaotic, e.g. of a lower quality. Then the intellect can claim the right to rape life at its "free" will up to the point to declare that forms preceeeded it and that thereby eventually life has to be transcended by forms again, e.g. trapped as outdated biology into silicon chips..How much of your own mind is already entrapped within Ce? Watch it, when Ce is evolved enough, it is a small step for it to entrap itself - Hitler has given as a precursor how to entrapp human ceativity....
|
The laws of nature - those compressed representations of our
understanding of nature - certain, on the one hand, to the large-scale structures of
space and time and, on the other hand, to the jiggling fundaments of the quantum world. take this intellectual representation of God’s work: "It is the world’s complexity that is humanly interesting. What do we see when we look elsewhere? Stars blazing glumly in the night sky, the moons of Jupiter hanging like so many testicles, clouds of cosmic dust, an immensity of space, a spare but irritating sound track consisting of the infernal chatter of background radiation. The evidence seems inescapable that the Creator wrought the simple structures in the universe with a few swift strokes of an instrument much like a cosmic trowel. In our own corner of the composition, by contrast, He apparently set to work with a sable-tipped paintbrush, patiently fashioning a blue planet, a lush garden, creatures utterly unlike anything else in the universe, sensuous, moving, alive." Now watch the above carefully: What was virtually introduced as a work of art on a canvas, is now suddenly (non-sequitur) referred to as an established fact as in "the emperor’s new cloth" and is used to establish "the emperor’s new mind", with which cheaters hope to get away with their hidden agenda until the get the results; confusion and chaos among their adverseries while pretending their Ce-position at their cost. Watch they next trich, when intellectuals speak in the royal we-form: |
||||||
5.
|
Ultimate Manipulation Having been trained as a physicist I would never have said as some intellectuals do "The calculus is the great idealization of Western science." I was always aware that the investiture of mathematics in things and processes weakens as one ovens along the intellectual chain of command. This says more about those in power than about the power of mathematics. Someone who has a reasonable understanding of what mathematics is about, quantity, is not at all puzzled that attempts by intellectuals to discern the outlines of a coherent system of mathematical thought in the structure of biological objects—protozoa, rock stars, human beings—has been a failure; thanks God it did so utterly! Trying to understand living systems in terms of the finite constituents that make them up is sheer arrogance in view the foundation of decent science that aims to represent what is, in a meaningfully understandable and respectful way for God’s creation rather than to simplify and substitute it to be misused for evil purposes. In short, the dissection of a living being complete, what remains is death: In terms of genetical engineering it is a chain of DNA consisting of three letter words from among an alphabet of four letter that had organized and controlled the now dead life form (and not life!); thus DNA stand for ultimate FGI (form giving informatics)! Something for simple minds (no continuous magnitudes; no real numbers; no rich body of mathematical analysis and above all, seemingly no laws, not in the sense in which physics contains exclusive and absolute laws of nature), comprehensible to someone who wants to manipulate with no need to know science in any responsible or conscience way.
|
"We live (author: I don’t, therefore I am
not politically correct, therefore I can be substituted by the emperor with his image of
me) within the confines of the above mentioned Ce-canvas. Complexity is everywhere,
whether created or contrived, and compression hard to come by - in truth, the human
world cannot be much compressed at all. And that is the intellectuals’ justification
to substitute God’s work with their denotational simplifications without which they
would be nobody in their impotence to map something relevant to life-fulfillment; watch
the following proclamation of impotence: The most we can typically do, a few resolute morals or maxims aside, is to watch the panorama unfold, surprised as always by the turbulent and unsuspected flow of things, the gross but fascinating cascade of life." I certainly do not subscribe to this subtle nonsense myself nor have I given such intellectuals any authority to speak in my name, did you, who did? How on earth do they get the resources to spread that. Well that is what black art is all about, establishing yourself as the communicator of all, e.g. Ce. Of course the ultimate position to do that is that of the emperor and above him, the pope. So the question is, what is more important, peoples Ce-papal inclinations or the word of God? |
||||||
| And
at this point evolutionists and postmodernists are quick are quick to say that such
conclusions often to mark the very margins of our own intellectual inadequacy. After all,
for them God has to be something simple like blind chance otherwise they would have to consider
sharing their power with him - for many the most frightening, however
unavoidable perspective! Nowhere in nature, let alone in human ways of organizing things solemly based on their own minds, do we ever observe purely mechanical forces between large molecules giving rise to self- contained, stable, and autonomous structures like a frog or a fern, something able to carry on as a continuous arc from first to last, a physical object changing over time but remaining the same object at every stage, some set of forces endowing its identity with permanence so that variations remain bounded and inevitably return the object to the place from which it started. Nothing but a living system exhibits this extraordinary combination of plasticity and stability, a fact we are barely able to describe and entirely unable to explain.
|
Despite the often vulgar language in which they are expressed, the concepts that animate molecular biology are old, familiar, haunting: system, information, code, language, message, organization. It is presented magical in its evoking and effect. DNA, in particular, functions as a kind of biochemical demiurge, something that is said to bring an entire organism into existence by a process akin to a casting of spells without mentioning that the still purely understood role attributed to DNA that is still at odds with the obvious fact that the information resident in the genome is inadequate to specify the whole of a complex organism let alone its integrating life. However, like a rubber band under tension, the concepts of molecular biology seem always to snap back to some earlier way of describing life, one in which purpose and design come prominently into focus. | |||||||
 |
Life is immune to the great idealization that marks the Platonic mind; and what is more, it seems retrograde to the grand
metaphysical assumptions on which our culture still rests. The basic Ce-assumptions
have passed directly via philosophy, theology into science and popular culture. The world,
Ce affirms almost with one voice, is physical and not spiritual, numinous, or
mental. It is a world of matter. The doctrine of consideration in contract law and the
bright bubble of consciousness are illusions in its representations, because such
"things" however important they might be for our life-fulfillment, cannot be
used to manipulate the masses. "The most extreme hope for science," the physicist Steven Weinberg has written (in his Dreams of a Final Theory, 1993), "is that we will be able to trace the explanation of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents". Machiavelli used the word fortuna to describe the inexplicable adjurations of fate; it is a word that communicates a certain grave mockery. Why have intellectuals, mind you not physicists (though there are intellectualizing physicists to be precise) informed the human heart of an explanation for the way things in terms of fundamental laws and and something like a Neapolitan shrug? Because that is how the master they serve, the despots and todays managers, would like to operate! And of course one of the absolute laws is: He who pays the piper cals the tune... The fact is, almost all physicists who really discovered some fundamental law had a deep respect for the Creator and only scribes who never related to anything created can combine it with a shrug. This reminds me to the relationship between Mozart and Salieri, between the desire to fulfill ones life and to do something for the fulfillemt of as many as possible and gaining power over as much of life as possible up to the destruction of all life on earth. This brings us to the hidden agenda of all non-believers about which the intellectuals boost more or less straightforwardly nowadays. The fact is, the more outrageously you proclaim something, the more position power do you get in the Ce- world who falls for self-appointed leaders of a 1000 year empire...
|
The attitude of idealization, inherently
intellectual, is now put in the shoes of physical scientists and behind concepts found in
physics. Then the conclusion is irresistible for the ignorants that not ones own
basis is bad - but the physicists. This is denying the fact, that proper science: e.g. physics or molecular biology or any discipline struggling to express the properties of what they are interested in, be it matter or living systems in a vocabulary and by means of concepts aimed for meaningful understanding in terms of life-fulfillment and not in the service of intellectually substitute life with man-made "ideals" and idols woule never prejudice, as intellectuals do: "What we see when we look at the observable universe is that one god like dark Pluto rules the quantum underworld; quite another, the biological macromolecules." Again: The author doesn not see it this way; I see a tendency in that direction in worlds where intellectuals like the one who said this dominate people’s minds. And in letting his masks drop, the scapegoating voice raves on: "The laws of physics are controlling, they say, and in the end everything will be made clear. That is what they always say; it is their destiny to say it. But in truth the grand vision of all of human knowledge devolving toward mathematical physics is no longer taken seriously, even by physicists who take it seriously." This ignorant intellectuals approach reveals more about the speaker than about physics or physicists! But still, in a Ce-world of free opinion anything goes that establishes some kind of communication...Hitler indrocuced the idea of substituting Jews and they were executed, Intellectualls talk about substituting God and... |
||||||
6.
|
Mind Over Matter, Sin, Man
and God In any non-believer, an uneasy sense prevails that the world alone is somehow incomplete. We are creatures with rich and various mental experiences. We also live in a inner world of purpose, belief, intention, and meaning. We seem to bring the future into being by the free exercise of our will, a circumstance that the intellect is unable to describe, let alone explain: It simply utters tautologies such as: "And we are conscious, we have minds"...got it?
The foundations of the new view were laid
more than 60 years ago by a congregation of chalky logicians: the great Kurt Godel,
Alonzo Church, Emil Post, and, of course, the odd and utterly original A.M. Turing,
whose lost spirit seems to roam anxiously over the second half of the 20th
century like one of E Scott Fitzgerald’s sad young men. (Fortuna, again.)
|
Neither the "great" body of the personally-neutral
intellect nor the content-free continuous mathematics (which never really attempted
it other than misinterpreted by the intellect) have played a role in the explanation or
description of the human mind. However, much of its very existence expresses the powers of
that mind. But within living memory a "bright new" world has been organized to
rival the old cunning and continuous world set up by the intellect by mimicking the
physical sciences. Gone is Freud’s model of the mind as a haunted house (super-ego/ego/id); it has been replaced by the powerful image of the mind as a computational device. Careers have been fashioned to accommodate and exploit that image. Unpleasant young people proclaim themselves weird or wired, involve themselves in trendy little magazines, and sprawl over the Internet. The descriptive resources of the English language have been altered, often to visible effect, the term "digital" emerging from the proctologist’s vernacular to become a general adjective of choice. "Life is just bytes and bytes of digital information," the biologist Richard Dawkins writes obligingly in River Out of Eden (1995). "Pure information," a reviewer adds loyally. |
||||||
| A Turing machine undertakes its transformations by means of a program: a
fixed set of rules setting out what it may do and when it may do it. These rules are
formal, in the sense that they make no appeal to the machine’s emotions or
thoughts, but they also reflect the ineliminable purposes of the system’s
programmer, enabling the machine to realize his aims or ends. On the other hand they
are closed and we all had that experience, closed systems are self-destructive in
themselves. Here we have come full circle to what we have started with, with the 2nd
law ot thermodynamics, e.g. with what cannot be alive in any sense; mind over matter is
an intellectual fake to replace life! |
The essential elements of a Turing machine are the symbols it manipulates, the tape on which it writes, the mechanism by which it sees, and the program by which it acts; indeed, these are the essentials of the computational act itself, the process by which intelligence records its thoughts. The extraordinary, spine-chilling, contrary-to-intuition thing is that this imaginary object not only led historically to the construction of the digital computer itself - a striking example of thought bringing matter into existence - but also in some sense exhausts the very concept of rule-governed behavior. Whatever may be done by a discrete system moving in steps may be done by a Turing machine; e.g. everything possible except life, e.g. ultimate sin! | |||||||
| To the question of how best to describe change, the answer provided by the
physical sciences over the course of 300 years has been a system of mathematical equations.
Another answer, seemingly new in our experience, yet precisely the hidden agenda of the intellect, is a program. The difference between the
two is profound. A program does what its originator describes. Equations are indirect, they must be solved and there is no alternative to it. A program is direct, it must be executed. Equations are continuous; programs
discontinuous. Equations are infinite; programs finite. An equation penetrates the future;
a program does not. The elements of an equation are quantities, e.g. their
numeric representations; the elements of a program are qualities; and here comes the intellectual fraud - for an intellectual a quality is
personally-neutral and the appropriate way to express this is words. However this is only one side of the coin even if the intellectuals, mere footnotes of Plato (Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato") did an incredible job in disguising it even from themselves! The fact is life-fulfillment, the ultimately relevant quality for you is not personally-neutral, it has another meaning for you or me and that is precisely what the intellect and its priests and scribes have tried to obscure by all means through the ages!
|
As the intellectual latest distinctions suggest, the vision of the mind as a computational object - no less than what molecular biology has revealed - retrograde to the great movements of mathematical physics. In the physical sciences, time and space are represented by the real numbers and (therefore) have a continuous structure. A computer, by contrast, inhabits a world in which time, represented by the ordinary integers, has lost its pliant seamlessness and moves forward in jerky integral steps; complexity created by a stern series of simple renunciations is in force. No differential equations. No connection backward to the calculus. No world-defining symmetries of space and time. No analytic continuation, as when the laws of nature conduct the physicist from the present into the future. No quantitative miracles. And above all; no responsibility and no miracles at all! Provided one until the ordinary achingly human being is substituted behind this grandiose smokescreen behind which intellectuals hide their assumed position power! | |||||||
 |
The
intellectual fraud and its fallacy: Under the personally- neutral concepts of the intellectuals and the
resulting order, the prevailing direction of scientific thought has been altered and
reversed. Within mathematical physics, things move dissectively, toward the fundamental
objects and their fundamental properties and laws. The physical universe itself remains
meaningless. The arena controlled by the fundamental laws, though vast, is sterile,
the whole thing rather like a fluorescent-lit bowling alley where balls the size of quarks
forever ricochet off one another in the hot and soundless night. Down there,
no human voices may be heard. But up here, things are different; they have always been different. Arguments invoking a rich system of meaning and interpretation, human beings explain themselves to themselves and others in terms of what they wish and what they believe, the immemorial instincts of desire and conviction being sufficient to bring a world into being. That world is suspended in space by the chatter of human voices. A path through the chatter is not dissective, but almost always circular. A man believes that alfalfa sprouts are a cure for shingles; this is reflected in what he says, in what he does, in what he believes, and in what he wishes, each reflection explaining the one that has gone before, the circle beginning to bend back on itself; in other words another kind of meaninglessness... Question and answer belong to the circle of human voices. However, purely physical processes have been invested with significance, those winking ruby lights of a calculator given form and content as symbols, representations. Whether the representation is made in terms of light or by the modulation of a woman’s voice, the process is always the same. Some feature of the world has been made incandescent; mind rules over matter - God does no longer seem required, q.e.d....for a |
There is, in an intellectual’s
understanding, no way to break the circle to reach a bedrock of physical fact, for
there are no physical facts to reach. How could there be? To enter the circle, any
purely physical feature of the world must be interpreted and given meaning. Once given
meaning, it is no longer purely a physical feature of the world. Under the computational
theory of mind, the conceptual circle is not emptied or evacuated, it is enlarged (cumulative
creativity only) by the formal symbols taking the place of the objects like guests at a
wedding asked to join the dance. The states of a computer (intellectual mind)
carry a significance that goes beyond physics (law of nature); like words, they
play a role in the economy of meaning. And meaning appears only in the reflective
and interpretive gaze (e.g. something simply up for intellectual manipulation) of human
beings. This point is evident in the simplest of devices. Call twice for the numeral "2" on a calculator and the machine returns a neoned "4." Considered simply as a physical object, the machine is shuttling among shapes, configurations of light, which it realizes by means of the way in which it is constructed: it is capable of nothing else. What makes the charming show of light an answer is the fact that someone has been provoked to ask a question. |
||||||
 |
man-made
prejudice acknowledging consciousness: Streaming in from space, light reaches the human eye and deposits its
information on the stippled surface of the retina. Directly thereafter I see the great
lawn of Golden Gate Park; a young woman, nose ring twitching; a panting puppy; a rose
bush; and beyond, a file of cars moving sedately toward the western sun. A
three-dimensional world has been conveyed to a two-dimensional surface and then reconvened
to a three-dimensional image. This familiar miracle suggests, if anything does, the relevance of algorithms to the actual accomplishments of the mind; indeed, the transformation of dimensions is precisely the kind of activity that might be brought under the control of a formal program, a system of rules cued to the circumstances of vision as it takes place in a creature with two matched but somewhat asymmetrical eyes. David Marr, for example, provides (in Vision, 1982) an extraordinary account of the complex transformations undertaken in the mind’s cockpit in order to allow the eyes to see things stereopticaily. Questions of how and who reverberate with a loud, flat, embarrassing bang, their innocence utterly at odds with the sophistication of the various theories they subvert. Is the mind merely computational? Does it proceed by an application of determinate rules? Very well, consider this: at the conclusion of its computations, the mind bursts into a vivid, light-enraptured awareness of the world. I open my eyes and my eyes are filled. There is a panorama to which my eyes may be partial, but it is my eyes that are filled, my experiences possessing both an experiencing subject—me—and the contents of that experience, the scene and its surveyor bound inseparably together as fragments in a figure.
|
In a charming book entitled
Descartes’ Error (1994), Antonio R. Damasio writes of the mind as a place where
neural representations, or images, arise. Having concluded correctly, say, that a football
is heading toward one’s nose, the mind signs off on the formal portion of its visual
deliberations by means of a vibrant image (and signals the head to duck). This language
of representations and images is general throughout the cognitive sciences. The mind
(why not the brain), apparently, stores the stuff in various places and then hauls down a
representation or two when the need arises. But wait a minute. Representations? Images? As in, something seen? In the mind? But seen by whom? And just who is doing the representing? The persistence in theory of a certain embarrassing imbroglio—the mind suddenly opens an arena in which images are thoughtfully examined, or representations are mysteriously made to represent; all this is evidence of the enormous difficulty entailed in accommodating consciousness within any computational view of the mind’s operations.
|
||||||
 |
Although
most analytic philosophers have remained materialists, it is consciousness that is now on everyone’s lips. Employing an argument prematurely discarded by logicians,
the distinguished mathematician Roger Penrose has concluded that consciousness cannot be computational: a reformation of quantum theory is required to set the matter right, the
transmutation of thought into action taking place in the microtubules of the cell[a]....how can
anyone but non-beleiver believe such nonsense??? Our intellectuals's response is almost archetypical: 'Do I have
anything better? Of course not. You could not discover the limits of soul, Heraclitus
wrote, not even if you traveled down every road. Such is the depth of its form."
|
More nonsense please: Elsewhere, unorthodox quantum physicists have argued for the ubiquity of mind throughout the cosmos, with even the atoms having a say in the scheme of things[c].
An enterprising academic, Colin McGinn, has concluded that the problem of consciousness must forever be insoluble and has made his discovery the foundation of a far-reaching philosophical system. A few philosophers have even been observed administering discreet kicks to the corpse of mind/body dualism: get up, you fat fool, I need you.... |
||||||
 |
But
even as intellectuals add to their great creation myths, what they pick up from
physicists, questions follow assertions in a never-ending spiral. Why do the early
galaxies show so much structure? How can the universe be younger than its oldest stars?
Did space and time have a beginning? A beginning? A beginning in what? Are you
saying that time is relative? Then what is that business about the first three
minutes? Just what are they relative to? At the margins of speculation, strange numerical
coincidences haunt the imagination. And there are singularities at the beginning and end
of time, places where the laws of physics simply deform themselves and then collapse.
Hurrah, the intellect, a loophole in itself has found one in physics! It has been the hope of the intellect not the physical sciences that everything might be explained by an austere, impersonal, abstract, consistent, and complete set of whatever mathematical laws so that it can be reprogrammed! The hope has acquired the aspect of a faith within the closed coffin of academic science and analytic philosophy, (not) things (but the underlying order; God' word...) are as they always were; but no one who shares a (Ce-)delusion, as Freud memorably remarked, nor ever recognizes it as such. Elsewhere, confidence is leaking from the most profound and ambitious system of secular thought ever created. Everyone feels that this is so. And everyone is right...and when everyone seems to right, there is something deeply wrong!
|
Mathematical physics, it is sometimes said (by whom - jealous intellectuals?), is the cathedral constructed by our culture. The image is apt, however far less messy, disorganized, ideologically confused and inescapably compelling than the contemporary humanities. Physics at its last frontiers resembles nothing so much as one of those strange structures designed by Antoni Gaudi says an intellectual while a proper physicist works at a resemblance with the reality to be represented by it; an utterly incomprehensible idea to the intellect who seeks a magic mediator, to set itself over matter, substituting anything else, even God. | ||||||
| The
prevailing world of thought, Ce, is like some frozen sea, heaving and cracking, with
a trickle of shy life rushing beneath or above its surface, carrying fragrant memories of
what has long been forgotten, a world beyond the world of matter and the
Ce-intellect. Human beings will always need to interpret themselves in ancient and
familiar terms, the intentional circle enlarging but never breaking; for the way things
are, they will never find an explanation so complete and so compelling as to make their transcendental urges irrelevant. Such is the responds of the intellect, worried as
ever to lose its grip on life and rather crucifying it, than giving in to it, as
its little sister physics attempted to do in terms of materialistic relationship. The
intellect in consequence seduced her by challenging her to attempt using the same methode
that worked on matter about life. The result forseeable, misfortune, that allowed to
discredit Cynderella for the unavoidable failure. With that yet another quality is going;
some aspect of conviction has been broken, above all the idea of a believer abel to
represent God's order! In return, there is something familiar and something
recaptured, e.g. Ce as a substitute for God and that is all the devil and his disciples
care about.
|
Literatur that
support the myth of the mind, the Ce-raped human spirit for all those who
refuse to look inwards. Chances are, that if you read enough non-sense outside that you
may decide to turn inside to find out your path upon which, in truth
you can fulfill your life: [a] The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford,
1990) and Shadows of the Mind (Oxford, 1994). The first of these books was reviewed in
COMMENTARY by Jeffrey Marsh (June 1990), the second by Adam Schulman (April 1995). |
|||||||
7.
|
There is a Path in
Truth to fulfill ones Life I have outlined what is not life-fulfilling in itself: c3-evolution and its arguing mind-philosophy aimed at In fact nothing is life-fulfilling in itself; life cannot be substituted by any-thing as representative (say in terms of Ce) it might be, because nothing of that order can replace God's personal relationship with each of us. |
The ultimate measure-stick to all mental activities therefor must be, whether they
are to all mental activities therefor must be, whether they
are
WORDS used in a purely denotational sense, e.g. by the philosophcal intellect, however, do not fulfill this criteria! What we need, is to redesign the humanities with Applied
Personal Science based on |
 |
c3 vs. C3:
If you understand GERMAN, you may also check out (siehe Zürich aha <aha-Inhaltsverzeichnis aha-Inhaltsverzeichnis > Positionierung als Kolumne) |
If you
think my claim is over the top, |
There
is no substitute for |
Feeel free to become part of the MILLSTATT chat - just sign on for your (free letter sequence) and chose your own password.You may also register YOUR Homepage or a message - see what happens when you click an underlined handle. Check the instructions and the available images. |
