by Richard Brautigan I'd like to think (and the sooner the better!) of a cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers live together in mutually programming harmony like pure water touching clear sky.
I like to think (right now, please!) of a cybernetic forest filled with pines and electronics where deer stroll peacefully past computers as if they were flowers with spinning blossoms.
I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, and all watched over by machines of loving grace.
Andrew Johnston's cogent analysis of American TV Drama uses the series Mad Men as an example of a new trend in the long form drama. His thoughts, influenced by Michael Chabon’s collection of critical essays on genre fiction, Maps and Legends and Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, come from his observations of the such classics as Dallas, The X Files and The Sopranos.
He describes the influence of the short story on the form of the episodic drama and the evolution and eventual synthesis of "mythology" and "arc" episodes into a kind of "fractal drama" which displays some structural self-similarity at different scales (individual episode, season, full story arc).
From the House Next Door "... Weiner has seen fit to fully embrace Chase’s vision and offer a sort of fractal drama--one that contains conventional continuity, to be sure, but also one where the narrative model is layered rather than strictly linear, and in which it takes quite awhile (unlike with B5 or The X-Files, which wore their complexity as a badge of pride) to realize that the whole is more than the sum of its parts."
from http://mypsiche.blogspot.com/2008/08/personalization-archmeds-healing.html
I believe that behind or within -- or really, "composing", mass, there is 'vibrating energy' as the physicists say. But I believe that composing that vibrating energy, is what you might call 'consciousness'. I normally avoid that word--it's far too fuzzy for my liking--but it's all I can use to describe this concept. To me, every mote of energy is a collection of consciousness. The more energy that is combined, the more 'awareness' begins to build, like a side-effect or property of the quantity increase. At a certain level it becomes a 'sense of identity' and then of 'individual' identity. At a next level it becomes capable of dualism, and then when yet more complex, of deception.
Awareness as it intensifies in density or intensity, reaches critical mass that shifts from 'aware' to 'self-aware' and eventually to fully 'autonomous'. But everything in our existence is composed of the same thing: motes of consciousness that combine to make up minute particles of energy that combine to make up minute particles of mass that combine to make up minute 'pieces' of our reality that combine to make up the fabric of our experience.
What is scientific reductionism and why is it ridiculous. Let's ask an expert. James Schombert is the Director of the General Science program at U of Oregon. In his excellent essay on the Philosophy of Science he points out that the:
main purpose of science is to trace, within the chaos and flux of phenomena, a consistent structure with order and meaning. This is called the philosophy of rationalism, rational as in conforming with reason. And the purpose of scientific understanding is to coordinate our experiences and bring them into a logical system... Why? Primarily, the control of the unpredictable driven by the fear of the unknown.
Reductionism and determinism deny the possibility of free will and human agency and this negates rationalism and science itself.
Reductionism:
Reductionism is the belief that any complex set of phenomena can be defined or explained in terms of a relatively few simple or primitive ones.
For example, atomism is a form of reductionism in that it holds that everything in the Universe can be broken down into a few simple entities (elementary particles) and laws and interactions among them. Modern chemistry reduces chemical properties to ninety or so basic elements (kinds of atoms) and their rules of combination.
To a reductionist, once a set of equations or mathematical relations has been found to describe a system, then the behavior of the system is considered to be explained.
Reductionism is very similar to, and has its roots from, Occam's Razor, which states that between competing ideas, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.
Reductionism was widely accepted due to its power in prediction and formulation. It is, at least, a good approximation of the macroscopic world (although it is completely wrong for the microscope world, see quantum physics).
Too much success is a dangerous thing since the reductionist philosophy led to a wider paradigm, the methodology of scientism, the view that everything can and should be reduced to the properties of matter (materialism) such that emotion, aesthetics and religious experience can be reduced to biological instinct, chemical imbalances in the brain, etc. The 20th century reaction against reductionism is relativism. Modern science is somewhere in between.
Determinism:
Closely associated with reductionism is determinism, the philosophy that everything has a cause, and that a particular cause leads to a unique effect. Another way of stating this is that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.
Implicit to determinism is the fact that every event happens of necessity. It has to happen; the Universe has no choice.
Determinism also implies that everything is predictable given enough information. Since Newtonian or classical physics is rigidly determinist, both in the predictions of its equations and its foundations, then there is no room for chance, surprise and creativity. Everything is as it has to be, which gave rise to the concept of a clockwork Universe.
In the history of our culture there is probably no other piece of literature that has been reworked by so many committees of duplicitous connivers and translated and re-translated by so many generations of scribes, each with his own cultural baggage and political agenda.
The Book is the product of a very reiterative process and what we get in the end is the result of accretion and deletion, acts both deliberate and unintentional, the secret insertion of subtexts, the adoption of local myth, cultural appropriation, acts motivated by politics, ignorance, faith or higher knowledge, perpetrated by the power hungry as well as the altruistic.
Just look at the multitude of variations of faith in the Children of Abraham, each one is the only true way and no two are alike. Multiply this by the factor that many of these people say one thing, believe another and act without regard to either.
This is because there are various, sometimes contradictory meanings, coded into the text at different scales, using self reference, foreshadowing, double entendre, symbolism, and even Kabbalistic and numerological ciphers.
The Bible is a mythical map for an ever changing cultural terrain. Maybe the lesson to be learned from studying the Bible is that many forms of Order can be derived from Chaos, but these forms are projected by the observer based on there position in space and time.
And does it matter? I say, with all due respect it can and it does.
Scientific inquiry is to technology as spiritual inquiry is to religion. The former should be encouraged in all individuals as part of personal evolution, where as the latter are practical social applications of these admirable pursuits that usually become tools for manipulating the masses.
From a cybernetics point of view science becomes dangerous when it becomes too reductionist or orthodox. In principle all scientific theories should eventually become extinct as the whole of knowledge advances.
Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes the social dynamics of the culture of science as it deals with the inevitable succession of paradigm shifts that is the evolution of human knowledge.
Citing the Copernican revolution and the scientific advances of the Enlightenment he illustrates how, when the ruling paradigm is confronted with persistent anomalies, scientists from the fringes propose new theories, and how the forces of "normal" science defend the old paradigm until a fully formed and more robust mindset is developed out side the orthodox system.
As with religion's inquisitions and crusades, we've seen the dangers of scientific theories being used to justify political ends, for example the extreme Darwinism of Nazi Germany.
When science is used to justify the ends of capitalism it also tends toward reductionism at the expense of the masses, since capitalism is by its nature focused on one end: Profit.
Allopathy (Western Medicine) has often found itself at odds with its fundamentally altruistic Hippocratic roots. From bloodletting to electroshock therapy to mass vaccinations, the desire to pump up profits and human ego have resulted in the needless deaths and suffering of millions.
Vaccination programs are a perfect example of a dangerous mix of the utilitarian paradigm being applied to human beings. The very term "herd immunity" should be a hint that this kind of medicine is not about individual well being.
There is plenty of evidence to indicate vaccinations are causing a variety of epidemics in our society from autism to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
The history of the medical establishment’s battle with the epidemic of AIDS is an excellent case study of the scientific establishment facing a persistent crisis to its paradigm. Since its discovery, many opposing theories about the origins and epidemiology of this syndrome have been proposed. Scientific careers have been made and lost over the successes of these theories.
Occasionally, the medical community has faced challenges and criticism from inside and outside the field and we will see how they, individually and collectively, they have reacted to it. We will see that, as Kuhn predicted, even when confronted with questions that challenge their most fundamental tenets, the proponents of “normal science” will close ranks and defend their own. This is a demonstration of the depth of their commitment to the paradigm that provides not only theories, tools and methodologies, but also social status and norms of behaviour.
There is some evidence that this creates a sense of entitlement that comes with an undercurrent of racism, sexism and homophobia. It is arguable that there have been times in the history of this epidemic where these prejudices have clouded the scientific objectivity, perhaps to the detriment of many.
Part of a series of randomly computer generated manifestos applying the cut-up method to some of my favorite quotes:
Linear determinist models can no longer serve to explain the behavior of the physical world, biology or intelligent systems. "For any formal theory in which basic arithmetical facts are provable, either the theory is inconsistent or it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement which is true but not provable or refutable in the theory."
It is out of the uncertainty of emergent systems that the possibilities for creativity and human agency arise.
I like to attribute my cynicism to an early childhood servitude to the Church and the subsequent betrayal, which left me with instinctual guilt and self doubt. These are useful tools for a skeptic, but just as having the proverbial hammer makes every problem look like a nail, so too doubt is better for building walls than windows.
I am working on writing up my ideas about chaos theory as applied to religion and, while it was easy for me to point out the role of uncertainty and the danger of faith in science, it pains me to put into words what seems antithetical to religion: that there is no absolute truth to be had.
I may be a bit more sensitive to the feelings of the faithful than your average atheist, but I would still never recommend that anyone should actually adhere to someone else's religion. Make one up for yourself maybe, and never take it too seriously, but don't ever buy one of those off the shelf models. Here's why:
One of the aesthetics suggested by chaos theory is the property of fractals to display self similarity at different scales, as demonstrated by zooming in on the mini-Mandelbrots in the Mandelbrot set.
Another is their fractional dimensionality. Unlike euclidean geometrical shapes fractals have borders of infinite complexity which interpenetrate their surroundings.
Applied to nature, these concepts are much more useful than linear measures for understanding phenomenon like clouds and turbulence. It is easy for casual observer to see the similarity of clouds or ripples of different sizes, or at various distances and magnifications. As well, anyone can see the lack of real borders between the clouds and the air, or between a whirlpool and the water.
If we look at human existence in this way, we will see that humans (and other living things) are also like this. Since we shed all our cellular material over a seven year period and new material is absorbed from our surroundings through the convoluted interfaces of our skin, lungs and digestive systems; we are more like a vortex moving through a medium than we are like a solid object. We dissipate through time; chances are you are occupying an entirely different physical body than the one you originally used to log onto the Internet that very first time, all those years ago, yet somehow there is a continuity of consciousness even though you think and feel different.
As such, we are similar to and yet different from each other, from our former "selves" and from our ancestors and evolutionary predecessors. The physical borders between our "selves" and the environment are indistinct, permeable and variable.
I have digressed, but my point is that I would like to apply these ways of looking at things to the subject of religion. The clip below demonstrates the property of self similarity in religion. We can see that figures such as Jesus and Moses are not unique occurrences in time but reiterations of a historical formula. And so truth in religion can not be absolute, but will tend to recur, self-similarly (like a self-fulfilling prophesy), in myths, social and family structures, and personal development - right down to WWJD (what would Jesus do) today.
I highly recommend you watch the whole movie. Zeitgeist is available in 13 parts on YouTube. I definitely want to write more about it here, as the producers present some thought provoking ideas about the social structures used to control the masses and promote the New World Order.
David Rokeby is an artist who produces emergent dynamic meta-art in the true spirit of the new cyber-aesthetic.
His works always interact with their environments producing - receiving - interpreting and outputting imagery. Producing visuals that even he cannot predict. He nurtures his works to maturity like living things rather than creating them like objects. They demonstrate Emergent Behavior.
Blu's unique combination of graffiti and animation depicts a parallel dimension that intersects our own, a space/time full of dissipative beings, like ourselves, whose bodies inter-penetrate the environment and co-evolve with their consciousnesses.
Muto is a 7.5 minute epic journey of personal transformation and human interaction spanning two continents.
Reductionism is a threat to the evolution of consciousness.
Reductionists can accept only one explanation for reality and they attempt to dominate all realms of discourse, from religion to science.
At its worst this manifests in various forms of fundamentalism (Capitalist, Evangelical, Wahhabi, Darwinist... whatever). Some of these guys will kill you if you disagree with them.
It is not religion, science or politics that is the problem, it is the blind clinging to a single ideology. This is the reductionist rather than the holistic view. This is how a Christian like Hitler or an atheist like Stalin can both send millions to their deaths.
People who want to retain the freedom to use their own brains need to stand up against fundamentalism and reductionism wherever they encounter it. http://kaosphere.ca
This is a very sincere call for sanity and open mindedness for those who seek grand unifying paradigms.
It is a response to the assertion that "Science leads to killing people" by Holocaust surviver Jacob Bronowski, formulated in 1973 . This video is a clip from his famous documentary series: The Ascent of Man, episode 11 - Knowledge or Certainty.
Pretty heavy, huh. But you have to wonder about the doublethink of that pacifist bomb maker, Szilard (his name even has a bit of JK Rowling "Death Eater" feel to it).
Maybe science's "if it can be done it should be done" approach is not to blame. But then perhaps it's worth pointing out that, even for scientists, the lure of knowledge=power can make good people justify bad decisions.
Bronowski talks about his friend Leo Szilard, his views on science, ethics and the human condition.
A little background on Leo Szilard: He was a Hungarian-American physicist who conceived the nuclear chain reaction and worked on the Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bomb. As a survivor of a devastated Hungary after World War I, and having witnessed the subsequent terror of the Reds and the Whites, Szilárd developed an enduring passion for the preservation of human life and freedom, especially freedom to communicate ideas.
He hoped that the U.S. government, which prior to World War II had staunchly opposed the bombing of civilians, would not use nuclear weapons because of their potential for use against civilian populations. Szilárd hoped that the mere threat of such weapons would force Germany and/or Japan to surrender. He drafted the Szilárd petition advocating demonstration of the atomic bomb. However with the European war concluded and the U.S. taking heavy casualties in the Pacific, the new U.S. President Harry Truman sided with advisors and chose to use atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki over the protestations of Szilárd and other scientists.
Pat's particular beef is religion, but I think his ideas about absolute certainty can also be applied to the blind adherence to any dogma; whether its politics, science, economics, or iApple iProducts.
These are tools for consensual paradigm building (for controlling large groups of people), but they become obsolete over time and shouldn't be pulled out on every occasion (eg. iPod for a hammer, mythology for international relations). Their relevance varies over time and space.
Your mind and its ideas should be treated like hardware and software. They should upgraded regularly or, if you are a real geek like Pat, totally hacked.
Have you ever noticed that Bush and Bin Laden share more beliefs with each other than they do with any normal, thinking human being?
The dysfunctional Father God, the linear view of history with a predestined end date, the need to deny this life for some future reward. For them these are not metaphors, but facts.
Trying to explain the world today using these medieval theologies is like trying to use a map of Texas to get around in Iraq.
An enlightened person is one who recognizes that thoughts are just a map and are not to be confused with the terrain.
Dawkins explains why it's natural to imagine there is a God. He also justifies in scientific terms Aleister Crowley's assertion that "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted".
The very creation of reality is an act of the mind. That explains the intelligent designer, its You Mr. Believer.
This video is great evidence of how one person was able to transform her own brain. The video above doesn't seem to play, click this link to view it: Jill Bolte Taylor: My stroke of insight. What she describes is much like a shamanic journey or a near death experience, but from the point of view of a neuroscientist.
Lucid Dreaming
-
It must be something about the way my brain came wired.
As a child, I lucid dreamed chronically. And at will. I could drop myself
into a 'day'-dream if I c...
As the world becomes more complex it becomes increasingly difficult to predict what will happen next. This can be disconcerting to people who are raised to expect "order and good government". In fact this "new world (dis)order" is closer in its behavior to natural systems such as biosphere than it is to the orderly machinations we associate with civilization. A study of this kind of chaos reveals it to be the manifestation of a higher order. Although culturally bogged down in linear thinking left over from the now outdated Newtonian "Enlightenment", science, the arts, even religion can provide us with the tools to understand, and benefit from this emerging order. I believe that to adhere to unchanging linear models is to have a fossilized mind. To avoid extinction we must be prepared to co-evolve with our technologies. This site is dedicated to that process. Your comments and observations are welcome on the blog. As a first principle I recognize that no paradigm can claim the ultimate ontology and so we will abide by physicist/philosopher David Bohm's principles of "scientific irony". By this I mean that there is no one truth and and I take everything with a grain of salt.
