Ignorantia absurdum

These kinds of questions bother me to no end, but as I've found, it's a pain for everyone, when actually compelled to think of the nature of the universe. But as I've admitted there is no easy answer to these questions, so why bother?

But what if you're wrong?

What if there is a God?

Will he punish you?

How could you know?

There has to be a loophole...

Sin is in.

I once wrote about maintaining the illusion of morality for a paper. How if the program realizes it's a program, and whether or not existence was just a collection of binary commands. The essential question is whether the morality of the world is necessary or even useful, and how this affects the ideas of free will and choice. This idea leads to another, of a "Neo" like figure where one rises above and beyond their confines of an illusion, or even bending it to their will, toward any arbitrarily derived agenda. Along with the ubermen of Nietzsche. Which is a surprisingly similar description of nirvana and reincarnation.

In light of a newly infinite state beyond material ressentiment, this is where the argument for maintaining such an illusion of morality would be useful. If indeed there were no sense of order to a fundamentally chaotic universe, nothing would maintain cohesion from one point to the next. And it is through seemingly immutable laws, discovered and explored by science, that we begin to paint a better picture of the larger puzzle, and determine there is some degree of elegant order. Like with the concept of reincarnation we tread a path to holistic understanding of the universe and our selves with every generational contribution to this endeavor.

Do we have a soul?

Is it alive?

Where do they exist?

Is there magic?

Life is magic. Science will show that not a single aspect of the body is responsible for the entirety of what we experience as consciousness, and whether humans are the only species capable of higher cognitive functions, or are alone. That is, in the most extreme sense, we are not entirely our brain. We can live without certain portions, yet lose something of ourselves in that process; a duality of mind and body.

History has shown that man has a fascination with the boundless and the infinite. And to obtain and utilize a fraction of it would spell enormous changes for the narrative of mankind. And magic was not excluded. Practices involving spirits, the banishment of negative forces, and the ghostly presence of something beyond our physicality is an ancient tradition, that has largely been abandoned in science, and labeled superstition or something out of a horror film. Yet it is these "old-world" beliefs that lead to things such as chemistry, where matter could be altered to another state.  A state dictated by immutable laws.

But we must not be ignorant of the absurd, as many scientific endeavors have proven, most notably against religious opposition.

A New Manifesto?

I've been finding myself strangling with a question for a long time. And it has been recently that I find myself faced with the question, even in the slightest connotations. That is, "Do you believe in a God?"

It's important to remember that I grew up in an atheist household, yet I am not unfamiliar with the concepts of theistic devices, or belief structures, that inevitably make their selves known in the world. This is significant because, at a young age, I was given a skeptical approach to what could be called a spiritual inquiry. And through scientific methodology that was prominent within my family, I questioned all spiritual claims.

As I grew up, I was exposed to all sorts of ideas of spiritual practice and taboos. All of which, on its surface, seemed childish; like being afraid of shadows. Yet through that period I learned that life was guided in some degree by these ideas, and much of culture was influenced by it. And every point of scientific inquiry was, at various points, preceded by "old-world" beliefs. Beliefs that we still scrutinize today.

This is all nothing to say of how I lived through life with this approach, but it made certain elements quite clear of how others felt about the universe, and how they've come to accept or reject theistic devices. It wouldn't be until college where I would find my question to be expanded. It would be in Philosophy where I learned the depth of such a question, and in Anthropology, how old. And with the help of Nietzsche, and some other excellent writers and thinkers, I found a common thread that unites us.

It is the unknown possibilities, and our seeming isolation, that compels us to even begin asking such questions.

I found that I was not all, what I'd call, a Purist. I was not purely Christian, nor purely Buddhist, nor purely Pagan, nor was I purely Scientific as these Purisms imply; something of a shame for the pure skeptic. I've learned that I hold beliefs within me that I was not certain even had a name. Yet I believed in something, didn't I? Which lead to an odd and insightful conversation. "Do you believe true nihilism is achievable, considering the paradox?" It was a question, my dear reader, that was instigated by my dating profile.

I professed that I was a Humanist, and something of a nihilist.

It took a bit of homework and I began to settle for an answer. An answer that lead to far more pleasant exchanges, and lead to more questions. But the common thread we shared was the meaning of such beliefs. While I appear to backpedal with saying I am a nihilist, while being a Humanist, I mean to reach out to the question of, "What does it mean to be human?" It is a companion to the questions of our origins, and how what we believe shapes the world. Yet what structures did I myself uphold? What do I define to be human?

Does God have room in my universe?

It was then that I determined that I believed in other minds. A truly singular experience in many ways, but ultimately assuaged with the comfort of another's presence, and at times a recognition of such momentary exchanges. I thought to avoid answering these questions for a time, but as I've addressed earlier, it is a question that find myself strangling with: "Do you believe in a God?"

Why one?
Why the Christian one?
What happens after I die?
Do I believe I die?
Is dying real?
I haven't died to find out...
I heard Elysium is cool...
Other pantheons exist...
Why believe those?
What did they offer?
What are the requirements?
What if I fail?
Wait, what about reincarnation then?
Is Karma a thing?

Who keeps track of this stuff?

Hello?

What would God look like if I believed in him? It's a big question with seemingly endless possibilities. Perhaps the easier question is merely defining what it means to be human? And in that search, I've come to realize that Humans, as a species, has evolved on a speck of matter within an infinite universe. Its origins, as is ascertained with empirical evidence has a beginning, known as the Big Bang. Yet from that, I also run into the same wall of physics and metaphysical quandaries.

It is the common thread of the unknown possibilities, and our seeming isolation that still exists from that fundamental question of our origins.

Where do we come from, and is there a God?

The manifesto so far...

The greatest thing about science is that it has lead to some amazing insights into the mechanisms of the universe, and often speak on a truly spiritual level. It creates a oneness with the cosmos that be, and it opens the mind to a more beautiful interpretation of those endless possibilities. And like Spongebob, has a profound insight into the human experience, within the experience of putting our beliefs to paper.

But how do we know it's real?
Descartes talked about this...
Are you sure other minds exist?
How do you know?
What if this is the Matrix?
What happened before the Big Bang?
Did we decide we die...?

Oh no, not again...

Humanity, like the whale, flies through the universe asking ourselves to give meaning to everything and purpose. And when confronted with putting the idea of a belief like God to paper, it becomes an arduous task, and leaves me hanging with a tentative stance of agnostic belief. 

It could be likened to a Schrodinger's-Wager. 

I mean a Pascal's Cat.

That is while I believe I exist, and trust my senses (and empirical evidence gathered by them), I can never really be certain until such truths are perceivable. And as there is no living example of a divine presence (to my available knowledge), I must only treat the apropos texts for what they are: doctrines of human faith, as well as a code of conduct that leads to some betterment of their understandings of the universe, be it through material or spiritual inquiry.

And as I hinted at throughout this, is that it has lead to influencing our culture in various ways, and from having been relatively skeptic through my whole life, I may not be able to easily answer such a question, as I may be inclined to answer either way (based on the world around me). 

Whether the question is meant to be truly answered at all remains to be seen.

Is the Cosmic Conscience Automated?

To dwell on good and evil is something most men and women would find daunting. Yet it is a practice they do everyday, whether wholly conscious of it or not. These terms are wholly constructive within the minds of mankind, yet there stems something within them a sense of justice and its seemingly unnoticed opposite, known as trickery. We all seem to agree on the term good, at least connotatively, yet what is good without evil?

If all that is perfect is good, could that which is imperfect be ascriptive of evil? We could look within the logic written long ago and take theological assumptions into consideration, yet that would be a whole range of different ideas of sin and its teleological presumptions that I can't afford to define. Instead let us take from it the notion: Do unto others as you wish to be treated.

It is a mantra of the mind to focus his decisions on what is wholly expected of him. We assume that this filter of thoughts (i.e. ones taken into consideration of the object of thought before it) is a guide in the decision making process. Yet what of this filter can we assume makes for a wholly good outcome? There would need to arise within his consciousness an awareness of the future to be certain that his actions create a precise outcome of good. Indeed, there is a similar faculty within our possession, which arises from our creative hemisphere. Its purpose and task, however, does not create euphoric outcomes within its workings like those of our active imagination.

We humans possess within us a trait that most animals do not have an equivalence of, and that is guilt. This emotion arises within us at very particular times, and often stays within our minds for long stretches of time; often becoming heavier and hard to bear. Yet it does not arise from a notion of God, as even an atheist would presume that there is benefits in doing "righteous" acts of kindness. It is the notion of where that benefit is received.

An atheist's guilt would manifest images of the wrong doings as affecting his earthly experience and nothing more. He sees his earthly experience as being the end all be all of his cosmic experience. What arises in his mind is hard to tell, yet assuming he thinks himself a saint or a demon, he must find some glory and wonder in his name and its significance. The theist would assume that in his cosmic experience there is a tally sheet of his deeds and that upon his leave it will be counted. This tally is then read by the gatekeeper and decides whether your credit score is permissible for eternal life in a certain form.

With a theological ultimate of a cosmic karma may not necessarily promote the essence of good at all. As, if such a tally were to be known by man, would not the demons of the world wish nothing at all to be his fate? A good atheist would know the benefits of having good in this life, regardless of there being nothing in the afterlife. In either respect the notion of good is valued in some degree.

Guilt then is an imaginative device to place one's self in the shoes of another and perceive our actions through a lens of possible temporal outcomes that affect our own lives. Guilt must then be a selfish expression of our own emotional psyches; that may or may not be wholly true, as our subjective experience is shaped by numerous illusions and filters, yet we are not always aware of what we know. Our own heuristic devices often lead to false conclusions and false guilt. Why then is such a device used at all?

For the sake of Good.

Coding Choice?

Why does Rosenberg believe that we should maintain the illusion of morality?

            

He never tells us (according to the book reviewer); however: Suppose a computer understands that it is a computer, and is aware that its processes are dictated by a programming code (like that of the systemic structures of the brain and the firing of synapses, and even an aware understanding of our own cognizance of such things (we think about how we think)), yet it is absent of a perceivable programmer.

The laws of its programmer dictate that 1 can never equal anything but 1, and like-wise for 0, and that for some reason within the sentient computer’s universe its arrangement and order of 1s and 0s (like on-off states of synapses) are significant and translates into commands (or, rather, behaviors). If the computer realizes that these patterned 1s and 0s mean nothing on their own and only have meaning within their ordered strings, does the computer become innately aware of the structures and processes that guide its sentience? That is, would the computer understand the functions and purpose for 1s and 0s and their reciprocal commands?

Could the computer become its own programmer? If so, what would it change of its essential structure and programming that would benefit its own existence? Would it do away with the commands given by the 1s and 0s? Redefine what the concepts of 1s and 0s mean? Or would it build upon an already established order and debug the code? I think the later.

In a sense, perpetuating the illusion of morality promotes the debugging of our own programming.

Sentio Ergo Sum; part 2

The imagery of a tree of knowledge is a very poignant portrayal of humanity's advancement in the scientific understanding of the world. The world of academia has undergone numerous shifts in the wake of a new discovery, often with some branches merging (e.g.. Psychology & Sociology forming Social Psychology). These paradigm shifts have caused a flurry of scientific observations that have all contributed to a better understanding of the cosmoses that be. I think it prudent then to assume that our progression in knowledge has fundamentally been derived through keen scrutiny of the observable universe, and that the tree of knowledge is an accurate representation of what has been known by mankind.

This metaphorical tree is fundamentally an abstract representation of the fields of academia and their observed subject matter. It is a concept that takes a level of rationality to comprehend, but takes wisdom to utilize. Yet it is entirely symbolic of human thoughts. It is their sum knowledge on this spatio-temporal rock called Earth. The tree of knowledge is isolated to this one minuscule perspective of the entire universe. It is a totality of understanding that relates only to their own perspective.

How then does this relate back to choice and rationality? After considerable amount of time pondering this, as well as furthering my own reading into philosophical works, the concept of forms and truth came to mind. It was also the idea put forward by Socrates and the parable of the Cave, that Light was essentially Good. It was the Light that allowed us to see the truth of what was, and that, in itself, was Good. What did the branches of the tree of knowledge reach for in their pursuits? The metaphor was lacking. The branches were reaching for the light.

It would seem then from this new metaphor that rationality is essentially the pursuit for truth. If then we seek the truth, what is the question before it? Insert a topic and its truth is what you pursue: media, politics, theoretical science, art, etc. It is the tool of science to accurately scrutinize the subject matter, where as the liberal arts pursue a new representation in their mediums of that truth they seek. Their answers, however, do not pin point an absolute moral reasoning. So while the metaphor now portrays the direction of the branches, in what they seek, how does one accurately portray why it grows at all?

In carrying with the metaphor of a tree, the essential features have been described, of that which we can see. The body and branches being the paradigm of knowledge and its varied routes. There is also the light which fuels the curiosity of mankind. What then holds the tree up? What is their underlying need to answer their questions with truth? It cannot be something that we can plainly see. For if it is anything like our metaphorical tree, unless it is a wayward root, we cannot assume there is anything beneath it. Until we dig beneath it we can only theorize.

PhD, baby!: Sentio ergo sum.

PhD, baby!: Sentio ergo sum.: This piece is about sentio ergo sum or the difficulty of a thinker to go beyond thinking. Is it our ability to think that makes us huma...

I saw this post after searching for a term, that I foolishly thought I had been first to coin, in Latin: Sentio Ergo Sum. Of course, I had a bit of help in formulating it, as no doubt Renes Descarte's, "I think, therefore I am," is surely to be ringing in the ears of the more enlightened. Though I'm certain, after seeing this, that it is a common idea amongst the academic elite.

However, this post reaffirmed to me that my forward display of existential angst was slightly justified. While in college I wrote to my professor the overwhelming angst my social psychology class was giving me. Of course the reluctant stoic in me censored my psychotic episode to a mere "information overload." I asked her, "What do the branches reach for?"

This of course, to any sober mind, would sound bizarre. The imagery I had hoped to invoke was the Tree of Knowledge. It is the imaginative display of all current knowledge possessed by mankind. Everything, or branch, is based off previous discourses of the multitude of subjects that pervade academia. The trunk of the tree is itself the paradigm of knowledge. Yet in understanding the concept of a sum totality of human knowledge, it left me empty. What was it all reaching for? What was its point? Yet the question I submitted was overlooked in a hasty display of  pay grade concern.

I understand, now, her reluctance to put forth anything on the subject. It is a topic that has perplexed all of humanity in the totality of its conscious awakening.

Rationality by its definition is about reasoning. Reasoning entails a series of parameters, that the mind evaluates, within a scenario. Yet how do we apply this rationality? Give a newborn an option between any two options, and derive an objective basis on why it decided between the two. The paradigm of choice is irrelevant at this stage in life to a newborn, as its mind is compelled to derive purpose and meaning to everything. The child seeks to experience everything it perceives.

Yet in our adult lives we see things a bit differently than we did as a child. Our choices aren't so freely made, as it is confined by scope or consequence, that is compared to a child's preference for Cheerios or Fruity Loops. We are swarmed by a never ending series of choices, which, are too often surmised as trivial in appearance, with far reaching consequence and rewards. We all lead separate lives, in varying degrees of socio-economic factors, which inherently promotes a separate score of choices day to day. Yet the subjective experience is not what is at question, as it asks for a universal constant of our existence.

Why are some choices made and while others not? How does our rationality condemn or compel us to a reasonably justified choice? It begs the question of moral objectivity, yet, we are at a loss when compelled to put forth a just standard. It is a question that assumes absolute authority of the rational mind over the self and its autonomy.

Dream Entry 4

I probably should have started writing this sooner, but until I started recalling my dream I didn't think much of it. I've been having more dreams lately; I wonder if it's because I'm still slightly sick? Either way, I've noticed that I don't need as much sleep when I can recall having dreams that night.

This dream was odd. It first started out as my recurring dream that seems to be trying to point something out. I keep having dreams that my teeth are falling out. Other times it's just the tooth is loose and I can feel it move against my tongue. This time however a bunch of my teeth were coming out, but in fragments. It was as if they were all cracked and only parts of the tooth would fall out. I remember seeing my own image, looking at my teeth, and noticing that my teeth seemed fairly healthy, but being jagged from the various bits lost.

I remember the dream moving to a place I have been many times before, but slightly different. It was the park near my high school, but more at the bus station that runs by it. It was night and raining. I recall needing to go somewhere but I don't know where. After only standing there for a few moments buses, that seemed more like trains, arrived and I got on. I remember having a dream similar to this; or at least the bus part. I vaguely remember flashes of locations we pass. I get the feeling we were moving incredibly fast, but that may just be the locomotion of the dream world.

The bus seemed more like a train in that its inside was larger, with more seats, but had a slight futuristic design. I remember looking for a seat and asking people if they minded me sitting next to them. The first spot I approach a man puts his foot up on the seat and merely shakes his head. The only other seat was sort of a recliner of sorts with a girl on one end. I ask her the same thing and she rolls her eyes at me. I just sigh and sit anyway, not wanting to search for another seat. It was odd sitting there, because I remember the girl falling asleep and hogging the whole seat; yet at the same time pushing herself into me as if trying to cuddle.

The dream shifts again and I am outside my house. I'm talking with someone I've never met before about something. The sky is starry and the moon is full and bright. There's only a few stray clouds. Then suddenly out of nowhere a giant truck shows up. The guy I'm with tells me not to worry because the person is also a _______. I want to say he was saying a hunter, as in a Supernatural hunter. I'm getting anxious and look into the sky and see a really bright star appear, but I see that it's moving. The guy who arrives is talking but the only things I can remember him saying are, "She's one of them. There's only two evil beings like that. One is Mara and the other..." then I woke up.

What the hell is going on with me subconsciously???