Archive for the ‘Systems Of Mind’ Category

The Letter & The RE-ENTRANT MIND

July 19, 2017

Yesterday I got a letter from Barack Obama.

This gracious gesture left a lasting impression. This real fact in the real world, brought my mind to create, all on its own, a reality that had never been before. And will ever last, as far as I am concerned. It’s not just the multiverse, it’s the private multiverse.

Before you think that I am, at last, humbling admitting I am nuts, let me perfidiously add that we all do this, I am just ahead of my time, in observing it, as Nietzsche would modestly point out, if he was writing on my behalf. A core way in which wisdom progresses is by introspection. Introspection: one does not get more core than that. Deeper, more penetrating introspection is future civilization. Perceiving more correctly what perception is was central to the Quantum revolution. Don’t laugh, the inventors of Quantum Mechanics analyzed in-depth what to “experience” meant; an indignant Einstein was reminded by Heisenberg that he and his colleagues were just following the general philosophical principles set by Einstein of considering carefully what was experimentally perceived.   

Last night, I had many dreams, on many things, but in one of them, pretty short, figured Barack Obama, sleeping like a babe, on a makeshift black leather couch system. A running commentary said he was sharing the (very large) room with the US military chief of staff. I was milling around. Something tense about the state of the world was coming down…

After I woke up, I remembered the dream as if it had really happened. So now in my memory system, there is a vivid picture of Obama sleeping as described above. Although it never happened. (I never met Obama in such circumstances.) 

We mostly perceive… what we think. Thus the world as we perceive it, is the exact opposite of what the ancients imagined it to be.

So there was a part of my history, relative to someone else, created by my own mind in the context of the relationship with that person. And it’s pure fiction as a historical fact outside of me, yet, a historical fact as far as my neurocircuitry is concerned.

Plato never talked about such things, nor the parrots who repeated that tyrant lover, ad nauseam.

Plato’s Cave is a rather stupid, certainly very condescending picture of the universe. Moreover, it misunderstands the wall of the cave: it’s actually the universe itself, a universe we partly created ourselves, the universe of our minds, and it’s much richer than the outside world, which only excites, entices, encourages our perception further along.  

This sort of self-made movies does not pertain to my fertile imagination alone. Everybody does it, although the degree of awareness of its genesis varies. From the real world input of sensations and experiences, human minds create a much more complex world amplifying that input in special ways pertaining to their own history. It’s Plato’s cave, in reverse, with much added.

***

Sad was my mood:

What happened is that, after I got the letter yesterday, I had a poignant feeling of what a waste my friend’s presidency has been. Nothing that the innocence of sleep can ever repair, however strong we imagine differently. I remembered the spark of hope, ten years ago. True, a few things were achieved by his presidency (the fact that health insurance companies can’t deny from pre-existing conditions). But much was lost too (inequality has never been so great, and Obama has his name written all over that, including the unresisted and wildly encouraged rise of tech monopolies and the demolition of the Patent System). Pluto-Democrats devoured it all…

***

While my guitar gently weeps…

Patrice Ayme’

Dark Matter Theories Enlighten Obscure Concept of Explanation

July 14, 2017

I have struggled with the Foundations of Quantum Physics for decades. Yes, struggle is the meaning of life, as our irascible friend the close-minded Jihadist said, and Albert Camus, too, maybe stimulated by the former, among his colleagues, the Natives of Algeria. I did the deepest studies, I could imagine, plunging in esoteric fields, so deep, I was laughed at, by those who prefer the shallows. Long ago. For example, I thought Category Theory (referred by its critics, then, as “Abstract Nonsense“) should be useful. Then even mathematicians would veil their faces, when Category Theory was evoked. Now, Category Theory is very useful, both in pure mathematics and physics.

The deepest mystery in physics is to understand the Quantum.

Some have sneered:’oh, you lunatic, there is nothing to understand.’ Let them sneer, they are amusing, in their obscurantism. This was always the answer of those who wanted to understand nothing new, in the last ten million years. But the rise of advanced animals is the rise of under-standing. Standing under the appearances of the universe. It is a case where we have to understand what understanding means. 

Giant Galaxy, 1,000 times brighter than Milky Way, ten billion year old, discovered July 2017. It is seen as portions of ring from gravitational lensing by (I suppose) a galactic cluster in between…)

An incontrovertible mystery in physics is Dark Matter. Since the 1930s, we know that there is a massive contradiction between galaxies and gravity. (Between rotations and motions  of galaxies and the theory of gravity, more exactly; be it Newtonian, or its slight modification, Einsteinian gravity.)

So far, physicists have trained less and less conventional explanations of Dark Matter. My own SQPR (SubQuantum Patrice Reality), built to explain the Quantum, provides readily with an explanation of Dark Matter.  It’s completely out of the plane of conventional physics (if you condescend to consider Quantum Field Theory conventional…)

The Superfluid-Anyon model of Dark Matter (“SAD”) supposes that there is a type of particle (anyon) with a strong self-interaction, making a superfluid. In my own theory, SQPR, none of this is supposed.

Some will sneer that I suppose the existence of some properties which give rise to Quantum Physics, and this is what SQPR is. Didn’t Newton, assuredly a greater creature, proclaimed he didn’t make up hypotheses? Right. (Actually the Universal Attraction law was not hypothesized by Newton but by French astronomer Ishmael Bullialdus. So easy for Newton to say; Newton also hypothesized that light consisted of particles, and that he had proven strict equivalence between Kepler’s law and mechanics plus gravity…)

However, to under-stand Quantum Physics, to stand under it, one will have to suppose new, underlying hypotheses explaining the physics of the Quantum. If fundamental, paradigm shifting progress in physics is possible, this is how it will happen.

The leaner those hypotheses, the better. The heliocentric theory of planets’ orbits made FEWER hypotheses than those who believe “heavenly bodies” were special. Why so special? How special? The natural thing

An enormous meteorite, streaked through the skies in a fiery manner, and landed in Northern Greece. It was visited for centuries. Clearly space was full of rocks, no crystal balls…  

Considering other evidences (distance of the sun, computed to be large, thus the sun, enormous), the heliocentric theory was most natural.

Dark Matter may well be the equivalent of that theory. My own SQPR predicts a slow apparition, and built-up of Dark Matter. The latest observations (2017) of Dark Matter and ancient galaxies show no Dark Matter say ten billion years ago.

SAD does not predict that: it predicts Super Fluid Anyon Dark Matter was always there.

Science does not just teach facts and how to organize them in theories. I also teaches what explanations are.

Ex-planation is generally viewed as meaning to spread out. But there is a more striking etymology: An explanation is how to get out (ex) of a plane. In other words, acquiring a further logical dimension.

There is no fundamental new dimension, logically speaking, by supposing one more type of elementary particle. But deducing observed facts from effects which go beyond Quantum Physics would be really a new dimension of logic.

I make hypotheses, but fewer. And they are more natural. That’s the key. When one thinks about it, it was more natural to suppose that, out there in the heavens, matter was as we knew it. Similarly, out there in the Quantum, it is more natural that interactions are as we know them: at finite speed, to preserve causality. This is the most fundamental intuition of SQPR: it supposes that the Quantum Interaction (because spooky action at a distance is still an interaction of some sort) has preserved that fundamental property we observe in all interactions…

By the way, some of the skeptical ones come around, and they sneer that all this science is a wild goose chase after a goose which does not exist. They are mistaken: we are chasing after ourselves. We are chasing after how we explain things.

Even attempted scientific explanation are real, and fruitful. Because scientific activity, even when mistaken, consists in chasing after how we could explain things.

Patrice Ayme’

***

Technical description of SAD from Theory of Dark Matter Superfluidity:

…”a novel theory of DM superfluidity that reconciles the stunning success of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) on galactic scales with the triumph of the ΛCDM (Cold Dark Matter) model on cosmological scales (where MOND fails miserably: MOND modifies gravity at some specific distance, way too small for galactic clusters; whereas ΛCDM leaves gravity alone, just adding mass, lots of mass, mass by a factor of ten…).

In the SAD model, the Dark Matter component consists of self-interacting axion-like particles which are generated out-of-equilibrium and remain decoupled from baryons throughout the history of the universe. Provided that its mass is sufficiently light and its self-interactions sufficiently strong, the DM can thermalize and form a superfluid in galaxies, with critical temperature of order ∼mK. The superfluid phonon excitations are assumed to be described by a MOND-like action and mediate a MONDian acceleration on baryonic matter. Superfluidity only occurs at sufficiently low temperature, or equivalently within sufficiently low-mass objects…

 

Why The Crusades Were Lost: Saint Louis’ Racism Against The Mongols!

July 9, 2017

Islam came to near annihilation in the Thirteenth Century as Franks and Mongols unified and took the Islamist capitals, Baghdad and Damascus. A little known episode. At the time, the overall Mongol Khan was a woman (another little known episode!) But she didn’t cause the problem. Instead Saint Louis’ jealous racism, and unbounded hatred of “infidels” made the difference.

Richard the Lionheart lived in France, where he was supposedly vassal to the king of France, Philip II Augustus his companion in arms (who left the so-called “Holy land” after a while, leaving his soul mate Richard, in charge). Richard may not have lost major battles. But, a century later, Saint Louis, Louis IX of France, did, and ruined France in the process.

It became clear nothing good was achieved by all this crusading. On top of that, the climate started to wobble. Instead, the French switched to the trading model with Islam (rendered possible by treaties consecutive to the Crusades). Immense fortunes were made (Jacques Coeur, born a commoner, became the richest man in France by trading with the Levant in the fifteenth century, and soon, master of the mint, and a most important European diplomat).

Arab chroniclers used the correct term, “Franki” (Franks) to qualify the Europeans trying to (re)conquer the Middle East from the religion of Islam, which had smothered it.

By the time the Crusades were launched, direct Muslim aggression against Europe has been continuous since 715 CE, a full four centuries (the word “Europe” was used first by the Franks in the context of the Muslim invasions). This continual Muslim attack was viewed, correctly, by all concerned, as the continuation of the war of Islam against Rome. (Naturally so, as the Franks so themselves as “Rome”. By 800 CE, the Franks had officially “renovated”, as they put it, the Roman empire…)

Painted in 1337 CE. Notice that the Franks are covered in armor, and the Muslims are not. Obvious technological superiority. The Romans already bought light steel helmets in Gaul! Muslim tech superiority is a lie. In plain view.

There is plenty of evidence that the Franks were more advanced than the Muslims in crucial military technology, as early as 715 CE. How could they not be? The Muslims were just coming out of savage Arabia, all the technology they had, was stolen, or, let’s say, adopted from others.

Four terracotta hand grenades, with “Greek Fire” inside, used by the defenders of Constantinople against the Turks. Greek Fire had many variants, some secret to this day. The Chinese developed dry versions, with salpeter, which turned into black powder later.

The Franks, who had been the crack troops of the Roman empire, as early as 311 CE, had better steel, better armor, better steel weapons, and giant war horses capable of wearing armor themselves. That’s why the Franks were able to defeat the Muslims, overall, in the first phase of the war with Islam, which was in Europe (711 CE, attack on Spain, until the counterattack on Jerusalem, 1099 CE).

This European technological superiority was obvious during the Spanish reconquista. An armored Spanish horse was like an intelligent, indomitable battle tank, which would charge again and again, rarely seriously wounded. By contrast, Muslim cavaliers wore little armor, their relatively small Arab horses were excellent but all too little (I used to ride my own very combative Arab stallion in Africa, which nobody else would, or could, ride… Its name, appropriately chosen, was Napoleon…).

Horse archers were not effective against heavily armored cavalry. They could bother it, but not defeat it. This is why the Mongols decided wisely not to attack the Franks again, after invading, suffering huge losses, Hungary, and Croatia. The Mongols debated what had happened to their ancestors the Huns, eight centuries earlier, in France (annihilation spared only political decision). The Mongols used rocket artillery.

Noah Smith wroteWhy Did Europe Lose the Crusades?“. Said he: “A little while ago, I started to wonder about a historical question: Why did Europe lose the Crusades? The conventional wisdom, at least as I’ve always understood it, is that Europe was simply weaker and less advanced than the Islamic Middle Eastern powers defending the Holy Land. Movies about the Crusades tend to feature the Islamic armies deploying fearsome weapons – titanic trebuchets, or even gunpowder. This is consistent with the broad historical narrative of a civilizational “reversal of fortunes” – the notion that Islamic civilization was much more highly advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages. Also, there’s the obvious fact that the Middle East is pretty far from France, Germany, and England, leading to the obvious suspicion that the Middle East was just too far away for medieval power projection.

Anyway, I decided to answer this question by…reading stuff about the Crusades. I read all the Wikipedia pages for the various crusades, and then read a book – Thomas Asbridge’s “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land“. Given that even these basic histories contain tons of uncertainty, we’ll never really know why the Crusades turned out the way they did. But after reading up a bit, here are my takes on the main candidate explanations for why Europe ultimately lost.”

He pursue by fingering “lack of motivation” as the main cause of the loss of the Crusades. That is true, in part: Europe opened to the ocean. However, the Crusades won in important ways (opening up trade). But the Europeans also really lost, when it would have been easy to win.

Noah Smith’s analysis focuses only on the English (so to speak) aspect of the Crusades. He does not quite say that a rogue frankish army seized Constantinople in 1204 CE. And then he omits completely what happened in the Thirteenth Century (because Richard Lionhearted was then dead, and history is all about the Anglois?).

For politically correct reasons, some of them ten centuries old, some more voguish, allegations have been made of the superiority of Islam (or China, for that matter). These (often self-serving from racist self-declared anti-racists) assertions are not grounded in fact.

By 1000 CE, the Franks had the highest GDP per capita in the world, and its history. European technology was, overall, the most advanced. Europeans were stunned by how little the Chinese used machines and animals.  

The Arabic numbers were Greek numbers perfected in India, where the full zero was invented, and were reintroduced through central Asia. Out of the 160 major work of Antiquity we have, 150 survived in European monasteries, the universities of the time (and the ten remaining were saved by the Persians, initially).

The Middle East, long the cradle of most invention, has been clearly a shadow of its former self, ever since Islam established its dictator, intolerance and war friendly terrorizing culture of god obsession.

Crusades in the Middle east until 1204; The image Noah Smith uses, which misinforms the reality of what happened…

Europe didn’t “lose the Crusades”. Saint Louis did. Europe didn’t just decide the Middle East was hopeless, in all sorts of ways. Europe had got reopening of the Silk Roads from Saladin. Meanwhile in 1244, the Khwarezmians, recently pushed out by the advance of the Mongols, took Jerusalem on their way to ally with the Egyptian Mamluks. Europe shrugged (by then “Roman” emperors such as Frederick I Barbarossa had used a Muslim company of bodyguards… So there was strictly no anti-Muslim hatred and racism… contrarily to what happened with the Mongols, see below…) 

It is also true that Saint Louis, a weird mix of a dangerous religious fanatic of the worst type, and a modern, enlightened king, lost its entire army (to a woman, the only female leader Islam ever had!) in Egypt. Saint Louis was taken captive at the Battle of Fariskur where his army was annihilated. He nearly died, was saved from dysentery by an Arab physician (impressed Arabs offered for him to rule them). A huge ransom had to be paid, comparable to the French budget. Then Saint Louis died in front of Tunis, in another ridiculous crusade (1270 CE).  Louis fell ill with dysentery, and was cured by an Arab physician

The Seventh and Eight Crusades were disastrous military defeats

Saint Louis, a racist, was the direct cause of the survival of Islam. The Mongols, allied to local Franks had destroyed Baghdad (siege of the Abbasid Caliphate) and Damascus (siege of the Umayyad). The Mongols asked respectfully to make an official alliance with Christianity, and eradicate Islam.

Instead the Pope called Nestorian Christian Mongols heathens, and him and Saint Louis promised excommunication to all and any Frank joining the Mongols in war. Thus the Mongols attacked Egypt without Frankish help, and were defeated by the Mamluks Turks.

Dejected, the Mongols decided that they were Muslims (Islam has no pope, and the Caliphate had been destroyed by the Franco-Mongol alliance ) Under Timor Lame, they would carve a giant Mongol-Muslim empire all the way into India.

This is just a fraction of the common operations of the Franks and Mongols, when they were allied against the Muslims, destroying Baghdad, seizing Damascus. Saint Louis and his pet the Pope saved Islam by calling a halt to the cooperation. Mongols and Franks actually took Damascus together, and the commanders entered the conquered city, side by side…

The Spanish were more serious. They, Isabella, Ferdinand and their advisers, planned to pursue the reconquista by extirpating Islam from North Africa and the Middle East.

The extremely well-trained, battle hardened army was prepared, but then the Americas had just been discovered, and war with France for the control of the world in general and Italy in particular, became everything. Spain engaged in a war with France it took nearly two centuries to lose. The conquest of the Americas changed the world, though. The reconquest of the Christian empire from the Muslims was given up…

It could have been done: the Spanish occupied many cities of North Africa, including Algiers and Oran. Power was divided between Ottoman pirates (“Barbarossas”) and the kingdom of Tlemcen. In any case, in 1525 CE, while Cortez was conquering Central America, defeating among others, the Aztecs, pirates retook Algiers in the name of the Turk Selim 1. At the same time, Selim defeated the Egyptian Mamluks, taking control of the Levant, Mecca, and Egypt.

Islam, a pretty deleterious religion in its literal, Salafist form, survived. North Africa and the Middle East, previously long the world’s wealthiest place, is now the poorest and most war-ridden…

And the war goes on, the ideology of Salafist, literal Islam, being fundamentally antagonistic to civilization.

For the USA, the Iraq war has been an enormous victory: it boosted the price of oil for a decade, enabling the massive deployment of US fracking. Now the USA is again the world’s number one fossil fuel producer. Also French and US military forces are fighting from Mali to Afghanistan, maintaining economic and military control over an area still crucial for energy production (although it will soon become economically irrelevant, from renewable energy).  

All the regimes from Mali to Afghanistan, are, officially, friendly to civilization. So why does the war goes on? Because the ideology is islam is centered on Jihad, no holds barred. Thus Islam gives a ready ideology to those who want to make no holds barred. This is why the Turks converted to islam. Within a generation, they had invaded a huge swathe of Central Asia, and overran very old civilization: Georgia, Armenia, and the Oriental Romans (“Constantinople”).

Then Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem were massacred (up to 10,000 at one time) by various Muslim potentates. Constantinople, having lost half of its territory, to the recently converted, ferociously invading Turks, asked the “Occidental” Roman empire to come to the rescue.   

In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military intervention for the so-called Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed desperately to stop the westward invasion of the migrating Turks colonising Anatolia.

Morality of all this? What people think they know about history has little to do with what really happened. The forces presently in conflict have been in conflict ever since Islam exists, as Muhammad wanted it. The Quraish, in Mecca, the dominant tribe Muhammad belonged to, didn’t trust Muhammad: he was an analphabet and an epileptic. To boot, Muhammad succeeded in life by marrying a wealthy business woman, and then switching from caravan trading, to caravan raiding.

Just before he died, Muhammad led the first attack against the Romans (who had not attacked him, and refused combat). War is the great arbiter of human destiny. The enormous Roman field army, horrendously led erroneously, was annihilated on its third day of battle at Yarmouk against the Arab Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius, a great general had not been present, he was in Alexandria.

War is a great arbiter, but it is also extremely fickle. Crucial battles are won, and lost, which should never have been won, or lost. Sometimes by sheer happenstance, sometimes from hubris, sometimes by having top generals with top armies not considering the worst imaginable case (as happened to the Romans when fighting the Arabs at Yarmouk, or with Yamamoto at Midway, or the French mid May 1940…).

To learn from history, it has to be learned in full. Civilization missed a chance to eliminate the Islamist war ideology when it aborted the natural alliance with the Mongols. But it’s not very surprising: the overall leader of Europe, then, was Saint Louis. Saint Louis invented the modern justice system, and put his mother, Blanche de castille, in charge of France for many years. So he could be viewed as non-sexist and all for justice. He is represented to this day, rendering justice below an oak. However, Saint Louis was also a savage. He really believed that unbelievers should be killed painfully. Interestingly, Saint Louis came to believe that the Muslims were believers: his fanatical rage was oriented towards Jews and those who, in Christendom, did not believe. So it’s entirely natural that, by considering the Mongols heathens, and forbidding a further alliance with them, he would, in the end, save Islam!

It’s not just that Saint Louis burned 12,000 Jewish manuscripts in Paris, in 1243 CE (5 years before he led the disastrous Seventh Crusade). Saint Louis wrote abominable descriptions of the atrocious ways in which he would kill infidels (I read it in the original texts long ago; however, I was unable to find a source today…)

We have Jihadists around, ready to kill the innocent nowadays, because Saint Louis was actually one of them!

Patrice Ayme’

NO BEAUTY, NO IDEA!

July 3, 2017

Does creative thinking have to do with beauty? Yes it does. Mathematicians often say this, that equations, or a theory, are beautiful. But I have never come across any attempt at an explanation of why it is so. I provide the missing link here: rarity, preciousness!

Beauty Versus The Viciously Stupid Beasts:

Let me tell you a little story: for thirty years I watched four rare and endangered trees grow in a park where various animals roam (deer, raccoon, skunk, various large birds of prey, etc. A Mountain Lion was observed a kilometer away, among houses!). One of these endangered trees was a Monterey Cypress (a local, but rare tree, named after Monterey, California), another was a Yew tree (even more precious), still another a rare cedar, and another a native, but very rare now, in that area, Douglas Fir.

All those special trees had self-planted, or been planted by birds and grew on a hill next door overrun by (non-native) Blue Gum Eucalyptus and a few (non native) Monterey pines (Monterey in Mexico, not Monterey in California). I used to look at the growing Yew tree and the Monterey Cypress, and the rare cedar everyday. The city of Berkeley, which is politically correct, judged that the rare trees could only be “invasive”. They looked funny, different from Poison Oak and Eucalyptus, so they had to be invaders. 

The Yew Tree Destroyed By the PC Savages Was A Smaller, Younger Version Of That One. Beauty Shall Be Killed So Stupidity Can Rule, Say Plutocrats and their obnoxiously obsequious servants...

Poison Oak, for those who don’t know, is a plant with many different aspects, often forming impenetrable thickets, laden with the most acute carcinogen found in nature. It causes agonizing inflammation, burns readily, and inhaling its smoke, kills. Poison Oak also loves human destruction and is more present than at anytime in the Native American past. Instead of destroying endangered Yew Trees, one should destroy the square miles of Poison Oak in Berkeley…

In any case, the Politically Correct city send crews to search and destroy the four trees (located in four different places, hundreds of meters distant). They left the hundreds of Blue Gum Eucalyptus (originally from Tasmania) alone, and targeted the rare and precious conifers. Those trees were my friends.

But I shouldn’t not have been too surprised my friends got destroyed. I talked in the past with crews cutting trees, and they are so incredibly ignorant, I could bore readers with a long list of their absurdities. They view endangered trees as dangerous aliens.

While some were destroying some trees they viewed as invasive once, I asked them why they didn’t plant sequoias. They told me sequoias didn’t grow in the sun (false).

This tree cutting mania is grave: as fire chiefs point out, it augments considerably the risk of fire, as trees get replaced by chaparral.  In coastal California, trees catch fog and make rain, especially conifers. But PC cities keep on cutting. Just like they keep on calling themselves “Sanctuary Cities” when all they are, to tell the truth,  “Slave Cities”, where terrorized unlawful immigrants work quasi for free.

***

Do they hate Trump so much because, deep down inside, they’re so much like him?

This tree annihilation by the PC crowd made me reflect on the Trump hatred. Many friends I used to have make hysterically hateful discourses against Trump, and, often said even worse things against me. When I asked them why the hatred, they tended to redouble their insults and “block” me.

In retrospect, I had problems with them well before Trump appeared on their radar (Trump had been on my radar for decades, and I viewed him as the poster boy of what was wrong with US banking; I still do).

Attributing all the violence of US society to Trump is beyond ridiculous. It is beyond ridiculous, but it’s efficient, because it’s a cover-up. The violence of anti-Trump protesters is an attempt for them to pretend that they disagree with a system they profit from so much that they don’t intent to change it.

How do I know they don’t intent to change it? Because they propose nothing new. (For example Obamacare does not work, but democrats don’t have a replacement plan; result: Republicans argue among themselves!)

***

NO BEAUTY, NO IDEA:

The violence perpetrated against beautiful trees by Politically Correct cities in parks which are supposed to be natural is a tell tale sign. Anybody with a sane mind would stop before destroying obviously rare trees. But not here: they are searched, and destroyed. What is the mood behind that?

Is there in the USA, more of a desire to search for beauty, and destroy it, than, say in more civilized places? Could it be that this is related to the fact that the US enjoys an extremely ugly healthcare system, an even uglier tax system, the highest incarceration rate, and the highest birth death rate among advanced countries?

Could that also be related to the fact so many of my friends turn against me well before they became conscious of Trump? After all, like those trees, I was different. So I had to be cut down.

How could this psychological mechanism work exactly? Anything beautiful is beautiful because it’s rare. Anything rare does not belong in the herd, except if it is the leader. But, in some countries, herd following is valued more than in others. Now here is the rub: any really new thought is initially not just rare, but infuriating to those who didn’t think of it first.

Hence any society which does not have a great sense and appreciation of beauty, of what is rare, does not have a great sense and appreciation of the human spirit.

***

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer, Ein USA!

In many ways, the USA is the world’s most conservative country: Trump is no accident, but a system. US has led on CO2 pollution since ever. The USA clings, alone in the world, to obsolete units of measurements from the Middle Ages. But, most of all, among advanced countries, it clings to the idea of “leaders”. European… leaders were a bit taken aback when they went to Camp David, and Obama and his goons referred to them as “leaders”, in an obsessive manner. “Leader”. Shall we translate “Leader” in German?

Leader (ˈliːdəʳ  ) noun

  1. Führer m (Führerin) (f)
    1. [of union, party] Vorsitzende m f (Vorsitzender) (m adj)
      1. (military) Befehlshaber m (Befehlshaberin) (f)
    2. [of gang, rebels] Anführer m (Anführerin) (f)
    3. [of expedition, project, choir] Leiter m (Leiterin) (f)
      1. (sport, in league) Tabellenführer m

The USA is Führer obsessed. Young people in the USA, in the Space cadet mentality, better take a leadership school if they want to be esteemed by all sorts of authorities. Outward Bounds, Scouts, NOLS (National Outdoors Leadership School), etc

Here is Zuck, the Facebook Führer. Zuck says: Facebook is new church where “Leaders set the culture, inspire us, give us a safety net, and look out for us.”

Facebook will give people a sense that they are part of “something bigger than ourselves” akin to a religion. A religion where the showing of the human female breast brings exclusion. As I said, the US is a very conservative country. And Zuck Zuck his prophet. Zuck Zuck has beaucoup brains, he looks out for us:

As I’ve traveled around and learned about different places, one theme is clear: Every great community has great leaders. Think about it. A church doesn’t just come together. It has a pastor who cares for the well-being of their congregation, makes sure they have food and shelter.”

Amen, Zuck Zuck. (Because he pays little taxes, Zuck Zuck is a very great man working for CIA, so as we wait for him to become also president as another great CIA puppet-men did, one gives hospitals his name…)

This is all pretty ugly, and it’s no wonder that, of all countries, since 1990, the USA has been the most ardent defender of fossil fuels. Because getting rid of fossil fuels was a new idea… And great undermining great US superiority. (Add the college dropouts.)

***

The idea that we need leaders to think, get inspired and see is the very crux of the plutocratic mood: 

Zuck Zuck Zuckerberg is not just a parody, he is a paradigm. Only leaders can provide with the culture, the inspiration, the safety, and looking out for us. Because, presumably, we have no eyes to look out with.

This means that a few college dropouts like Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Branson (recently hosting Obama on one of his private islands), Ellison (Oracle, owner of the sixth largest island in the Hawai’i archipelago), Dell, Ted Turner, the first of all the Rothschild never went to school. Such ignoramuses are supposed to lead the world. And lead they do, and did. College dropout and Nazi startup genius, Henry Ford, was the first, and crucial financier of the Nazi Party…Hitler owed Ford everything, and let it be known.

The whole strength of democracy is that ideas come from the multitude, all the brains in parallel. That’s what made Athens incomparable: 80,000 could debate with each other, think back and forth. The Achaemenid Persian empire, although ultramodern and remarkable in many ways, had too few thinkers and they were afraid to think aloud. China, overall, had the same problem, especially under the unifying emperor Qin, who had a liking for burning books and burying scholars.

Intellectual fascism got even worse under hyper Catholic Rome, circa 400 CE; in both cases, books were burned as if there were no tomorrow. It’s no coincidence that Rome and China got crazy roughly at the same time, in the same way (Rome knew of China very well, and we have reports of Chinese visitors singing the praises of Rome)…

Calling to be led by leaders in matter of culture, inspiration, safety and even vision, as Facebook wants to do, is as ugly as it gets, it tells people creative individual thinking is a sin. It tells them new ideas should not sprout.

***

A new idea is rare: so rare, because it never existed before. And it is precious. “Precious” comes from the latin for expensive, costly. How costly? Because the brain uses up to 43% of the energy a human being consumes. Thus a new idea, a new organization of some networks in the brain is costly in energy, it’s precious, hence beautiful…

Patrice Ayme’

We War, Or We Are Not: Chimpanzees On Patrol

June 29, 2017

WAR AS “COLLECTIVE INTENTIONALITY” IN CHIMPANZEES, And HOW:

Most advanced animals are territorial. (It’s also true at sea: that was discovered with Orcas, Killer Whales, recently: the high sea races don’t mix genetically and culturally with the land-hugging races!)

Where does this territoriality come from? Researchers have no guesses. I do: it’s as simple as supposing that animals are smart. I run through the woods all the time among dangerous animals, and I can see them thinking fast, across many species, and adjusting their attitude accordingly.

It’s easy to see why, economically speaking, territoriality should arise. Economy means: environmental management. At this point many feel like writing a few equations that would justify everything, and such equations have been written, and those who wrote them achieved fame.

Equations tie concepts together. Concepts which can be measured. However, one has to be careful. The case of gravitation is famous. The master equation, call it Einstein’s equation, says:

Curvature = Mass-Energy

As Einstein himself pointed out, the right hand-side is not well-defined. However, one can still draw non-trivial consequences from it. But do those “prove” the equation? No.

Posing With That Special Attitude Can Speak Louder Than Words!

Researchers used 20 years of data from Ngogo in Uganda to explore collective action in chimpanzees.

When male chimpanzees patrol the boundaries of their territories they walk silently in single file.

Normally chimps are noisy: it’s a deliberate tactic to scare everybody. But on patrol they’re like silent death. They sniff the ground and stop to listen for sounds. Their cortisol and testosterone levels are jacked 25 percent higher than normal. Chances of contacting conspecific enemies are high: 30 percent.

Ten percent of patrols result in violent fights where they hold victims down and bite, tear, hit, kick and stomp them to death. It has been observed that a chimpanzee tribe could completely annihilate one next door.

The result of these savage acts of war? A large, safe territory rich with food, longer lives, and new young females wandering into the group.

Territorial boundary patrolling by chimpanzees is one of the most dramatic forms of collective action in mammals. Patrolling, and killing, together benefits the group, whether individual chimps took part in the action, or not.

Some Chimps In The ASU Study, While On Patrol

A team — led by Arizona State University Assistant Professor Kevin Langergraber of the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Institute of Human Origins — examined 20 years of data on who participated in patrols in a 200-member-strong Ngogo community of chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda.

Males joined 33 percent of patrols that occurred when they were in the group and young enough to take part. Young females have been observed to join patrols.

The behavior is evidence of what’s called group augmentation theory. What is good for the group is ultimately good for the individual. Some sacrifice from each member translates into a larger, safer group. By 2009, the Ngogo chimpanzees expanded their territory by 22 percent over the previous decade.

“Free riders may increase their short-term reproductive success by avoiding the costs of collective action,” Langergraber’s team wrote, “but they do so at the cost of decreasing the long-term survival of the group if it fails to grow or maintain its size; nonparticipants suffer this cost alongside the individuals they had cheated.”

“Cost” though, is a human concept tied to record keeping.

Chimpanzees are one of the few mammals in which inter-group warfare is a major source of mortality. Chimps in large groups have been reported to kill most or all of the males in smaller groups over periods of months or even many years, acquiring territory in the process. Territorial expansion can lead to the acquisition of females who bear multiple infants. It also increases the amount of food available to females in the winning group, increasing their fertility.

The researchers found no consequences for those chimpanzees that did not join patrols (but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist). Most studies have focused on short term benefits of cooperation, said lead researcher Kevin Langergraber, “but our study shows the benefit of long-term data collection, and also that we still have a lot to learn from these chimpanzees.”

Male chimpanzees remain in the group they were born in their entire lives (females wander to settle somewhere else). Because they can live for more than 50 years, patrolling when they’re young produces personal future benefits.

However, if they don’t patrol, there aren’t any consequences — no sidelong glances, snubs or being chased out of the group, claims anthropologist David Watts of Yale University, who worked with Langergraber on the study.

“We know from a lot of theoretical and empirical work in humans and in some other specialized, highly cooperative societies — like eusocial insects — that punishment by third parties can help cooperation evolve,” Watts said. “But it doesn’t seem to us that chimpanzees punish individuals who do not patrol. Sometimes individuals will be present when a patrol starts, and thus have the opportunity to join the patrol but fail to do so. As far as we can see, these individuals do not receive any sort of punishment when this occurs.”

Chimpanzees are extremely intelligent, but usually they aren’t considered to be capable of what’s called “collective intentionality,” which allows humans to have mutual understanding and agreement on social conventions and norms.

“They undoubtedly have expectations about how others will behave and, presumably, about how they should behave in particular circumstances, but these expectations presumably are on an individual basis,” Watts said. “They don’t have collectively established and agreed-on social norms.”

What Watts seems to want to say is that he didn’t see punishment. Thus, he says, there is no enforcement of norms. Thus there are no norms. Thus norms were not collectively established.

There are several problems with this reasoning. First all is not stick: there is also the carrot. A chimp may not be punished, but them he may lost opportunity. One opportunity lost? The pleasure of the hunt of the biggest game, fellow chimp, the pleasure of killing.

To expects animals establish norms as we do is, with all due respect, a bit silly. They do it, as we do when we don’t have language at our disposal.

“… this tendency of humans to cooperate in large groups and with unrelated individuals must have started somewhere,” Watts said. “The Ngogo group is very large (about 200 individuals), and the males in it are only slightly more related to one another than to the males in the groups with which they are competing. Perhaps the mechanisms that allow collective action in such circumstances among chimpanzees served as building blocks for the subsequent evolution of even more sophisticated mechanisms later in human evolution.”

Yes, sure. And what are these mechanisms? Can we imagine them?

We know how WE do it in civilization, and the million of years before that: we talk. We talk digitally, enabling us to communicate extremely precise information: this is the interest of equations.

What did we do before digital speech? Well we could whistle and do other sounds… which animals readily understand: a whining sound in humans of the sort my seven-year old daughter is expert at when she wants cake, is readily understood by a dog from 100 feet away. And by another 500 species besides.

There are other languages: action, gestures… They can vary. Most animals though, understand man is the top dog. I have been charged by bull elks, weighing 1,000 pounds, horns down, until they realized I was no mountain lion. Similarly, a bear or lion will immediately be reminded of human supremacy, from just the proper attitude. Then they instantaneously deduce they should moderate their rage, hunger, and other animals spirits inhabiting them.

The point is that they reason. They fear humans not “instinctively”, but because they were taught, by parents, or circumstances. Chimpanzees are also taught. From their first months on Earth. Then they deduce, in particular, friend from foe. Friends are in the tribe, foes are not in the tribe.

When I run in a National Park, all the dangerous animals out there, even the dangerous snakes, not just the bears, lions and various ungulates, know who I am, even before meeting me in person. They also know what a creature such as me is expected to do: left alone, I, and my ilk, will leave them alone.

So the missing link is that animals spent a lot of time thinking: their lives depend upon it.

“Collective Intentionality” results from all this collective thinking out of the same initial conditions. Chimps, from the earliest ager, learn that defending their traditional fruit trees enable them to survive, because they need to eat, to survive. And so on… It’s basic neurogenesis…

Patrice Ayme’

Entangled Minds, Entangled Knowledge

June 27, 2017

HOW DOES THINKING WORK? Not straight, and beyond twisted!

Does thinking work linearly? No, not at all. Linear logic is how mathematics is presented to the masses. Yet, research mathematicians do not proceed that way the first time they figure out theorems. Mathematicians typically work out explicit baby examples, and then try to generalize, guided by these particulars; physicists do the same; they are all following the same method used by all small children!

Not only is linear logic not really the way the mind explains things to itself, but there is plenty of evidence that even what are viewed as the foundation of basic logics need to be discarded, if one wants to understand the way things are really understood.

What’s below is increasingly supported by neuroscience. The brain “connectome” is ever more important. As I have said in the past, it lives (so to speak) in high dimensional space. Plato had a two-dimensional wall and a three-dimensional world. But now we understand dimensions better!

This illustrates a research article on the importance of the Brain “Connectome”, a much more general spaces than those used to depict experiments in Quantum Physics

A professional philosopher opined in Aeon that Indian philosophy which is more than 3,000 year old compared knowledge to a banyan tree, whereas Western philosophy just said it was a vulgar tree as they are known in Europe, with a single trunk. Silly stuff, because, in any case, knowledge is a forest (knowledge of how to write haikus, or making beer, has nothing to do with ship hull construction!)  

Silly stuff, because we have learned so much more in the meantime! Overall the philosophy of 35 centuries ago can carry a long way, indeed: all our civilization rests on it. Indian mathematicians completed the so-called “Arabic numerals” which they got from the Greeks in a very tentative form. Actually the origins of writing and counting systems are probably 8,000 years old (that we know of; counting animals, and communicating that, is probably a basic hunting skill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years old).

Lots of thinking has enabled, meanwhile, to establish certain knowledge which we can know reverberates towards general wisdom. “Certain knowledge” is another word for science.

***

So several points, in  support of the ENTANGLED MIND, as the state-of-the-art of civilization has it:

First modern logic (post Turing) shows that a logic can pretty much be anything. None of the axioms viewed as mandatory in the past are actually necessary: even allowing (A and Non-A) works.

Second, how is that wealth of logics possible, and still we call them logics? The answer is simple: logic is actually neurology, and neurology is a collection of sets of networks in what physicists call a “configuration space”. In neuroscience this is now called the “Connectome”. In Quantum Mechanics, those spaces are Hilbert Space. In neurology, hence logics, those spaces are much more general. In any case, at the very least, the topology of these neurologies and logics is not simply connected. Here is your banyan tree, 35 centuries old, as mathematical concept:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simply_connected_space

Unions of banyan trees and the ground they arise from, are not simply connected. Well beyond that, thinking is a superbly high dimensional activity involving extravagant topologies and geometries: 

Many, many dimensions therein this “connectome”!

Third, evolution itself is not simply connected. All sorts of genetic messages go this way and that, across species. Co-evolution of species actually show that beyond the evolution and co-evolution of species and the ecological niches they evolve, what matters most is the evolution of traits inside ecological systems. Yes, quite a bit as in the movies “Avatar”!

https://www.nature.com/news/biodiversity-moves-beyond-counting-species-1.22079

Or, more generally, the co-evolution which matters most is that of the traits of ecosystems.

Quantum Physics posits that reality is much more, infinitely more, than multifaceted. Reality is not just multispecified, but multispacified. Indeed, each quantum experiment defined well enough to exist posits the existence of a Hilbert space. Each different experiment has a different Hilbert space. Some can be two-dimensional, some can be infinite dimensional. Measuring a quantity is identified to an “operator” inside said Hilbert space.

Science is certain knowledge. But it is subject to circumstances, conditions and context. In a sense, it is more important how we established sciences and guess new ones. We don’t need yesteryear’s quaint concepts. Too much knowing nothing kills better thinking (Internet civilization, as it is, is going nowhere intelligent.) Example: Monads (- single entities) exist, say those infused with obsolete philosophy. Instead, we moderns have the quantum & neurological networks!

There all the interconnections of the human mind, its incredible spaces of immensely complex topologies and geometries come in play mixing logics, pathos, ethos, wishful thinking and metaprincipled stances within, and against, the universe.    

“The Greeks are barbarians,” said the Garga Samhita, a Sanskrit text on the life of Krishna, “yet the science of astronomy originated with them and for this they must be reverenced like Gods.

The Greeks invented astronomy, precisely because they were rough. Passions lift the spirits, after resting them in their vigorous embrace.  The Gods are barbarian, just go out there in nature, listen to thunder roll, and tremble.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Consciousness Divided

June 13, 2017

The Ancient Greeks recommended to examine life. Actually, Homo is an examiner. The examiner. Homo finds out about the world, thus becomes powerful. Part of the world, what we see the world through, is ourselves, though. So examining the world means examining ourselves.

(Famously, to establish Quantum Mechanics, Niels Bohr and his “Copenhagen School”, pondered what it was, for human beings to experiment.)

I mountain run. Alone. A good occasion to study how the human mind works. And I found something I feel is interesting about the problem of consciousness: it’s much more divided, multiple and hierarchized, than is generally assumed.

Mountain running is one of the great dangerous sports out there, and the one most eminently human. Human superiority over other beasts, which is undeniable, was founded upon mountain running. Why running? Because only Homo can run in full heat all day long, catching up with dogs (who have a poor cooling system) and even horses (capable of more perspiration than dogs, but still not as good as humans). This helped make humans the ultimate predators.

Why calling running out there in the wilderness mountain running? Because wilderness running, except on a beach, is always on very broken-up ground. There were no roads, for the last 100 million years, when our forebears learned to run. But plenty of holes dug by ground squirrels, even on the prairie, in which to break one’s leg.

The first challenge in running mountainous terrain, is that the ground is full of rocks, roots, and loose terrain (by definition). This has all to be processed well and faster than any supercomputer can. Failure will be ignominious, potentially lethal. I remember that trail I ran on many times where, once, in a three weeks span, two women fell off it, and died.

Fly Over Country: When the Rattler Is Across the Trail, And They Tend To Be Across Trails, One Second Away, You Take-Off, And Fly Over, Or You Die! A full bite from the rattler below, Crotalus Oreganus, from the genus Viperidae, will make you unconscious in 15 seconds.

In the last month I hit two branches from above (one from a poisonous vine). In another incident, I slipped on a loose slope, accidentally catching a root with my right hand while falling, breaking two bones, tearing three tendons with bone attached, etc. The soles of my shoes had become too smooth. This was the result of a fraction of a second of deficient logic (I had to observe the root, which I didn’t, and anticipate what would happen if I slipped, which I vaguely anticipated, and caught the root). The surgeon said I will never fully recover, and it will take ten weeks anyway.

Death can occur in other ways: lightning (which I experienced too close many times) and wasps and their kinds. Two years ago, I was stung more than 40 times in a swarm attack, from a non-identified nest. I ran out… Having decided that was the best strategy (supposedly running is not advised with snakebite).

Yeah, I still mountain run (but more carefully, considering the state of my multiply fractured right hand, although I nearly impaled myself with a perfidious sharp brown redwood branch lying on the brown sequoia redwood forest floor! You put your foot on such a branch, it sticks up, you die…).

The first problem with mountain running is to have a brain which can process the unfolding ground fast enough to know where to land one’s feet, and affect overall balance. On the sort of stupid track common sport activist favor, any step is similar to the one before: one could run blind. However, on a mountain trail, every step is different and tricky, and there will be several such hazardous steps per second. Tripping on a sharp rock and crashing head first on another will kill  the runner.

A related problem is the deeply existential question of snakes. If you are ten miles out in a forest with 100 meters tall trees, deep in a twisting canyon, out of phone range and you encounter a viper, you will have to think quickly. Rattlesnakes can be huge: up to seven feet long! (I saw one once around that sort of length across a trail; since it refused to move, I interpreted that as aggression, I threw him two stones, two hits, and it fled to the side, threatening from the bushes rattling away… I do not attack vipers which get away, but will punish aggressive behavior!) Actually, if you are moving at three meters per second, when coming upon a rattler across the trail, you will have to take off, faster than a pelican, and hope to fly over the startled reptile before it can know where to strike (I did this once; arriving a four meters per second on a twisting single track, with impossible terrain right and left, I found a large rattlesnake in the middle of the trail, and jumped over it; by the way, baby rattlers are also lethal).

When I run, part of my brain is on a constant snake watch. However, a root, or a branch can well look like a snake, and, at sustained speeds up to 20 feet per second (6 m/s), as when descending, something interesting happens. When the snake watch system identifies a plausible snake, it immediately gives avoidance orders to the neuron motor system, the balance system, and the neurohormonal system. Consciousness itself, gets informed from the sudden modification of trajectory, and some neurohormonal effects having to do with activating attention circuitry which are even faster than a massive adrenalin shock (which itself takes about one second). At that point, consciousness knows a snake alert is underway, and dread prevails. Before consciousness gets aware of anything at all, there is actually a suppression effect. Probably because all central nervous system power has to be mobilized, consciousness first shuts down, as all ongoing processes get instantaneously stopped.

Then the visual system turns on to the max to identify the threat and find where the head could be. Consciousness follows to find out whether that’s more probably a root or a snake.

I have observed this effect thousands of times, having found myself avoiding potential snakes thousands of times. (My latest close call with a rattler was three feet, three weeks ago, it was going away while rattling in thick grass, didn’t see it; I walk heavy through grass to alert the beasts.)

This clearly shows that consciousness role is that of a supervisor. The time I had to jump over that snake, I detected it 5 meters away, a second away. Consciousness had no time to get involved, but higher level processing determined instantaneously that there was no possibility of braking, and the only hope was to jump above an animal which can strike so fast, high-speed photography is needed to catch the action. Then I had to land on the other side. By the time full consciousness returned, the danger was passed.   

***

Consciousness Divided:

Some will sneer: what did you prove? That there are parts of the brain reacting automatically? That there are reflexes, instinct? A reptilian brain, as the saying has it? An unconscious mind?

All those terms are time-honored, yet vague. And they don’t fit what is really perceived: actually, the point is that there is consciousness involved, a sort of ultrafast consciousness, not deliberative consciousness, but consciousness nevertheless.

A proof is this: if one stops concentrating on the trail, one crashes very quickly. Actually higher level decisions about where to go have to be taken all the time: imagine running in a boulder field from metric ton block to metric ton block. You will have to decide continuously where to land next, and how, while anticipating a few moves after that. 

Let me repeat slowly: It’s more “divided consciousness” than “unconscious mind”. It only LOOKS “unconscious” because most of it is not recorded in short-term memory.

As I said, the proof is that one needs to stay concentrated while running. That’s crucial. So actually the frontal cortex elaborating strategies is not on vacation. If not building up strategies for the next two seconds, one crashes, and pretty fast, and pretty bad. Potentially lethally…

Thus, although part of the mind can wander, there is definitively extreme consciousness of the terrain as it unfolds. Why? High level strategies have to be investigated and deployed, often with a time horizon of less than two seconds. For example in descent the terrain has to be analyzed carefully (which I didn’t do enough of when I broke my hand…) The terrain has to be used to brake and chose the best trajectories getting oneself where one wants to go, without too much accelerations, or terrain which is too hard, or too soft, or too sharp, or potential collision with various objects, on the ground or in the air (branches), unknowable dark ground to be avoided, bushes not to be approached too much less an ambushing snake lurks, etc…

Simply all this intense mental activity is not registered even in short-term memory, most of the time. It’s pure consciousness, no strings attached. Meanwhile, the rest of consciousness can roam, but when a serious problem arises, like a looming snake, all of it concentrates on said problem, right away, and with a computing power never used in normal life.

***

Examining Life Thoroughly Means Questioning Existence, Best Done In Extreme Situations:

So we are supposed to examine life. But what is it to examine? It means considering what was not considered before, getting out of set neural patterns. And doing this deliberately, forcefully. And nothing beats a life and death motivation. One can do this by activating the flight or fight neurology. Socrates had killed four men in combat. He was also famous by the courageous fighting he did, covering a retreat of the army, after a disastrous Athenian defeat at Potidea, 33 years before his execution, saving the life of the wounded Alcibiades, pierced by an arrow, in the process. Also Socrates had “loved” everybody, for decades, Plato said… So much so, adds Plato, that led Socrates to a wise abstinence later.

To examine, we have to embrace all that can be embraced, take it all in consideration. That does not mean visiting all the restaurants, and jetting around the world. It means a rich and diverse wealth of experiences. And extreme, and in particularly extremely dangerous ones, are an indispensable part of the mix.

An amusing aside, then, is that some of the individuals engaging in the most dangerous hare-brain pursuit, are, deep down inside, motivated by the examination of life, which is at the core of the essence of the genus Homo. It’s hilarious to think that some of the most apparently dim-witted brutes (like your average Jihadist) are thus motivated by the nobility of the human spirit, but so it is!  

I think, therefore I am? Not so simple! What is “I”, if “I” is multiple, as a method of division of work, evolutionary selected?

Consciousness is not only experienced dependent, but a much divided experience. Some will say: we knew this already, aren’t we multitasking already? What I tried to show above is something different. Just as there is the ship of state, there is the ship of mind. There may a captain to the soul, sometimes, but it has also a crew. With a mind of its own.

Patrice Ayme’  

Islam: Religion Of Fighting, Says Caliph!

June 10, 2017

[Those who are tired of my all too learned discourses, should go directly to the smart, yet simple, video linked below; and suffer through the first minute of half deserved “conservative” rant, before the interesting part.]

Strange Disease Of Islamophilia Condemned By Youth, At Last!

The admiration for, and lies about, Literal Islam, is the miracle which keeps on giving. To world plutocrats.

Islam took over what had been, for millennia, the richest, most innovative and most civilized part of the world, and turned it into the poorest, dumbest, and most war-torn wastes, until oil was found. Any question?

Well, some had questions. As the president of Senegal, Abu Diouf, said, Saudi style, Salafist Wahhabi Islam is “not my religion”. This is why 100 severely different versions of Islam were created. In opposition to Salafist Islam. However, Salafist Islam is now propelled by Arabian oil (and Wall Street, and Washington power standing behind since the 1930s: the swamp Trump talks about is full of oil…) 

The Caliph has spoken. In Some Ways, The “Islamist State” Is More Honest Than Main Stream Intellectuals In The West

A young and slick Utuber looked into ‘Avallone Hunter’,  looked into Islam, and made a good job at it. He particularly got it right on “moderate Muslims”, who, according to the Qur’an are hypocrites, thus to be killed. Anyway, the video is good, once you pass the gratuitous attack and passing conflation of “progressives” with their opposites, at the beginning of the work (I am a progressive, so I didn’t appreciate that!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d8GDo49QKY

Do not despair of youth: they learn. Showing in great numbers, contrarily to habit, and expectations, the less than 24 years old just helped Theresa May, the plutocratic fanatic UK PM, lose her majority in the UK Parliament. The youth in the UK is pro-Europe and anti-xenophobic. They know more, and have a more appropriate mood than their elders. Alleluia! Terrorism will go away, once the youth is aware of why it appeared in the first place.

The “West” by the way, is the descendant, in more ways than one, some cultural, some genetics, of that richest, most innovative, and most civilized part of the world, which I call not the Middle East, but the Middle Earth, because it is what it is.

Italians are partly, genetically, Iraqis: Mesopotamians migrated over to the north shore of the Mediterranean, with their bio-engineered grain and know-how, bringing themselves and agriculture. 5,000 years before Greek civilization. This migration was recently genetically traced through the islands of the Aegean. Much “Greek” math was Egyptian, Sumer cities, 5,000 years ago, started the alphabet, and “Europa” was a Phoenician Princess (who travelled over to present day Europe; actually she would have been kidnapped…)

Considering the logic of Islam, it’s easy to see why all the gold it touches turns to poisonous mercury. Islam is an essentially hypocritical faith, saying science has to be pursued, but then “disbelievers” have to be killed. That’s, at best, absurd: how can one develop science without disbelief? How can want to develop science without feeling that creation, as it happened, is not perfect, but, instead, requires thorough explanation?Doesn’t Islam say we should stick to revelation, as transmitted by Mr. Messenger, an epileptic analphabet hallucinating in the desert?

Islam seems to have aimed at making into a capital offense all and any behavior that would not make Muslims reproduce like rabbits, to feed those vast armies of conquerors and jihadists. So women are supposed to be baby machines, and any man not inclined to engross them, within strict guidelines, is a traitor.

This all happened in the lifetime of one person. The Ferocity Of Islam Insured Fast, Gigantic Conquests, Before Resistance Could Be Mustered. After the tremendous defeats of Islam at the hands of the Franks, Islam was broken, never to grow again until very recently… (Except for the conquest of Turkey, and the slow drip into Africa…)

Islam is the war religion par excellence, and Adolf Hitler admired it for that.

The irony, of course, is that the Islam superstition, by separating men and women, is intrinsically homosexual: after, men are supposed to be with men, and women, with women. Actually, it’s even better than that:  women are supposed to be out of sight. So Muslim men intrinsically only love to have around other men, they have androphilia (men loving men).

The ferocity with which homosexuals are killed in Islam is precisely because Islam is so homosexual. It’s both a lie and a lifeline. An attempt to disguise what is going while avoiding the accusation of sodomy by the West which helped to destroy the Aztecs.

Violence in Islam is no accident, coincidence or consequence. It’s intrinsic. Violence, the violence of armies, is what made Islam possible. In a few years, Islam conquered the largest empire the world had ever known. Precisely because those who (claim to) die for Allah are promised paradise.

The question then becomes: why did such a monster superstition become an object of adoration on the part of so many intellectuals in the West?

Because many intellectuals in the West developed a hatred for civilization, shortly before or coincident and causally related to Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism and Maoism… Much of the anti-colonialist struggle, however justified, resorted to hating civilization all together… Although it’s civilization which had made it possible in the first place!

Many intellectuals became rich, powerful and influential this way. Hating civilization became their business model. And in Islam they found an ideology which had been created to hate the “West”, the Greco-Roman empire, and also the other civilization, the Persian Sassanid empire. Muhammad led the first attack against Rome. Within ten years, Persia was destroyed and the richest parts of the Roman empire had been conquered by the Islamists.

Muhammad didn’t see it: he died by surprise, in great pain, screaming on his deathbed in Mecca, for days, that he had been poisoned. By fellow Muslims.

That’s the drawback of a lethal, dictator friendly religion: it kills a lot.

So many Western intellectuals loved Islam, because Islam hated the “West”, and they, themselves, made a (dishonest) profession of hating the “West” (which fed them so well). The hater of my enemy is my friend, some say, forgetting about crocodiles, which show that the eater of their enemy is not really friendly. So did Hitler love Islam, and hate the “West”. In general, plutocrats hate civilization, so they are natural enemies of Islam.

The Qur’an orders to follow dictators as if they were god, as long as they are Muslims… Consider:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/god-hates-democracy/

US oilmen and sneaky British imperialists saw, as early as the 1930s, that they would gain by instrumentalizing Islam. So here we are. All Islam propaganda goes through Western fibers and satellites.

The problem of Islam is thus way larger than just Islam. Yes, Islam is the religion of desert raiding, it was established that way by a caravan raider. Yes, Islam is ideal for brutal military conquerors, and dictators, thus many of these, from the Turks to the Mongols, adopted it. But Islam is more than that. Islam is an ideology, one of many, of the sort which serve a much bigger species of monsters, always devouring civilizations. Islam is the tool of something maximally monstrous: unchained, free ranging plutocracy.  

Let’s finish on a lighter, enlightening note on how public opinion gets durably molded. I just saw a Suisse Romande report on what happened in 1971, when six high level reporters and producers were fired from TSR (called RTS now), the state (and only) French-speaking TV in Switzerland.

The present Swiss TV, RTS was able to access the documentation of the time, and interviewed both the leftists and the police officers, or their superiors, involved at the time. Basically what happened is that there was a “political police” in Switzerland (it was secret that there was a political police). So important TV personalities and producers were followed by the secret police and information was gathered anonymously (as Google, Facebook and company are doing now). Patterns were established: some were living with someone else while not married, some were heard saying things which were deemed to be revolutionary. In the end the secret police sent a list of six persons, asking them to be fired. The TV TSR did so. TSR accused the six of “subversion and sabotage“. It was alleged that they had relations with foreign powers (Cuba).

The six fired alleged defamation (in truth they were simple middle class, with nearly no rebellious spirit about them, and no connection with organizations or foreign powers). There was a trial for defamation; the chief of the federal police (equivalent to the FBI) came and said the TSR was justified, so the judges sided with the TV channel. All of this happened because those six wrote TV shows disturbing to the political class. (They more or less won in appeal, because the Federal police chief was unwilling to reveal a secret police was spying on the citizenry). However those six and others connected to them were excluded from TV, and thus wide influence, for the next thirty years… These sorts of manipulations is happening all over the world, making sure that We The People think and feels just what the ascending plutocracy cares about (like sport teams scores).

To this day, one of two principals in this affair, Rene’ Schenker, says that he cannot tell what happened, because if he did, justice would have to re-open an inquiry. The other principal obeying orders from above says that: “Yes, we fired with canon at flies“.  This is still happening. Look at the New York Times: it bans all my comments, one of many media to do so. The idea is that my ideas and observations should not be known. Probably thousands of others are in the same situation (interesting commenters have disappeared at the NYT). However, the New York Times enjoys privileges (say sits in attendance at the White House). Thus a propaganda system is established: Islamophobia is racism, Obama is a great progressive, etc… If Islamophobia is racist, any analysis of why Islam, that enemy of the Middle Earth, re-appeared, coincident with the supremacy of oil and Wall Street, and the discussion of the deal with Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945, is excluded. And so on.

Last week, I read some extracts of the Qur’an to good, left, progressive, socialist, rabidly pro-Clinton voters, sensitive souls who cried when Trump got elected instead. It was a little experiment, but I was surprised by their overwhelming incredulity. They were astounded, they were aghast, they couldn’t believe it, their gaping mouths went into huge Os. They were so astounded, they thought I was making it up, and they came over to read the Qur’an by themselves. They had never did it before, but they though they knew Islam… Strange times, indeed… All too many people do not even know what it is to know. They feel they know, what they couldn’t possibly know… except if they believed fully whatever the authorities want them to believe.

Patrice Ayme’

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

Frankfurt School of Philosophy As Nazism Unexamined

May 31, 2017

Unexamined until now, that is…

IF YOU DON’T HAVE A HEART, YOU DON’T HAVE REASON:

Was The Frankfurt School of Philosophy Disguised Nazism?

By 1946, it dawned even on the most obdurate, that German philosophy, viewed as a mass movement, had been a disaster. Its reasons turned out to follies of the greatest infamy, with an appearance of polished intellectual superiority, which foiled the superficially minded, as long as they had a cold heart. This very infamy made those infamous “German” reasons a strong social bond, binding the German masses together, to commit mass murder, and wars of massive aggression,  twice in a generation, under the enlightenment, the sun, of Satan.

Thus, unsurprisingly, some German mini philosophers reached the same conclusion in their Fort of the Franks (Frankfurt). They “wanted to break free from the past“(Adorno). Assuredly. Their past. By denying it. (My point of view on the Frankfurt School of Philosophy will be viewed as an outrage, a counter-sense, by the traditionalists. The present essay is a reply to “How the Frankfurt school diagnosed the ills of Western Civilisation” in Aeon, May 31, 2017. In essence, I believe the Frankfurt School did not have the courage to look at the main discourse of German history. They accused the imperialism of sliding doors (!) and Hollywood movies. I accuse Luther, traditional racism, intellectual fascism, and the plutocratic effect, in other words, Germany.

The German Enlightenment was dominated paradigmatically, pragmatically, and politically, and militarily,  by one state, Prussia, which was hyper militaristic, brutally expansionist, and successful at it, outrageously racist, and a dictatorship.

Berlin In Ruins, 1945: German Philosophy’s Crown of Creation!

The top philosopher of Prussia,  Kant, didn’t just believe in slavery or the tradition of enslavement, he wrote publicly to the highest authorities to encourage them to stand firm, while enabling slavery. Kant also believed that the highest morality was to obey the authorities unquestionably, a theory Nazis were enthusiast to enact while exterminating the sort of people Prussia, and then all of Germany, as early as 1815, discriminated against grotesquely, and criminally.

Herder, another piece of German Enlightenment, sang the praises of tribalism, to a point so extreme, he rejected French style Enlightenment, wholesale (although French style Enlightenment was just a modernized version, as far as eradicating exaggerated tribalism, of the one inaugurated by imperial Rome).

With (German) “Enlightenment” like that, who would not want to reject it? The Nazis?

***

The “European” Wars of the Twentieth Century were not European wars. They were German wars. That’s a dirty little secret which does not want to be faced, especially in the USA, for obvious reasons (twice the USA stood by, watching, for years, its parents, France and Britain, suffer the brunt of mass murdering German infamy). Germany deliberately ambushed humanity in August 1914, and again by electing an exterminationist racist fascist dictatorship, and obeying it enthusiastically. OK, it was a particular type of Enlightenment, under the Sun of Satan. But it was very German, in the sense “German” had taken after the rise of the satanic Luther (who wrote about torturing the Jews for pleasure) and the monstrous Prussian State. The mass murdering aggressiveness of Bismarck, the Kaiser and Hitler, were no accident, but the fruit of generations, even centuries of very specifically German evolution of the worst type.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/luther-hitler-unelected/

***

To believe that Europe became crazy in 1853-1945 is to confuse “Europeans” (sane and victimized) and Germans (culprit and insane). Nietzsche pointed it out before me, and well before German folly reached the highest heights. So it’s to confuse victims and perpetrators. Nothing to build a deep philosophy on.

To believe that “reason” caused the German atrocity of the period 1853-1945 is inaccurate: what was viewed then as patriotic German reasons caused the German atrocities. It had nothing to do with the Enlightenment in the style of Montaigne, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Sade Lamarck, or even Rousseau.

Aeon claims that:Far from humane liberation, 20th-century Europeans had plunged into decades of savage barbarism. Why? The Frankfurt School theorists argued that universal rationality had been raised to the status of an idol. At the heart of this was what they called ‘instrumental reason’, the mechanism by which everything in human affairs was ground up.

When reason enabled human beings to interpret the natural world around them in ways that ceased to frighten them, it was a liberating faculty of the mind. However, in the Frankfurt account, its fatal flaw was that it depended on domination, on subjecting the external world to the processes of abstract thought.”

To say that the cause dominates the effect is silly. To brandish “abstract thought” as a flaw is also silly. “Abstract” and “thought” have to be defined. If “abstract” means a model the brain created, then most thoughts, defined as neurological activity, are abstract.

In the visual system, modern neurology has revealed more than 90% of the circuitry as re-entrant. Thus abstract, calling on what the brain views as memories of what was experienced. This is assuredly typical.

“The rationalising faculty had thereby become, according to the Frankfurt philosophers, a tyrannical process, through which all human experience of the world would be subjected to infinitely repeatable rational explanation; a process in which reason had turned from being liberating to being the instrumental means of categorising and classifying an infinitely various reality.”

One would expect that Germans brought, educated, and mentally created under dictatorship, would be incapable to perceive what tyranny is, and how one gets there. This is exactly what happened under the Frankfurt School.

Far from being “rationalizing”, reason, in German culture prior to the last few years at best, was extremely irrational. German reason was irrational reason, because it tended to miss all the reason of the heart. Attacking the world in 1914 was a deliberate insanity: the German High Command thought that Russia would be slow to mobilize, and that Great Britain would come to full force no sooner than a year after France, and most of continental Europe had been defeated and occupied.

Moreover the High Command and the Kaiser decided to believe the soporific insanity of a world racial government which President Wilson had offered to share with them. (While not thinking for an instant that the US president and his colonel House may have had an “America First” agenda!)

And, somehow the very “rational” Germans naively believed that the Americans would help circumventing the British and French naval blockade (which they did, for a while, as long as it made them richer).

That set of reasons for launching all of Europe, in the atrocious infamy of World War One was not reason, it was a mad logic. And it was even more insane for average “rational” Germans to goose step behind those six men who had decided to destroy Europe… Just to save their version of German plutocracy.

From there on, it got even worse: because thousands of German war criminals had not been hanged after World War One, they felt free to do it again: surely, it would work better, on an even larger scale. Literally. A war criminal such as Ludendorff, de facto commander of the German army in 1918, never got prosecuted for his mass murdering in Belgium (in particular, Liege). So Ludendorff was probably the most important founder of the Nazi Party, and certainly the most prestigious.

Well, there was a reason: the Anglo-Saxon plutocracy had been very supportive of its German colleague in the Paris negotiations of 1919. Surely, it would happen again? (It did, but not to the same extent!)

Many are the reasons, that’s why we need a heart.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: Instrumentalized rationality consists in adopting specific axioms to get a logic to the ends one wants to achieve… and scrupulously restricting oneself to them. (As it is, that’s not saying much: Euclid did just that, more or less, with plane geometry!)
What the Frankfurt School wanted to express was “Instrumentalized” Reason, not “Instrumental Reason“. Now generally reason is instrumentalized, that’s why we brandish it. So, per se, it’s not saying much. A better notion maybe “Intellectual Fascism“, a type of thinking where an all too-small axiomatic set is used to animate’s one’s logic, while ignoring obviously related and more impactful axioms.

In particular, axiomatic sets ignoring the questions, and solutions of the heart, like basic human love, are symptomatic of Intellectual Fascism. That was, overall the Achilles heel of most German philosophy. Cogent, but blind to more significant alternative logics.
When the Frankfurt School speak of “Instrumental Rationality” in a derogatory way, it really speaks of “Intellectual Fascism” the ends of which are deplorable…

 

 

 

 

 

Search Engines Censorship & Defamation

May 28, 2017

On The Fascists Who Own And Dominate Us, And What We Read, And Want to Crank It Up.

When Google Plots to Make Patrice Ayme’ Disappear:

One of my readers was struck by the fact that I claimed that “extravagant wealth was outlawed in Rome”. This was indeed the law under the Republic. When, thanks to globalization, some of the wealthiest Romans were able to invest overseas, they build giant fortunes (the philosopher Seneca, who taught Nero, and died from it, used to joke that he didn’t know how many latifundia, absolutely gigantic farms with armies of slaves, he owned and on how many lands). When the Gracchi brothers saw this, they tried to reinforce the wealth limitation laws.

By then the wealthiest could afford private armies, not just private ships. Those armies were used to kill the Gracchi (although they . Their laws had been passed though, and for the following generations the “Populares” would try to have them enacted. This all ended with the assassination of Iulius Caesar, who was the most famous and most capable leader the “Populares” ever had. Now we have a situation arising which potentially equals the worst. Socrates had been condemned for “corrupting the youth”. Google apparently suggests users of its search engine to find the same about my work:

Patrice Ayme wants to limit wealth absolutely? Google suggests you find this hateful, violent, harmful to children, sexually explicit, etc…

How did I find this? To help my reader, I did a search under the key words Rome Absolute Wealth Limit”. (As can be seen in two places, up and down, on the screen.) It produced thousands of hits all of them headed by my own:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/limit-wealth-absolutely/

So far, so good, and not surprising.

Google, in its generosity, let me appear on their search engine. That’s not a given. It used to be a given. Long time ago, so did Yahoo let me appear on their search engine. I would search “Athens direct democracy” on Yahoo search engine, and proudly find myself at the head of the list. Then, one day, I disappeared from Yahoo. Completely. (Now it’s Yahoo which will disappear!) It is as if someone had decided to ban me. I told some people in the Silicon Valley about it. Including employees of Yahoo. They told me I was paranoid. Even a San Francisco Bay Area homeless bum told me so. (At that point, I knew how deep the search engine propaganda was!)

But I was still on BING and Google. Then, one day only my essays older than ten years survived in BING. All others disappeared, even when typed in full. I interpreted this as being banned from BING. Just as I am banned from the New York Times. Such bans are highly successful. I am especially banned from outwardly left sites (Daily Kos, etc.) The plutos who own or hold them are afraid that what John Lennon called the “fu…ing peasants” find out that, instead of being free and master of their destinies, they are just the opposite… And all their ideas are precisely those their masters wanted them to have.

The surprise came from reading on the right of my essay title as produced by Google something new:

REPORT INAPPROPRIATE PREDICTIONS

With a down arrow.
I clicked on the arrow and found that readers were given the following choices to evaluate my work:

Hateful

Sexually Explicit

Violent

Dangerous and harmful activity

Other

***

Only my essay was thus adorned (out terns of thousands).

By the way, Google “Legal Department” wants you to request “content change”.

It is my (frequently repeated) observation that it is Western plutocrats who make Islamist propaganda possible, with their optical fibers, satellites, and software.  That, no doubt is a  hateful, violent, dangerous and a harmful activity. Many plutocrats could be hurt while shooting that movies…

The questionnaire above leads readers to identify “limits to wealth” to “limit to growth” and the latter to hatred, sex, violence, harm, and the cause of “poor schooling”. It is clearly oriented to censor any suggestion that extreme wealth should be limited. Indeed the title of my essay was unambiguous: “LIMIT WEALTH ABSOLUTELY”.

To all the preceding, search engines will reply that they are private companies, they do what they want. No, twice wrong: private moral persons, including companies have to respect the law. Now those technologies are news, Justinian refurbishment of the law, 15 centuries ago didn’t anticipate them. Yet, as Montesquieu pointed out, there is a “spirit of the laws” (“Esprit des Lois”).

All and any private company which becomes a global social utility, has, since Roman times, and Athenian times, be the object of special laws requiring special social duties. If search engines exert bias of no social utility (a fortiori if they are self-serving), they should be constrained to do so.

In other news, Prince Harry received Barack Obama at Kensington Palace. They discussed, we are told, mental health and the Manchester attack. The implication being that one is related to the other. In other words, there is no Islamism hostile to civilization, just crazy people out there. Those crazed people justify the police state, including finding those who think there should be limits to wealth crazy and harmful. This is disinformation: the Internet and TV, let alone hordes of career semi-intellectuals, have vigorously pushed Islamism, in the last 80 years, throughout the West.

Prince Harry was famous for running around naked in Las Vegas, while high on drugs. (This was immortalized in many pictures. Hard to deny.) Now in the British plutocracy, he disposes of historical palace, to pose next to Obama’s eternally plastic grin of bon banania… Nothing changed since the vague revolt of the punk wave, 40 years ago (the Sex Pistols attacked the Queen, but, in the end, the insults didn’t work. What works is to detail the exact nature of the subjugation mechanisms. And this the plutos understand perfectly, that’s what they want to block.).

The aim was to divide We The People and put civilization itself, and its spirit, under suspicion. Now we are reaching higher heights: saying that we should limit wealth absolutely, Google suggest, is hateful, harmful, violent, sexually explicit, and endangers schooling itself.

Sometimes dictatorship comes in stealthily. There is nothing stealthy about forbidding to read advanced materials (if one is not found in search engines, one does not exist). The Catholic Church did this for six centuries during the Middle Ages, by putting books at the “index”, and extended its rule, and the plutocrats (“aristocrats”) who were  along for the ride, by just as much (it finished with a number of extremely bloody wars and revolutions in Britain, Germany, France, among others…).

Meanwhile Merkel just came out storming from her meetings with Trump. Merkel is a physicist, she is usually careful, and always rational. However, Merkel was firm, not to say Hitler style, making great gestures with a closed fist:We Europeans MUST take our destiny in our own hands…” Zehr gut (just what Trump said…).  German rebellion against the USA plutocracy, at last. OK, so now the obvious ally in this endeavor is just west: Frankreich, France. The European Union has been clear (but so far rather impotent) about the abuses of US search engines (tweaking searches for self-service, and tax evasion). Time to do something about it. I already contacted two lawyers…

Life is a war, or it’s not worth living?

Patrice Ayme’