Posts Tagged ‘Systems of Mood’

For Our Creator, Evolution

October 3, 2015

Mammals we are,

Milk we need.

Or we won’t even be.

Thinkers we are,

Love we need.

Or we won’t even think.

Love tells us,

What to feel.

Love:

Milk for the soul.

We, bodies and souls

From a tangled web blossom.

Not just the quantum web,

Holding the universe together,

But even the web,

Of the highest values,

Holding minds together.

Values we learned to become

While other minds,

Gave us,

What we are.

No Love, No Chipmunks. No Heart. No Mind. And No Cuteness.

No Love, No Chipmunks. No Heart. No Mind. And No Cuteness.

 

Patrice Ayme’

Why Did Germany Lose World War Two?

July 10, 2015

Because the nasty don’t deserve anything else, of course. But there is much more to say, bearing on the astounding way all too many Germans, starting with their crippled, not to say creepy, finance minister find normal to treat part of Europe, even today.

Salvador Dali pointed out that Germany launched World War Two, just to lose it. The same German sadomasochism is fully obvious with all Germans who proposed to throw Greece out of the Eurozone. Indeed, violent ones, explain to me what to do next with the Greeks? Use German high tech to displace Greece east of New Zealand?

Thankfully, Germany is not Europe’s hegemon (contrarily to what superficialists believe). The French Republic leads a coalition with more economic power than Germany, and (hopefully) is determined to keep Greece under its wing. France is also flouting the restrictions on deficit (Germans can go fight in Africa and the Middle East, to help if they want: the Légion étrangère, which defeated elite Nazi soldiers in Norway in 1940, just got new tanks, which will go into combat in a matter of days)

Hundreds Of Thousands Died In The Battle Of France. Calais, May 1940. The USA Sat On Its Hands, Apparently Waiting For Better Things To Come

Hundreds Of Thousands Died In The Battle Of France. Calais, May 1940. The USA Sat On Its Hands, Apparently Waiting For Better Things To Come

[France was allied with the entire British Commonwealth; however, in May 1940, much of the British army was barely getting over. In particular a promised British armor division supposed to show up where the Nazis broke through, had not arrived. The USA, was, at the time, de facto allied with Hitler.]

After winning his referendum on the NO (“oxi”) to Greece’s creditors, Tsipras operated close to a 160 degree turn. But it makes sense. Now Tsipras has popular support, and he requests help for three years (rather than three months). Greece should be given all what he wants. Enough of starving Europe with lack of money, just as European were starved of food in Nazi extermination camps.

Saving Greece now depends upon defeating (whatever remains of) the fascist mood in Germany. So it’s timely for little recaps on recent German exploits. How did Germany end up killing more than 800,000 Greeks, a little while back?

Starting in 1792, and ending apocalyptically in 1945, the obsession of German speaking plutocrats was to destroy the French Republic. In the process, Jewish European and Prussia got annihilated.

I don’t like Muslim Fundamentalism, nor do I like German Fundamentalism. The latter’s ugly mood has resurfaced recently. Fortunately, the hegemon in Europe is not ugly obsolete, tribal moods, but the French Republic. (For all the claims that Germany is Europe’s superpower, the Eurozone coalition of countries indulgent with Greece led by France had 54% of the GDP, a few days ago.)

The correct lessons of how Germany got crazy in the Twentieth Century have not all been drawn. Reading Nietzsche helps, as he forecast in a general fashion what happened next, including with the Jews, although it turned out perhaps even worse than he expected.

The French Republic nearly annihilated the Prussian plutocracy in the first week of September 1914, in a bold counterattack, east of Paris. After that, the, entrenched, frontlines did not move for four years.

In 1919, at the Versailles Peace conference, the French Republic tried to make sure Germany could not try the same sort of attack again, as easily. In vain: Great Britain and the USA had interest to keep the French Republic down, and Germany was the best way to insure that. France was left to face German fascism alone. Germany refused to repair its deliberate destruction in France and Belgium, and soon turned to a maniac to help getting even more crazy.

Ever since 1792, the greatest enemy of plutocracy is not plutocracy, German or not, but the French Revolution. In 1815, at Waterloo, France was partly dismembered, losing parts of Gaul (otherwise France would be a 100 million superpower now; instead a French pilot from Airbus had to content himself today with traversing the channel in an electric plane; Airbus plans hybrid electric jetliners soon).

Besides the necessity to keep the French Revolution down, Germany could be made into a plutocratic province of Anglo-Saxon plutocracy… As it was. Such facts put plutocracy in a bad light, and are certainly not official historical analysis.

French leaders expected Germany to try to destroy the French Republic again within 20 years. As happened.

So the question arises naturally. Why, if the Germans were so keen to make another world war, did they not learn from their mistakes? The question surfaces all over. Here is a short one:

Why did Germany lose WWII?

This is a short compendium of well-known reasons. It is entirely correct, yet entirely silly.

Its main argument is that Germany did not have the economic capability to take on the UK, the USA, and the USSR.

Yes, true: but how did it get to that? In, say, 1935, 1936, Nazi Germany was de facto, or formally allied to Great Britain (with a formal treaty in 1935), the USA (massive investor and even monopolist in the Dritte Reich), and the USSR (the secret alliance between Germany and the Bolsheviks, dating from 1916 was made official in 1939).

The other two reasons given are second, or third order (not false, but secondary, consequential to much more important reasons).

One should not forget everything really important, such as history, computing, intelligence…

Where to start in exposing why Germany lost World War Two? First of all because Germany was perverted by an abominable mentality.

France Then, Greece Now?

France Then, Greece Now?

The Nazis used to point out that France started World War Two. Indeed, sort of:

***

Nazi Germany lost the so-called Second World War because the French Republic declared war to Hitler on September 3, 1939, while dragging Great Britain into the conflict.

It required guts on the part of the French. When the French Republic declared war, Hitler was allied to Stalin, Mussolini, the Japanese fascists, and not least, a giant panoply of plutocrats from the USA who made sure Congress did as they wanted.

American plutocrats provided the Nazi dictator with an entire economy, not just enough weapons to kill an estimated 10,000 opponents in 1932. American plutocrats provided Hitler with advanced secret technology, such as how to make synthetic oil (Exxon, then under another name) and computers (IBM: did not change names, just covered up the story), and near infinite financing: Prescott Bush, grandfather of W. Bush managed the most important Nazi war industry, American Silesian. And so on. Books on all of this are given the very cold shoulder by (plutocratically financed) universities of the USA.

Hitler had no oil, at all. But Texas, and, in particular, Texaco, had plenty, and so did the USSR. They sold it to Hitler.

Without American plutocratic corporations input, Hitler could not have driven one single mile inside France.

Nazi computers? The IBM corporation of the USA had been given the monopoly of computing inside the Reich. The vaunted Nazi organization was all managed from New York (starting in 1942, after Hitler had declared war to the USA, said detailed management went on, but passed through Geneva).

Hitler wanted a world war, but he knew he was not ready. He had 1,000 medium tanks (although he got another 1,000 from Czechoslovakia). France had more than 3,000 tanks, most of them heavy, or superior to German tanks. (Let alone the UK’s two armored divisions.)

Hitler knew he was not going to be ready before 1945, just to confront France and Britain (supposing those two did not arm themselves even more!).  By 1945, the new German weapons would have been massively produced (jet fighters and bombers, anti-aircraft rockets, aircraft carriers, new silent submarines, mass production of Panther and Tiger tanks, etc.)

The French knew all of this. They could see Hitler had constituted ten armored (“Panzer”) divisions (the French had seven armored division, and three super heavy, unstoppable armored divisions). By declaring war on September 3, 1939, France short-circuited all of Hitler’s strategy.

France Bet All In Opposing Hitler. Roosevelt Had Pledged To Help, But He Lied. More Than 50 Million Europeans Died, USA Prospered

France Bet All In Opposing Hitler. Roosevelt Had Pledged To Help, But He Lied. More Than 50 Million Europeans Died, USA Prospered

By the time Hitler attacked the USSR, the campaigns against Poland, France and Crete, and the defeat suffered in Norway at the hands of the French Foreign Legion, had cost Hitler the death, or “disappearance” of no less than 150,000 of his most fanatical soldiers, and the Wehrmacht was actually less powerful than when it attacked France.

The Luftwaffe (Nazi Air Force) had lost more than 4,000 planes, and thousands of its best pilots. By December 1940… Between the battles of France and the Battle of Britain…

Not only this, but because the Nazis were forced to mass produce existing equipment, they could not develop, and mass produce, new weapons. By the Battle Of Brody (June 1941), the Germans discovered that the new Soviet T34 tank was nearly as impervious to their weapons, as heavy French tanks had proven, a year earlier (one heavy French tank had taken 400 hits before being destroyed).

And so on. The Brits broke German codes very often, all too often. For example, British intelligence was even able to warn the USSR about the detailed Nazi attack plan at Kursk in 1943. Kursk was the last ditch Nazi effort: failing it meant failing the war in the East; it failed, because the Soviets mysteriously anticipated all German moves. Thus the greatest tank battle ever was lost, and after that the Nazi empire was just a fat, obese, soft belly facing Stalin’s 600 divisions.

Stalin counter-attacked at Moscow in December 1941 because his spy Jorge, and others, who had told him in advance that Japan would attack the USA (instead of attacking the USSR). That allowed Stalin to put the entire Siberian Army on trains, and bring it to the front around Moscow.

Nazi Germany lost, because France and Britain surprised it by daring to attack Nazi Germany and its allies, the USSR, and American plutocracy in September 1939. As a devastated Hitler said with insane fury to his collaborators on September 3, 1939, after receiving the Franco-British declaration of war, and watching Berlin silently for ten minutes: “NOW WHAT?”

Goering mumbled: “If we lose this war, God help us.”

Indeed. The Americans, not amused by Nazi war crimes, hanged very slowly (around twenty minutes, or more), some of the top Nazis. (They claimed disingenuously that it was all accidental.)

A year later, a year after France (and Britain) declared war, the war was lost. Just like Napoleon, and for the exact same reason, Hitler could not cross the channel: the First French army, making a circle of steel and fire, had allowed the entire British army to escape at Dunkirk.

Hitler had to secretly prepare to attack his Soviet ally. As he explained to 10,000 Nazi Generals, there was no choice: Britain could not be defeated. The Nazis had to crush the USSR before Stalin understood that.

An attack was planned in mid-Spring 1941, to make sure Moscow would fall before the following winter. However his ally Mussolini had a mind of his own. After being severely defeated by the French in June 1940, he was anxious for revenge, and virile behavior worthy of his alleged ancestors. The Italian buffoon gave an ultimatum to Greece, invaded, and was promptly defeated by the Greeks.

That was a serious problem: with an hostile, British (and Free French) allied Yugoslavia and Greece to the south, Hitler was in danger of a British (and French) counterattack to the south. So Hitler attacked Yugoslavia and Greece. while the British rushed to the rescue. The Nazis could not swim tio Crete, so they flew all their paratroops. They won, after severe losses. In the end, the attack of Russia was differed by six weeks. And it’s a significantly diminished German army which attacked.

The battle of France had been lost for a number of factors, most of them accidental (several unlikely accidents together, at the same time, brought a catastrophe).

So why did Germany lost World War Two? What was the fundamental cause?

Because the French Republic attacked in a timely manner.

Patrice Ayme’

Morality Is Contagious: Draco, Nazism, USA CEOs

May 16, 2015

Brains learn, that is, become, the examples they see, hear, feel. What brains are exposed to is what they become. So what we decide to be exposed to, or engaged in, is itself a moral choice. [For the meat of this essay, my opinion, see the second part.]

This is in particular true for morality. The word “moral” was coined by the lawyer, Consul, “new man”, progressive, and philosopher Cicero. Cicero was looking for a word originating from Latin that would adequately translate the Greek “Ethikos”. That latter word, in turn related to ethos, the disposition, habitual character, ‘genius’ of a people. So Cicero went for “moris” genitive of mos (same meaning as the Greek ethos; mos is related to a Proto-Indo-European mood, mode, Mut (German for courage), etc.).

Here is an example of a recent degradation of morality:

We Are Headed Back To Middle-Age Inequality, Led By USA CEOs

We Are Headed Back To Middle-Age Inequality, Led By USA CEOs

[Economics Nobel Prize] Paul Krugman relates in “Broken Windows And American Oligarchy” how Chief Executive Officers’ drive to grabbing all the money for themselves, may have come from watching American football stars earn enormous compensation for euphorically bashing their brains in public, while on drugs, wearing pantyhose.

I have long thought, for decades, that it is literally immoral to watch American football (and I liberally despise those who do; this includes family members tight with Obama, I want them to know, lest they are too comfortable).

Instead of re-iterating my venom about this American football horror, complete with latent homosexuality in denial, drug abuse, couch potato spirit, and money for doing nothing good, and everything bad, let me I highly recommend Krugman’s little essay. Let me quote him:

….”it’s all the fault of Monday Night Football.

[A business man’s] story went like this: when games started being televised, the financial rewards to winning teams shot up, and star players began being offered big salaries. And CEOs, who watch a lot of football, noticed — and started saying to themselves, “Why not me?” If salaries were set in any kind of competitive marketplace, that wouldn’t have mattered, but they aren’t — CEOs appoint the committees that decide how much they’re worth, and are restrained only by norms about what seems like too much. Football, so my conversation partner averred, started the breakdown of those norms, and we were off to the races.

By the way, the timing is about right.”

I am happy to see that my psycho interpretation of history is gaining ground. No, ladies and gentlemen, please do not believe that your everyday little activities, down to drinking beer, do not have to do with your highest ideas.

Napoleon, rightly, pointed out that an army marched on its stomach, and Nietzsche, that one thought, with one stomach (something rediscovered by 28 year old Giulia Enders, whom TV networks love to show in detail how pretty she is; she sold already more than one million of her book on the stomach… “with charm).

Krugman was encouraged, he says, by an “interesting post by Vera te Velde on tests of the “broken windows” theory, which says that people are more likely to break social norms if they see other people violating norms, even if there’s no direct connection — you grab handbags if you see graffiti, you litter if you hear people ignoring noise ordinances, etc.. As she notes, there is now overwhelming experimental evidence for that theory. So it’s not crazy to think that CEOs might start violating pay norms because they see quarterbacks getting big checks.”

It helps that Vera is a fellow economist, thus honorable (and same observation as with Giulia). I sent the following comment which Krugman published within minutes (Krugman was in Oxford at the time):

***

ONE IS EITHER MORAL, OR ONE IS NOT SO:

At least, this is what the Ancient Greeks and Romans thought. The very idea of morals recognizes that lack thereof will lead to the contagion of immorality. Thus that immorality propagates like a plague has been recognized for more than 26 centuries. Then the Athenian legislator Draco set-up a legal system which punished most offenses (such as stealing a cabbage) with the death penalty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(lawgiver)

The notion can be fruitfully used today: minor offenders can be arrested and their DNA can be documented. As big offenders tend to start as small offenders (that’s the point when they become immoral), as they commit a big crime, their DNA collected during their previous small crime will often allow to identify them. Hence the increasingly fast and accurate detection of big crimes nowadays. This is discouraging for would-be big time criminals, so the big time crime rate is plummeting.

However, internationally the effect can play the other way: when states see that aggression by other states is not punished, that immoral behavior is in plain sight, and nobody does anything about it, then immoral states so far rather innocuous tend to join in mayhem. This is why, in the 1930s, war and bad actions by states spread around the planet in a few years.

In the same spirit, the Nazis executed 200,000 handicapped people, starting in October 1939. The idea was not just to see if they could get away with it, but also to habituate the population to general moral depredation: their cooperation would be needed when millions were to be assassinated at their doorstep (an extermination camp such as Dachau was in Munich’s suburbs, and so were many camps next to urban areas; there was an astounding 20,000 Nazi concentration and extermination camps!).

More generally this is why one war does not generally happen alone, and why tolerated international abuse tend to lead to apparently unrelated wars in the same time frame.

Hence a war such as the one in Syria has a general deleterious moral effect for all those who hear about it, or watch it, and learn to tolerate it.

It is no coincidence that Putin decided to invade Ukraine after he saw his domestiques in England saw nothing wrong with their investor, Bachar El Assad, and Obama called off the Franco-American strike against Syria with minutes to spare.

***

IF YOU WANT TO AVOID WAR, EXHIBIT A HIGHER MORALITY:

The lessons of 1930s is that imperial racist aggressions from fascists in Italy, Germany, Japan (and also the USSR, and a few other smaller powers) would not have been allowed to propagate, if Great Britain and the USA had stood with France. Instead, they stood with Hitler, and Mussolini (through various treaties, and investment, combined with an anti-French attitude). Seeing this, the Japanese high command, and Stalin, felt much encouraged (and secondary fascists in Eastern Europe, Portugal, and Spain).

Thus, right now, it is important for democracy to bark in a timely manner. And to show some bite. The fascists of the 1930s really believed (headed by Hitler) that democracy was weak. That impression ought to be dispelled in a timely manner. Lest we want mayhem.

Those who want a better morality long towards love, conversation. Due to their will to goodness, they tend to forget that all which exists is the result of force. The kindest type of force is debate (from the Thirteenth Century French debatre, to beat completely).

However, morality is always imposed by force. Cicero himself, as a Consul, came to that conclusion. In the aftermath of the Second Catilinarian Conspiracy, Cicero, unfortunately (?) executed the five main conspirators without due process. Later, before and after Caesar’s assassination, Cicero tried to use force for the best, in his attempt to save the Republic. First supporting Caesar, and, then, as the most Senior Senator Octavian (against the much more fascist Marc-Antony).

Marcus Antonius had Cicero’s hands and head nailed on the Rostra, for all to see. After Marcus Antonius’ wife had repeatedly stabbed Cicero’s tongue with an hair pin, to extract vengeance from his power of speech.

After such horrors, the path was paved for 2,000 years of plutocracy, and the rise of American football, and how it impresses weak minds, and made greed into the only morality worth having. Meanwhile, just as impressed, by this generalizing degeneracy of morals, the North Korean dictator is piling as many nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles as he can, while the USA president plays golf, and obsesses about free trade for his wealthy friends.

This requires discipline. So the dictator fed his uncle, who had put him in power, to dogs (some say it is not true; official pictures, though, show that the uncle was definitively not happy, humiliated and uncooperative). Now the young, “Western educated“,  dictator, has been betrayed by the lack of respect of his Defense Minister, and he, as dozens of other North Korean officials, was executed (possibly with anti-aircraft guns, in the presence of many officials).

In such a moral ambiance, who can doubt that the present North Korean dictator will not order the execution of whoever, even millions, perceived to be in his way?

As examples teach, and create minds, one should not forget that plutocracy inside the West causes much more vicious plutocracy out there. But, out there, is much capacity for mayhem, thanks to weapons of mass destruction.

Such weapons of mass destruction do not have to be gross. Canada’s just announced perfidious CO2 targets are an example of mass violence with a hopeful face. In truth, Canada, whose CO2 emissions have constantly augmented in the last few decades, is exactly giving the worst example: it will soon produce 40% of its CO2 emissions from just one province, Alberta, out of greed, producing tar sands oil.

Canada used to be a nation propounding peace. Now it propound CO2 and tar, all over the planet. Canada has become the symbol of greed and mass criminality, triumphing above reason. (And Canadians do not have the excuse of, say, Israel. With ten million square kilometers for a population smaller than Spain, Poland, or California, Canadians cannot claim to be scared and destitute.)

One should expect dictators and plutocrats to pay attention, worldwide, to Canada’s immorality, and triumph of Earth slapping greed. And to be inspired accordingly.

Patrice Ayme’

Neurons, Axons, Axioms

March 30, 2015

(Second Part of “Causality Explained”)

Axiomatic Systems Are Fragile:

Frege was one of the founders of mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. Frege wrote the Grundgesetze der Arithmetik [Basic Laws of Arithmetic], in three volumes. He published the first volume in 1894 (paying for it himself). Just before the second volume was going to press, in 1903, a young Bertrand Russell informed Frege of a dangerous contradiction, Russell’s paradox (a variant of the Cretan Liar Paradox). Frege was thrown in total confusion: a remedy he tried to apply reduced the number of objects his system could be applied to, to just ONE. Oops.

Frege was no dummy: he invented quantifiers (Second Order Logic, crucial to all of mathematics). It is just that logic can be pitiless.

If  Those Neurons Evolved Independently From Ours, Neurons Solve Thinking

If Those Neurons Evolved Independently From Ours, Neurons Solve Thinking

Neurons are (part of) the solution to the problem of thinking, a problem so deep, we cannot conceive of it. A second independent evolution of neuronicity would certainly prove that.

Truer Axiomatics Is Simpler, More Powerful:

Russell and Whitehead, colossal mathematicians and philosophers, decided to demonstrate 1 + 1 = 2. Without making “Cretan Liar” self-contradictions.

They wrote a book to do so. In the second volume, around page 200, they succeeded.

I prefer simpler axioms to get to 1 + 1 =2.

(Just define the right hand side with the left.)

It would be interesting that philsophers define what “causing” means, and what “causality” is, for us. Say with explicit examples.

I want to know what cause causes. It’s a bit like pondering what is is.

Some creatures paid as philosophers by employers know 17th century physics, something about billiards balls taught in first year undergraduate physics. (I know it well, I have taught it more than once.) Then they think they know science. All they know is Middle-Ages physics.

These first year undergraduates then to explain the entire world with the nail and hammer they know so well.

They never made it to Statistical Mechanics, Thermodynamics, etc. And the associated “Causality” of these realms of knowledge.

***

Axiomatics Of Causality With The Quantum:

How does “causality” work in the Quantum Mechanics we have?

You consider an experiment, analyze its eigenstates, set-up the corresponding Hilbert space, and then compute.

“Billiard Balls” is what seems to happen when the associated De Broglie wave has such high frequency that the eigenstates seem continuous.

So Classical Mechanical “causality” is an asymptote.

***

Know How To Dream… To Bring Up New Axiomatics

Human beings communicate digitally (words and their letters or ideograms), and through programs (aka languages, including logic and mathematics).

All of this used conventions, “rules”, truths I call axioms, to simplify… the language (this is not traditional, as many of these axioms have had names for 25 centuries).

So for example, I view the “modus ponens” (if P implies Q and P happens, then Q) as an axiom (instead of just a “logical form” or “rule of inference”).

The reason to call basic “logic forms” “axioms” is that they are more fragile than they look. One can do with, or without them. All sorts of non-classical logics do without the “excluded third law” (for example fuzzy set theory).

With such a semantic, one realizes that all great advances in understanding have to do with setting up more appropriate axioms.

***

Buridan’s Revolution, Or An Axiomatics Revolution:

In the Fourteenth Century, the intellectual movement launched by Buridan, included Oresme and the Oxford Calculators. They discovered inertia, momentum (“impetus”), graphs, the law of falling bodies, the heliocentric system (undistinguishable from the geocentric system, said Buridan, but we may as well stick to the latter, as it is in Scripture, said Buridan, wryly).

Buridan’s revolution is little known. But was no accident: Buridan refused to become a theologian, he stuck to the faculty of arts (so Buridan did not have to waste time in sterile debates with god cretins… differently from nearly all intellectuals of the time). Much of Buridan is still in untranslated Medieval Latin, that may explain it, after centuries of Catholic war against him.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jean_Buridan.aspx

These breakthroughs were major, and consisted in a number of new axioms (now often attributed to Galileo, Descartes, Newton). The axioms had a tremendous psychological effect. At the time, Buridan, adviser to no less than four Kings, head of the University of Paris, was untouchable.

The philosopher cum mathematician, physicist and politician, died in 1360. In 1473, the pope and king Louis XI conspired to try to stop the blossoming Renaissance.

More than a century after his death, Buridan’s works, his new axioms, were made unlawful to read. (However Buridan was mandatory reading in Cracow, and Copernic re-published the work, as soon as he was safely ensconced within the safety of his death bed).

The mind, the brain, is quite fuzzy (in the sense of fuzzy set theory; the dreaming part; think of dendrites, prominences within synapses, starfish-like astrocytes, neurotransmitters, etc.). Axioms, and axons enable to code it digitally. So mathematization, and programmation are intrinsic human mental activities.

***

We Are All Theoretical Scientists Of The Mathematical Type:

Human beings continually draw consequences from the axioms they have, through the intermediary of giant systems of thought, and systems of mood (mentality for short).

When reality comes to drastically contradict expected consequences, mentality is modified, typically in the easiest way, with what I call an ANTI-IDEA.

For example when a number of physics Nobel laureates (Lenard, Stark) were anxious to rise in the Nazi Party, they had to reconcile the supposed inferiority of the Jews with the fact that Einstein was a Jew. They could not admit either that Poincare’ invented Relativity, as he was also of the most hated nation (and of the most anti-German fascism family in France!).

So they simply claimed that it was all “Jewish Science” (this way they did not have to wax lyrically about why they had collaborated with Einstein before anti-Judaism).

When brute force anti-ideas don’t work after all (as became clear to Germans in 1945), then a full re-organization of the axiomatics is in order.

An example, as I said, is fuzzy set theory. It violates the Excluded-Third Law.

But sometimes the reconsideration may be temporary. (Whether A and Non-A holds in the LOGIC of Quantum Mechanics, the Einstein-Schrodinger Cat, is a matter of heated debate.)

***

 Quantum Logic:,Both In & Out Of This World:

The removal of old logical axioms can be definitive. For example the Distributive Law of Propositional Calculus fails in Quantum Logic. That has to do with the Uncertainty Principle, a wave effect that would be etched in stone, were it not even more fundamental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

***

Verdict? Neurons, Axons, And Axioms Make One System:

We have been playing with axioms for millions of years: they reflect the hierarchical, axon dominated, neuron originated most basic structure of the nervous system.

Why?

Well, the neuronal-axonal skeleton of minds is probably the lowest energy solution to the problem of thinking in the appropriate space. It has just been proposed neurons evolved twice:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150325-did-neurons-evolve-twice/

We do not just think axiomatically, but we certainly communicate axiomatically, even with ourselves. And the axiomatics are dynamical. Thus causes learn to fit effects.

The fact this work is subjective, in part, does not mean it does not have to do with nature. Just the opposite: causality is nature answering the call of nature, with a flourish.

Human mentality is a continual dialogue between nature inside (Claude Bernard) and nature outside.

Changing axioms is hard work: it involves brain re-wiring. Not just connecting different neurons, but also probably modifying them inside.

Mathematicians have plenty of occasions to ponder what a proof (thus an explanation) is. The situation is worse than ever, with immense proofs only the author gets (Fermat’s Last Theorem was just an appetizer), or then computer-assisted proofs (nobody can check what happened, and it’s going to get worse with full Quantum Computers).

Not all and any reasoning is made to be understood by everybody. (Mathematicians have to use alien math they don’t really understand, quite often.)

Yes, thinking is hard. And not always nice. But somebody has to do it. Just remember this essence, when trying to communicate with the stars: hard, and not always nice.

Patrice Ayme’

Islamist State Phobia Is Civilized

December 21, 2014

Two police officers assassinated in New York, just because they sat in their cars, in uniform. The assassin had expressed his plan on the Internet (“They killed one of us, we will kill two of them”).

Simultaneously, in Tours, France, where the second invasion of France by the Islamist State was stopped in 732 CE, an agitated youth screaming “Alluha Akbar” entered a police station and stabbed gravely two officers. A third, also stabbed, shot four times, and killed the assailant, who found out that bullets are greater than his god.

The next day, a driver in djellaba, screaming “Alluha Akbar” plowed into French crowds, in four places of the city of Dijon, injuring thirteen, some grievously. He was arrested, his passengers fled. A similar attack happened in Nantes the day after into a Christmas, making eleven wounded, including 5 grievously.

In case people don’t know, these attacks are recommended by the Islamist State.

Civilization is about systems of thought. Civilization progresses in power and understanding, as it elaborates more and more sophisticated systems of thought.
What about old systems of thought, like, say, the Bible?

There are sick, demented, obsolete, idiotic, wrong, criminal, systems of thought. Actually, pretty much any system of thought practiced anywhere to guide any society, anywhere, more than a few centuries ago, is sick, demented, obsolete, idiotic, wrong and criminal.

So is the case of the original Christianism. Rabbi Jesus said that he “did not come to contradict the Law“. The Law, the Old Testament, approves of God torturing to death King David’s son, because David had refused to make a genocide that God had ordered.

The Fundamental Principle of the Abrahamic religions is that, whenever “God” (whatever that is), or when you feel that “God”, is ordering you to bind up your son, and slit his throat, it is immoral to object.

In other words, the fundamental principle of Abrahamism is that criminal insanity of the worst type (slitting the throat of an innocent, bound child, say) is of the essence, whenever “God” orders you to.

To this day the throat of animals is cut while they are fully conscious, by the Muslims, to celebrate the idea that Abraham was going to cut the throat of his live and conscious son. And meat can only be consumed, which was killed that way (does that mean Abraham was a cannibal? The mind reels with intriguing possibilities; in a slightly more distant past, cannibalism was ubiquitous; it went on, on a massive scale, in Pacific Islands, until the Nineteenth Century; just ask the ominously named Captain Cook, who got cooked, indeed).

Abrahamic religions are as violent as one can get. What is more violent, indeed, than celebrating the will to slit the throat of one’s bound, yet, conscious son? I am just asking a question, please don’t get offended, oh, you, primitives. We respect you, and especially in light of your obsession with throat slitting.

Does it really matter what the Abrahamists say to justify their will to slit children’s throats? Do they say anything? They say they have to obey “The Lord”.

This is an obvious reasoning to hold, if one comes from non-Abrahamist background, say, from a Zoroastrian background (much older by at least a millennium than Judaism; thrice the age of Islam). To counter this sort of critique, the Islamists call Yazidis “Devil Worshippers”, and have engaged in their systematic genocide.

Nobody in the West takes the calls to violence, or violent indifference, of Jesus Christ, Saint Louis, or Saint Thomas seriously anymore. Nobody is advocating anymore the hatred for Jews that Martin Luther advocated, and the indefinite torture of Jewish families he depicted with relish. Hitler’s bold endeavor to do as Luther said, brought universal condemnation.

The case of Islam is similar to that of the raw Bible. Within the 83,000 words of the Qur’an, the following compilation found around 10,000 words of calls to violence, some of it of the worst type. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

Nazism was clearly a criminal system of thought. Its Bible, “Mein Kampf”, however lethal it proved to be, and full of lies, including the apology of lying itself (which is also found in the Qur’an), is, on the face of it, much less violent. “Mein Kampf” does not have explicit death threats, whereas the Qur’an (like the New Testament) has them (and crawls with dozens of them, differently from the NT).

Around 400 CE, the Founding Fathers of the Christian Church got together, and decided that the Bible was allegorical, metaphorical, not to be taken literally. The Caliph, in 850 CE took the exact opposite decision. Ever since, what used to be the world’s most advanced region, has got ever more degenerate.

And now in the West, while being a bigot was an insult philosophers used to hurl at Christians, Politically Correct naïve and dishonest pseudo-intellectuals, accuse free thinkers of bigotry, when they suffer from so-called “Islamophobia“. It is the world upside down, the inversion of all values.

Imagine a free thinker from the Enlightenment accused of “Christianophobia”. She, or he, would have laughed to no end, pointing out that was the whole point. Voltaire used Islamophobia against Christianism in his “Mahomet”. This theater was played in Europe, 250 years ago. Now, it is forbidden, even where it was written, Switzerland.

Enlightenment has turned to darkness, in all too many minds. Do the Islamophiles want to turn the West into Afghanistan? Or back to Saint Louis’ Middle Ages, with that holy Christian writing how much he would love to stab unbelievers in the belly?

The Crusade against the Albigienses (=Cathars) killed, officially, one million, the victorious Christians said.

Cathars were exterminated to the last, all their books destroyed. And this Crusade, the most murderous of them all, happened in France, under the order of the Pope and his mass murdering, genocidal associates. To this day, monsters such as Saint Louis, or Thomas, or Luther, are admired, yet, their ideas, once implemented, killed millions and terrorized the West for six centuries.

Such was the second genocidal eruption of Christianism. The first one had put an end to the Roman state (reconstituted by the Franks later, under a tolerant, secular LEX).

Many underestimate the horror that Christianism, the founder of Islamism. Why? Because “The Lord” is right. “The Lord” being the plutocrat in chief, and his subordinates, those who decide what one should believe in.

On the same matter of principle, horrors of Islam are underestimated.

Why is “The Lord” so anxious about us admiring Islam?

We got rid of Islamism Senior (= Christianism). Is it not racist that people in the Middle East ought to be living under a criminal system of thought, whereas we can do without?

A system of thought saying the following is indeed criminal:

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

There are hundreds more verses like that in the Qur’an, and some are even worse, as they describe horrific tortures in details (making unbelievers swallow molten metal, or skinning them alive, etc…).

Why do authorities such as “The Economist” censor the Qur’an? It is an educative story by itself.

And it proves my point: plutocrats in the West use respect for Islam as a way to subjugate the Natives (and extract their oil). Subjugation by decerebration: the ultimate.

Our civilization is not Christian. It’s much older, much wiser, knowledgeable, charitable and tolerant than that. Let’s extent the courtesy of civilization to other peoples, instead of encouraging their minds to live in a small superstitious jail.

Patrice Ayme’