Wednesday, October 10, 2012



We are always translating the unfamiliar into the familiar, we are always trying to explain, when the explanation is just the attempt to construct something familiar, something we can relate to, something that we can decode and understand in our language and mind and according to the repetitive patterns that we are used to but especially according to the repetitive patterns our neural circuits in our mind have created over the years, the library of repetitive patterns that then become what is reasonable, what is logical and correct but only because we already know them, we already understand them, really we already understand ourselves, our own paintings and pictures of reality, our own constructions that should always match reality. But that is the mistake: we take it for granted that our constructions are really the outside reality, are really the truth, we take ourselves as some kind of absolute observer that is the measure of all things, that has the language and logic and decodings available to explain everything and anything: but a funny thing happens, this is exactly true and is exactly what we do since whatever we see, whatever the phenomena, whatever the experimental results we get, we will always be able to interpret them in our reference systems, we will always be able to decode them no matter what, we will always create a model no matter what, since even if we only had 2 bits available to decode the world and anything, we would just map whatever we see into the only two bits we always have anyways and by doing this we will always explain it anyways, we actually explain things even before they are explained, we create the understanding and explanation even before we choose what sequence of symbols and what combination of words, elements, formulas we will use to explain something from the outset, from the beginning, even before the research is performed since everything will have to end up being positioned in our grids anyways, we can always force anything to be in any position in our grids and then exclaim that it has been explained. We think of ourselves as some kind of master independence unit from reality, as some kind of abstract absolute reference mind looking into the universe from the outside of it, as we are looking at it from outside of it, from some abstract absolute reference point just like god when in all truth we are simply always looking at ourselves, at our own mind, at are own decodings and languages and neural circuits and how they are always interacting with the flow of signals and symbols coming from the outside independent world, independent from us and our control, as everything really is based on this independence of one thing compared to another, as something not under the control of something else, etc.

Case in point, in quantum physics we cannot exactly pinpoint down how electrons behave, so we just assign them a combination of properties and a combination of words and concepts to make them appear familiar, to make them seem reasonable and logical, and this can be done in an infinite number of ways, but we choose a simple model by saying that the electron is both a wave and a particle and can be in two points at the same time, end of story. We explained it, we now know it, we have conquered it but what we really did is just translate a series of events and experiments and functions into something that sounds reasonable and sounds right and is comforting and is similar to all of the many other repetitive patterns in the library of repetitive patterns already present in our mind. Maybe we could have said that the electron is not moving and is not still but is in some other state, but still the explanation is always an attempt at relating it to something we can somehow grasp, but maybe there really are no explanations, there really is no sequence of ideas and symbols and concepts that explain what happens at the elementary particle level, but since we think of ourselves as an absolute reference system observer who thinks he must know and will know everything, some explanation will always be found. But what should always be said is that the explanation found and the science created and the knowledge obtained is always relative, since it is always based on an arbitrarily designed observer, since it is always based on a quirky observer that is the exact contradiction of anything general or absolute, nay, the observer is only ever a complex ensemble of completely random quirky units and elements and items without any absolute value and with just some repetitive patterns inside of itself amongst a sea of non repetitive random and chaotic events and signals.

So then, even if we had only two concepts on our mind, a hammer and a nail, we can translate and explain everything according to these two concepts anyways, the electron is the nail the forces is the hammer, everything is a hammer for a nail, everything is a nail for a hammer, everything we explain will always be familiar, or even unfamiliar, it doesn't matter, we will always find a combination of symbols, and words and concepts that we will always find to describe and explain and predict what will happen.

But we are simply inventing the explanations always, we are simply translating a series of inputs into something we can recognize and understand and then manipulate in our mind and find the correspondence between the manipulations in our mind and the events we are observing, we can always find a one to one correlation between a sequence of symbols and a sequence of events (translating the events, the signals, the observations into a description, a language, a mathematical formula and anything else in which we are comfortable working with in the comfort of our mind that has abstracted away reality and matter and created a simpler information set and information relationships between elements and seeing how much reality obeys our decodings) and most important of all, exactly if and when we cannot find a correlation we will simply invent one, we will design a new correlation which is the easiest thing you can do and affirm that as the new truth, as a new truth amongst an infinite number of truths since there are an infinite number of combinations of sequences you can associate with anything else, any reality, any observations and experiments and such.

So the conclusion of all of this is that we are really always simply talking to ourselves no matter what, we simply decode any signals and external realities into our concepts and categories, so reality is simply how the Observer is designed and what concepts and deocdings and mechanisms the Observer has in his mind, and scientific research is always just the process of creating as close of a one to one correspondence between what we observer and experiments and our concepts and decoding.

But as you can see, there is no real absolute reference system in all of this, just an observer modeling the world according to how he is designed and how the signals of the world interact with him, any other design of an observer will create completely different modelings of a world, completely different universes, a completely different reality.

The observer and his design is the universe essentially, there really is no outside universe, it is the observer that is really the measure of all things, but the observer fools himself into thinking that his measurement is some kind of absolute measurement of reality, is in a vacuum, is outside of reality, when in all truth, the observer is the reality itself, the observer is creating his own reality always, but is always subject to the play of independent outside forces (and there are also independent inside forces) that force him to further decode and further measure that which cannot be measured at all since all events in the end are random and casual and are without any decodings until some observer decides to decode them and fix them in a library of concepts.

One area where we clearly see that our grids and decodings and explanations will never map onto reality is in the social and economic sciences: no matter how hard we try to manipulate and predict and model the economy or social phenomena we never achieve any possible progress at all since things will always go their own way, randomly, chaotically no matter what, we will always have the same "problems" over and over again no matter what: and this is because the independence and conflicts of the actors between themselves in these systems cannot be decoded into a linear logic, into a simple coherent cause and effect mechanism since there is no cause and effects, just so many independent actors fighting each other over and over again for any reason at all, especially for no reasons at all, always changing the configuration of the social and economic systems always creating winners and losers and problems for the losers and solutions for the winners and losers want to find solutions that are not and will never be there because the only solution is to fight back and become a winner and defeat the previous winner end of story. And yet politicans, sociologists economists philosophers keep on fooling themselves and everyone that they have the correct decodings, the correct interpretations, the correct linear logic and discourse and explanations about something which is totally outside of any of this since it is not even a system, a coherent system, it is not even an entity, just millions of wild and random play of forces interacting and going nowhere at all.

And yet all of the grand explanations seem always so scientific, everyone accepts them as a possible truth, Marx theory, or the Adam Smith theory of economies or Freud theories of psychology and on and on when these are all just simply inventions, one to one correspondences with imaginary abstract mental models that think the thing they are modeling is a coherent entity.

And notice how the emphasis is more and more on social conflicts, lawyers, software, apps and the applications of technologies that are simply talking to themselves, computers are units that are a language system of an external mind talking to itself always, a closed system, science is going in the direction of creating ever more artificial language and social based entities and further away from interacting directly with matter in a sense: we used to play with transistors and oscilloscopes confronting ourselves with the independence of matter from us, now we play with apps which are totally social constructions, we prefer to talk to ourselves (or others, which is the same thing) instead of talking to matter directly and measuring and interacting with analog circuits and transistors and oscilloscopes and such, everything is software now, everything is even being put more and more into language systems and decodings and even before you can interact with it. Hence just skipping it all and creating new brain designs and minds and wild wicked new neural circuits is the only way to go forward anymore, all else is expired, done with, we must now crack open skulls and throw wild signals and chemicals inside of them, like crazy, like free jazz and free physics.

So then manipulating and creating new Mind designs, new brain designs is scientific and correct, is real progress, we need to produce planet sized brains full of particle accelerators criss crossing, and exploding them and throwing atom bombs in this planet sized brain and trillions of computer and events and signals happening in this planet sized (or maybe even an atom sized brain ? a microbrain ?) brain and live through all of the experiences, the wild and wicked experiences such a brain could undergo and express....

12-21-2012 12:1212121212 .... pm THE END IS NEAR

No comments:

Post a Comment