NIKON D90
ƒ/2.8
50 mm
1/60
640
These photos just in from Moscow, where I spoke earlier this week. (video)
75 responses to “Digital October”
-
Nice to see your name in Russian, cute… not able to open the video:)
started appreciating social media more recently – this week is "white revolution" or "snowy revolution " or "twitter-facebook revolution" in Moscow…would not happen without social media:)
it is a sister of Estonian singing revolution (my hope) and
humor is leading the way:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena/6472683097/in/photostream] -
Found your presentation extremely interesting to say the least. I’ve long had a general sense of the ever increasing rate of innovation or "the ripening of ideas" but it was always tempered by the thought that this was confined to technological innovation or that this was even a sort of nostalgia common to every generation.
I think it’s well understood that opportunity thrives on technological disruption (necessity has long been the mother of invention). What surprises me is that the rate of innovation appears to increase irrespective of macroeconomic or geopolitical upheaval.
In an age where the only constant is change and grace in transition is one of life’s most important lessons it’s reassuring to see disruptive technological change as opportunity, or as the arc of history bending inexorably toward a second renaissance…
Of course with the benefit of hindsight another generation 100 years from now is likely to say ‘the trend was clear, how could it have been otherwise?’ Very impressive.
-
Still have a hard time connecting to the server… interesting that your speech was in Moscow last week right in the mist of "snowy revolution": there are two worlds in Russia now – old world which is watching TV – zombiland (love Parfenov speech, sorry it is in Russian: here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXteOAtSwc&feature=player_em...) – funny he used my favorite "zombiland" expression too… and brave new world with new technologies, light from Silicon Valley, people do not listen to incredibly stupid TV channels praising Putin any more, use internet, videos and social media and express a strong sentiment in recent political uprising (largest since 1917) – we had it with Putin. Putin’s recent “man of action” statement is called nothing else but “pornography” and people started running out of nice polite words and use very strong expressions when it comes to that. Really technological and digital divide is amazing in this case.
-
Russia always suffers worse than other large countries. But the world needs Russia, a nation of poets and musicians and lovers. In the new year of 2012 I will try to create Душка — a JavaScript artificial intelligence in Russian. – Артур Артурович
-
Awesome talk. Wondered many times if the audience was really getting what you were saying, and also, if they actually understood the magnitude of having the chance to assist to a talk given by you… Maybe russians are not very demonstrative? But on the other hand, I perceived you so very comfortable, and there was a many additions to this talk (compared to other talks) that made this excelent. Will share.
BTW, I downloaded the video, no problems with it. 240mb.
-
I might try a different computer for this video … fun to brainstorm, might come up with more thoughts.
recent events in Russia are one of the ordinary miracles a la Kevin Kelly, Vladimir Vernadsky and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin – evolving “noosphera” –
aminotes.tumblr.com/post/9701541566/kevin-kelly-on-why-th…
There were very interesting recent developments in terms of the evolution of society itself and technology in Russia which prove some of the thoughts expressed in Steve’s video… Self-evolved social structures empowered by new technological tools and ways, created a new phenomenon of politics without politics – healthy cells are trying to fight sick cells in society and social movements evolve and force REAL leadership (journalists-heroes like Parfenov) … as it was shown during the last week protests… vs. a tyranny of government, lack of values on top and totalitarian evil corruption top-down… lack of basic civil rights, weak or non-existent law enforcement. Russians are fast learners though, there was always amazing intelligensia and formed middle class, people travel, live and get education abroad and cannot accept Putin’s political nonsense anymore. It is not humanly possible. And Silicon Valley community here has its own strong core with Russian heritage (I mean geographic area, not nationality): many gifted scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, just mention Sergey Brin… and if one take Silicon Valley as a worldwide phenomenon, not a place – there will be Nobel prize laureates and rocket scientists of Russian heritage and all this is Russian Silicon Valley as well . Ultimately, nationality itself or belonging to a particular country, nation or geo or professional group matters less than a specific mindset and set of values. Government can allocate resources for Russian Silicon Valley, buildings and money but without real values and real leadership and real protection of civil rights – it will not happen.
one more hero-blogger wants to be a president: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/11/us-russia-navalny-idUS...
it is all new to me too…Furthermore, I do not believe in physic readings:D But there is some power in human intuition and pattern recognition capabilities, and one can be trained in this area – it is a mental gymnastics of sorts.
-
I’d recommend that you download the video instead of streaming it. Rigth-Click in this link:
live.digitaloctober.ru/video/item_925_109.mp4
"Save as… / SAve Link content as…"… Let it download, it’s almost 240 mb. Not that much. You will have no problems, and you will keep it as a nice souvenir from our dear host in your computer. 😉
-
I’ve seen down here because of a TEDx talk (still not released the video), that some experiments have been made that a person with devices "glued" to their heads could instruct a machine to do something just " thinking" of it… there are many examples of this kind of thing: a man can make an artificial hand close or open with the power of thoughts (and appropriate connection)… it’s not far from telepathy, if you think about it. It’s not a question of believing in telepathy, it’s just about understanding there’s nothing metaphysical about it, it’s actually a very physical phenomenon, while we still cannot understand or measure how it works, just as much as we know that thinking is a very physical phenomenon, while we cannot yet describe in detail and measure in detail how it happens. It’s about the same thing.
I think that the guy was trying to ask a very natural question which is whether technology, being a crutch for human evolution, may be counterproductive for the real growth. It’s the same question you may ask yourself if you saw a kid with a crutch that enables him to walk, roughly, but walk nonetheless… you may wonder "will this kid ever leave the crutch, or will the crutch run over the experience, leaving the kid with the sole choice of using the crutch for walking or not walking at all?
The answer is, imo: "we don’t know, yet" and "it depends on how we internalize and use technology." If we think "technology IS the answer" we are surely going in the wrong path… but if we think : "technology is an ENABLER to a better HUMAN experience…" I think this is the way to go. Telepathy was definitely not a happy example to illustrate what the guy wanted to ask, in front of a person like Steve, BUT I admit and want to say, that I admire and I can see the effort and the progress made by Steve in order not to get raffled or disturbed with such a question (and therefore making unfortunate comments on issues like Religion and so on)… so I thought to myself: Awesome the way he handled it., and could understand the nature of the question without getting caught in the traps of wording…
😉
-
BTW, this is the BEST talk of TEDxBrussels, that worth the while of going on a train for 6 hs from Amsterdam to get there… I think there’s a lot of richness in it to share and to think about. Re worth it, watch it please (and Jurvey, I’d love to know what you think about it).
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/gi] – I have done the mind control stuff:
It is completely different from telepathy (given the weak EEG signals involved and the proximity sensors used to detect them). My negative reaction was to his claim that he could induce harm in others at a distance with his mind. We need not argue about whether telepathy, or anything supernatural, works. If anyone could prove it works, there is a $1 million prize available for them to collect. If anyone really believes they can do it, they should just collect the money. It would save a lot of wasted human energy on bogus claims and beliefs. Just point people to the prize, and boy, wouldn’t it be great if any of it was true?
-
i would separate what is natural from what is supernatural… i have no idea how to force this sort of thing into existence but experienced plenty of little coincidences which are borderline telepathy with people who are very close to me and/or extremely likeminded… i have noticed it recently with Russian events too… like it was explained when the idea is ripe – it tends to spread among like-minded people who do not even know each other… is it natural or supernatural? i think very natural… can one prove it… maybe but it has to be a set of experiments within a specific timeline, not a onetime event, at least for me… even then who knows why and when it happens and if it means anything at all… these things are hairy…
our minds will be connected… thus telepathy is the future… -
I agree with Solerena, Natural/Supernatural is good to distinguish what we are talking about.
Nice that you did the mind thing. And it’s no wonder that you cannot accept that I relate one thing with the other -telepathy-. I can imagine one day someone explaining "telepathy" just with the simple words you are describing this other process. It may happen.
However I am more interested in the enabler/disabler discussion of technology that I think the guy was posing with his very unfortunate example. (btw, I didn’t listen to that on doing harm to others at a distance… I just recall the telepathy thing).
I still think that some words still trigger very strong emotions, but it’s good to learn to not get stuck on them and be able to choose our reaction and maybe communicate ourselves in more healthy ways. It broadens the channels. I thought I saw that, and made me happy.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124348109@N01]
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/36613169@N00]
Thank you, Gisela again, finally watched all video, enjoyed it very much and learned a few new things… agree with the approach and the conceptual paradigm absolutely…. like the very core of thinking manifested in the video and also excellent presentation… a lot to learn.back to telepathy: what would be a definition of telepathy and what kind of prove were you talking about when you offered 1 million dollars? Would it be enough to prove it to you only?
my kid was asked to guess together with all other kids at school how many candy were in a jar – and she was the only one who got it right three times (three different sessions with different people and in different month), she collected all the prices to the great amazement of all other kids and teachers involved… not sure if it is a coincidence…one of many.
-
before you try to claim the prize, make sure you can repeat the experiment. Try the jar experiment at home (with at least 500 jellybeans to reduce the chance of luck). Repeat with different numbers and different sizes of jar. Getting the number spot on three times in a row would be interesting (being the closest in the class is an entirely different set of statistics).
Let’s think about a true test of telepathy. It should be pretty simple – a double blind test versus a control group, like every medical company must do to make a claim of efficacy. To isolate the power of telepathy, you can’t see or hear the other person or have any path of communication (there are way too many examples of non-verbal communication and signaling that people mistake as telepathy or mind reading; it’s what keeps the palm readers and crystal ball charlatans in business). If you can read their mind, just ask a third party to call them and ask them to write down what they were thinking about just before the call, and you do the same. They can’t know you are the one doing the experiment or that you may or may not have telepathy skills. They can’t know what the experiment is trying to prove. Do this several times, and have a third party compare the precision of your mind-reading to some other random control group person playing your part in the exact same exercise. Do you really think you’d get it right, even once?
Prove it with statistical significance and you would be the first. Many have tried.
We have all experienced empathy, and we are pattern-recognizing machines. When Venetta says "everyone has experienced some" telepathy, that should be read as everyone has thought they knew what someone else was thinking, and sometimes they were right, and sometimes they were close. We do that social modeling every day. We build those models from a series of communicated clues and sometimes we fill in the gaps and feel proud when we get it right, and perhaps the other person is surprised that we understood something important that they did not say, or perhaps were not even fully conscious of. And yes, some people are much better than this than others. It has nothing to do with telepathy, but perhaps would be the mark of a good counselor or therapist.
-
Oh, i did not see vennetaj comment prior to posting mine, funny:D we are talking about the same thing here – my thoughts are below… another tiny coincedence..
To SJ – Thank you – thought the same exact same about non-verbal communication and subtle clues… like kids can read their mom’s mind this way… half-subconscious responses… it is border-line telepathy and/or empathy… can go both ways between parents and children or other relatives. Most of human communication is non-verbal.
I will try to test the candy jar a few times like you said – this is something that can be tested easily. If she will be able to do it – get 1,000,000 ready:)
As for my own “mind reading” skills – my hypothesis for now is that it is something that happens to me and others occasionally and not something I can force into existence… at least I have never tried and not sure it is a good idea or even ethical… But did not we all had some situations when we get a phone call from some friend or relative and start talking about the same exact thing at the same time or when we are trying to call them – they are trying to call us… I even recall it happened with me a few times with one of my friends: she was from Turkey (we did not have the same native language) – we were in the same grad school… a few coincidences of this sort… but how can one prove it if one does not even know when and why it happens and if it means anything? Certain things are in the realm of probabilities and ambiguities; it seems that we have more and more of those – higher on the evolution spiral we go…
if it is something simple – like guessing a word, color, shape… I will also try to play with my kid this way first and see what happens. If anybody has any other idea, please share. -
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] – Oh right, that’s clairvoyance (which Solerena and others seem to be talking about). Projecting thoughts can be tested with a very similar method as I described. But, as often happens when faced with the scientific method, all kinds of excuses crop up when any of these bold and confident claims are put to the test. Alas. If you think about it from a mimetic perspective, the best defense of a bogus claim is have it be inherently be untestable for some reason. (Better yet, have it be rude to question it at all, as is common in religious circles). These are the ideas that persist because they are good at persisting, not because they are true.
Wikipedia has an entry on telepathy and tests of it.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] V, I was yesterday listening to a new audiobook I bought, on Objectivism, the complete philosophy of Ayn Rand… and it begins from the beginning, of course, which is defining a philosophy, and what are the axioms, the premises from which you start, and upon which you agree or don’t agree with others into further construction of thought.
She says (she didn’t write the book, but a student of her, so there are plenty of quotes from her), that if a person you are talking with doesn’t share your same axioms (like: The Existent exist and it is prior to and independent of a Consciousness (in her example)) there’s nothing else to do but to finish the conversation, because there is no way to turn it into something useful, to any exchange useful at all.
Got me thinking. And I agree. I was thinking about this (this here, this conversation and the constant difficulty we face to talk about certain topics with Steve), and I think that’s the answer, no surprise: we don’t share the same premises. For him, what cannot be measured in a scientific way doesn’t exist (or either cannot be taken seriously or into consideration of any further thought), and it can be dismissed or belittled because of not having scientific-approved-existence status. And for Steve, this is an axiom, a truth in itself, something not to be discussed or argued with. It IS. We don’t share that axiom. We believe there’s lot more in life experience that is true and that is beyond what science can and want to measure and are OK with it. We believe this because in our lives happen things of the kind. And because we don’t base our mind ‘s ability to see something as true in only what science can test or verify. We are open to a reality with multiple layers, being one of them, science and its verifiable truths. Being it "one", not "the one" or "the only one".
(Take note on the security this can bring to a mind, to set this rigid axiom of not taking as true anything but the only thing verifiable by science. It is a very secure realm for a consciousness to exist: you basically put your own natural true/false measuring mechanisms -discernment- outside yourself (religion does not do the same, actually, I wonder?)
There’s a crucial irreconcilable difference here, and therefore we will always find this exchange frustrating with Steve. And as the saying goes –and the studies on neural plasticity, thankfully can account for that being "true"–: you cannot teach an old dog new tricks… it’s very probable that within time, the difference will become greater than smaller.
I thought there has been some change, as per the video, but maybe I was too hopeful.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/gi] wise words. yup, it’s difference of approach. There is a difference between rigidity of process and rigidity of content. I do not respect rigidity of content (believing some fact to be true, despite all evidence to the contrary). I do respect rigidity of process, especially if it is recursive. In the scientific method, you have a process that is applied iteratively to discover more and more truths and to, in the most fundamental sense, make progress. (The method can be applied to itself recursively, although that happens on a very long time scale as it requires many experiments to compare results.). So if I seem rigid in thought, it’s perhaps a ruthless defense of a process of iterative improvement in the world, a defense of progress.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] – I would argue that all things do belong to science (morality is an interesting case, for example) but over very different time scales. How could they not? That does not gainsay the mystery of the world and elements of complexity that exceed human comprehension, but that does not imply that they are unknowable, that they cannot be better understood one day. To punt on the process is to invite stasis and the end of progress. It’s a retreat to the comfort zone of revealed truth, some internal mindset of complacency internally self-reinforcing without input from the outside world, like the zombies solerena described earlier. If you met a hardcore flat Earth or young Earth person or literal Creationist, you might see what I mean. It’s impossible to have a productive conversation with them about anything that touches the frozen core. It’s like speaking with a zombie.
And, no, I by no means mean to imply that it’s "stupid and naive". These clusters of thought are just a powerful cognitive virus. It’s a sickness, and science is slowly working on the cure. =)
The symptoms are mild (short of religion). It’s just a tax on our cognitive functioning, limiting our explorations, and wasting time. Consider, for example, how much energy has been spent here on a completely useless topic – useless in the sense that nothing useful will come of it, no further exploration will ensue, no telepathy practice or improvement in methods, no comparison of the artistic variants of telepathy, no telepathy among participants. Nothing but a lot of talk and perceived insults to the self, that are really insults of the virus.
Cordyceps metaphor
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124348109@N01]
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/57023099@N03]
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06]
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/gi/]Steve has mentioned in QandA section in the video that he would add 1million to the prize, so I was wondering what is the definition of telepathy – from his perspective. Actually, now I see that clairvoyance would be a more applicable term for the phenomenon vennetaj, myself and many others have experienced.
I do agree that science and technology is the solid and the only foundation of the progress. Science itself is a continuously evolving-creating-and-recreating itself entity. We are entering a new era where science becomes more of a theory of everything, interconnected, combined, interwoven unity, furthermore like Steve explained it in his videos (referencing the initial quote) we can create more than we can comprehend. The evolution of our thought process is stretching the boundaries of our imagination, creativity, not only engaging our rational, analytical, geeky mind but our whole – mind, intuition, imagination, attitude, sparkles of inspiration, mind-body and the power of collective hive mind – true emergence of noosphera. I was always fascinated by the idea of noosphera from my early college days, strangely this journey made a loop in my personal life recently with Kevin Kelly’s philosophy. We are entering the era where we will reach an in-depth understanding of our mind and find a link between our mind and the essence of the universe itself – these are my personal feelings.
Clairvoyance is one little manifestation of hive mind phenomenon. Technology follows our imagination in a way, there are so many examples when science fiction writers would come up with ideas and scientists would make it happen later on, sometimes these people were not even familiar with each other’s ideas, it is all truly amazing. The world in which we live is fascinating and there is a reason to be optimistic – we need more people who have an optimistic vision of our future – not impacted by temporally childhood sicknesses the humanity is going through right now (like it was/is in Russia and many other countries recently – US is not an exception either). Thank you, Steve for the mutual understanding regarding zombies, this one means a lot to me.As I have already mentioned Steve is one of my most favorite mentors in the valley, I love learning from him and appreciate the virtual exposure to many different topics and outstanding photography here. He has an incredible potential and I see a tremendous change in him and in this video. We are all learning and growing people, so it is what we are supposed to do. Although, he is doing his job as a venture capitalist and scientist – so Gisela and vennetaj – he is working with HIS audience: entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, other vcs and not to forget – his investors.
I can delete any of my comments; I usually do anyways, especially if they are too long. Although this particular comment I would like to keep. -
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeany7] "Please respect the people visiting this site! Thank you for your understanding"
Excuse me? I think certain conversations -like these- are being held here *way before* certain visitors arrived to the party, so if we talk respect, I would ask for respect for the people who are talking, and ultimately let the host say which is the best way to respect his place. In my understanding so far, the best way to honor this place is allowing for conversation among clever people we all are, and in an atmosphere in which nobody is disrespecting anyone else with the conversation, quite the contrary, we are exchanging and learning from one another, even in the differences, like in conversations of the kind.
I invite you to check in the Activity page, you have the chance to "silence" this conversation in case the noise is bothering you. You have seen the picture already, you can click in the video page to view the video separately. There’s nothing more to see here if you are not interested in what’s being talked about.
Thank you for your understanding.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] It’s a difference of approach, we agree on that. And it’s ok with me. And you know it. Hope it’s ok with you too.
(And, Solerena: The video was awesome and Steve was wonderful and every time I watch his interviews or talks they get incredibly better ("incredibly" is: how it can get better if it was already excellent? This discussion and the differences I was talking about does NOT have anything to do with these other thing. Steve is one of the people I most admire among my friends, who I consider a close one and among the world as a whole bunch of 7 billion people it is. My confrontation is a means of showing my deep respect, and I am deeply thankful for his openness, and this is just as much as I say how much I admire and respect him every time I can.)
Good night everybody. +++
-
Gisela, I agree…I have heard once that there are certain stages in team building: forming, storming, norming…. I guess we went through a "storming" stage prior with you and Vennetaj and not with jeany777 yet.. I had a little flickr "war" with sunflower people lately…let’s all be friends, happy holidays to all! Hope Vennetaj will be back to my photostream someday, I am almost through with Russian politics:):)
-
" I would argue that all things do belong to science (morality is an interesting case, for example) but over very different time scales. How could they not? "
Well you do have some major problems when you get to subjects like art, culture, ethics, etc. If your ideal is to subject everything to scientific scrutiny for any kind of personal values and beliefs that does get a bit difficult I think is fair to say; even more so for society and the big issues like what guides justice. For example, animal research and Vivisection offer terrific examples of where science comes into immediate conflict and breakdown with scientific ideals of what is ethical. You should be at a loss for a scientific response to this statement by Mark Twain: " I believe I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. It is so distinctly a matter of feeling with me, and is so strong and so deeply-rooted in my make and constitution, that I am sure I could not even see a vivisector vivisected with anything more than a sort of qualified satisfaction. I do not say I should not go and look on; I only mean that I should almost surely fail to get out of it the degree of contentment which it ought, of course, to be expected to furnish."
– Letter to London Anti-Vivisection Society, May 26, 1899
And then the one liner letter:
Dear Sir:
I am glad of the honor, since I have no friendly feeling toward either "sport" or vivisection.
Sincerely yours,
S. L. Clemens
Meaning there is no scientific standard that applies to these writers who have that kind of moral authority. Voltaire is in the same category as Twain only in a very different ways, and any comparisons to Christopher Hitchens in that regard are laughably absurd.
-
Twain is highly relevant here given his huge interest in all psychic communications. "MENTAL TELEGRAPHY
Certain mental telegraphy is an industry which is always silently at work — oftener than otherwise, perhaps, when we are not suspecting that it is affecting our thought… I imagine that we get most of our thoughts out of somebody else’s head, by mental telegraphy — and not always out of the heads of acquaintances, but, in the majority of cases, out of the heads of strangers; strangers far removed…
" The stories about Twain’s own charmed abilities are legendary.
books.google.com/books?id=y7LKFfO9Bi0C&pg=PT987&l…
http://www.twainquotes.com/Mental_telegraphy.html
-
meow. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] – you have the best reply there I could think of.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury] – with Twain there, sometimes you look like a nut… sometimes you don’t. So it sounds like he lost it with the psychic binge.
Vivisection concerns from the 1800’s are your criticism of science? You can take a quick visit to wikipedia to see how society has evolved since then (it is regulated and rare). Cultural norms progress. If we cling to the medieval morality of holy books, we would be stuck with slavery, genocide and rape as divinely sanctioned activities. Animal vivisection would pale in comparison. 1800 years later, it is part of the public debate. We have made much progress since year zero, and our circle of empathy is slowly expanding outward.
And of course, many more animals and humans were disemboweled in the name of religious sacrifice at the altar than vivisection in the lab. If the history of vivisection is a damnation of all science, then the history of sacrifice is a more powerful damnation of all religion.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] I don’t think animal sacrifice is an ongoing problem in the sacraments of the world’s major religions. However, I do recall considerable controversy in Chicago over the ongoing use of Rhesus monkeys in experiments that would make Mark Twain spin in his grave: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19780208&…
I can also recall someone giving copies of lab keys to a local TV news crew. Not to be accused of any anti scientific bias the next feature was on pedophile priest predators and seminarians. Somehow they got them on film visiting Chicago crack houses, bathhouses, and driving large limousines loaded with underprivileged youth. Indeed, even medical records for std treatments were not sacrosanct in this hard hitting expose. Unfortunately this proved to be a case of religion being more powerful than science, at least having deeper pockets and more serious union protections as the feature was said to be deep sixed in the Chicago river. Even the world’s top forensic psychics would have a hard time finding the details of that story. I do know some highly psychic priests who could easily claim your group’s prize, but it would cost them their ESP bingo franchise rights which are worth a whole lot more than you guys can afford to put up as prize money. -
"easily available" but never demonstrated convincingly? Don’t any of the people who feel they can do this actually want to test if they really can do it? (or is it just a lot more comfortable to believe without any critical thought?)
For the victims that pay for these services, please point them to this demo video
-
Rather than speculate on psychic ability, tempting as that may be, how about some straightforward communications from beyond the grave. Since they are not able to claim any monetary prizes, or show any evident concern for money, we can only reward them with attention to detail of what they did in fact say. Consider Hilbert’s grave quote:" Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen! " I like the "!" in typical German fashion. Vee have vaaays to know! WVee vill to know, even from zah great beehyund!
Not a man to embrace his inner ignorabimus, it is safe to conclude. He would have been very uncomfortable with the all notions of knowledge beyond the realms of science that are all too obvious to the more moderate satisfied intellect. You don’t have to state and reiterate Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to know science and logic have some major limitations even with the most powerful possible compu brain. The unlimited alien brain is a bit more of a difficult case; about the same as the God brain with some interesting differences. The God vs. the Devil vs. the alien questions are worth considering too if you have never done that exercise. David Hilbert from beyond the grave is a great overall proxy for the highly motivated math and science ghost genius case. He will know, he must know! Presumably even if he has to use whatever powers of the great beyond are available to him. A great mantra for all restless mathematical scientific ghosts. Vee vill not rest uuuntil veee know! German is best for this. I don’t think French would convey what they really want after all, nobody would take "Nous avons besoin de savoir pour savoir que nous sommes! Nous devons savoir, nous saurons!" seriously. Sounds more like they are confused and demanding to know what is on chef’s menu tonight at old château fantôme.
http://www.w-volk.de/museum/grave34.htm
Just about all the permutations and negations of :" Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen! " are really interesting.
I like the basic negation of " Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen! " We must NOT know, we will never know. You negate the exclamation too making it a blase comment. or give it a happy 🙂 that you are content to be ignorant.
We must not know, never know? How about a good example. Knowledge that you should never know, do not want to know and will never know. How about some death taboos The basic location of the Crazy Horse grave problem. No one should know that at this point and if they do they better be somebody very tight in the tribe and best that they died without revealing it. An archaeologist, or anybody else, that goes out into an Indian reservation looking for that kind of thing should be killed I think is a reasonable expectation. I like the really good bizarre ones like the Solomon temple curses that do seem a bit odd to the outsider. Everything from women’s hats and hairstyles to dinnerware.
Next up would be leading to more Rumsfeldian (I really doubt if that ruthless pompous little bast..rd -Nixon’s description of him-would know who David Hilbert was) twists like things we must know but will never be know and things we must not know but will know at some point. math.sfsu.edu/smith/Documents/HilbertRadio/HilbertRadio.pdf -
Interesting about being able to imagine something we do not know but will know…without knowing…like fairies…dream of flying.. mind reading…idea-embrio of mental connection (technology enabled in our days)…not only technology curves are accelerating, but the science curves, more the theory of everything (physics, chemistry, biology,mathematics combined) and the gaps between science fiction/imagination and science are removed… Incredible powers unleashed…makes everything possible.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena] Many things that you don’t know but will know at some point from the mundane to the sublime, the extraordinary, etc. The big deal to me is the "must" part of it. You must not know but you will at some point. Like it is a big game secret, or some kind of surprise party plan that would spoil it for everybody if you knew: Well, JG while you were alive we could not let you know all this but now that you are here and can’t spoil the show for everyone still on earth here it is, cool huh? Uhhh, not quite what I expected, do I have any choice about it? Not really, we won’t be calling you JG anymore either that was all fictional. You did figure that out on your own, very good! — The "must" part is likewise interesting for what MUST we really know via science or by any other means. With science and tech those musts are getting highly problematic. Must we really know and publicly share how to create avian ebola? The drug formulation that will give permanent brain changes so you don’t get depressed, distressed, violently hostile or go all "funny" as we who know correct behavior define it? Must we kill 10,000 monkeys so little billy can dance again? I have to answer no in all cases like this. There is no must compelling necessity about any of this. Must know does not justify humanistic tyranny of everything on the planet. The same as a must have should not justify destroying all the birds in parts of Florida for fashion plumes, to use a specific case from the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Regardless of justified or not what is in place is in fact humanistic tyranny but with a big problem since we ultimately don’t control things. The same as humanity did not create itself. Evolution did not happen as some kind of virtuous bootstrap success story with humans as the noble beast winners. It is more like an accident, miracle, or some kind of bizarre secret higher level surprise plan, that we are even here right now given the number of things in the universe that are capable of wiping us out. That is contrary to the NDGasse Tyson view where he puts that in terms of contrary to a loving merciful god.
Voltaire on Soul is great on these kinds of arguments…..
When one has had a good argument about spirit and matter, one always finishes by not understanding each other. No philosopher has been able with his own strength to lift this veil stretched by nature over all the first principles of things. Men argue, nature acts.
Voltaire (2011-05-02). VOLTAIRE’S PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY [DIGITALLY ENHANCED] (Kindle Locations 3737-3739). Or for free:
http://www.online-literature.com/voltaire/philosophical-dictiona...
Definitely worth following his argument to get to this conclusion:"Let us conclude therefore what we have already concluded, that we are ignoramuses about all first principles. As regards ignoramuses who pride themselves on their knowledge, they are far inferior to monkeys." Again, confession and embrace of the ignoramus et ignorabimus a big deal in the world’s major philosophers for everyone from Socrates to Joshu and Voltaire. We do not know, will not know and I would add you really don’t want to know that anyway now do you? That is the whole thing with what is so great with Faust. He runs up to his giant intellectual limit of ignorabimus, can’t deal with it and has to turn to powers of darkness to satisfy his craving for the Wir müssen wissen. In the form of a black French poodle if I remember my Faust correctly.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] "- I would argue that all things do belong to science (morality is an interesting case, for example) but over very different time scales. How could they not?" This is well covered by positivism if you start with Auguste Comte and the origins of modern social sciences. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte
There are all kinds of interesting anti-positivist responses. But first, what the basic position is and what the prevailing atheist/scientist outlook is regardless of if they know that this is basic positivism:
"Comte’s positivism can be characterized as an approach which rejects as illegitimate all that cannot be directly observed in the investigation and study of any subject. His system of ‘positive philosophy’ had two laws at its foundation: a historical or logical law, ‘the law of three stages’, and an epistemological law, the classification or hierarchy of the sciences. The law of three stages governs the development of human intelligence and society: in the first stage, early societies base their knowledge on theological grounds, giving ultimately divine explanations for all phenomena; later, in the metaphysical stage, forces and essences are sought as explanations, but these are equally chimerical and untestable; finally, in the positive or scientific stage, knowledge is secured solely on observations, by their correlation and sequence. Comte saw this process occurring not only in European society, but also in the lives of every individual. We seek theological solutions in childhood, metaphysical solutions in youth, and scientific explanations in adulthood.Craig, Edward (Ed.) (2002-12-07). Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Kindle Locations 6509-6516). Taylor & Francis."
Unamuno has an interesting anti-positivist reaction like so many others in the Spanish speaking world…. "It was in vain that Comte declared that human thought had already emerged from the age of theology and was now emerging from the age of metaphysics into the age of positivism; the three ages coexist, and although antagonistic they lend one another mutual support. High-sounding positivism, whenever it ceases to deny and begins to affirm something, whenever it becomes really positive, is nothing but metaphysics; and metaphysics, in its essence, is always theology, and theology is born of imagination yoked to the service of life, of life with its craving for immortality."Unamuno, Miguel de (2005-01-08). Tragic Sense Of Life (Kindle Locations 2195-2199). Public Domain Books " Unamuno had some really brilliant statements about atheism like the soul and immortality are not ruled out by it. "Indeed a proof, even a demonstrative one, of a future life, would not be a proof of religion. For, that we are to live hereafter, is just as reconcilable with the scheme of atheism, and as well to be accounted for by it, as that we are now alive is: and therefore nothing can be more absurd than to argue from that scheme that there can be no future state."
He was correct too. You don’t need god or gods to have valid afterlife existence states and all kinds of other things that naively get associated with religions. The rector postion at Salamanca is quite the big deal if Unamuno is any indication. -
The Comte summary in the first quote sounds obvious. If a positivist goes further and states that fairies and the afterlife do not exist, then their claims are as baseless as the theologian’s. Saying that these claims are "illegitimate" (as in incorrect and a violation of law) is overreaching; "useless" is closer to the mark if taken seriously, and "entertaining" if taken as fanciful fun, like Santa. I hope Auguste was wise enough to say we don’t know, and may never know, the veracity of an infinite number of possible fables that are invisible to us.
The second quote ends in absurdity – sure, science and voodoo coexist, but they by no means "lend one another mutual support" – rather they corrode each other at the core. The confusion of a grand concordance only reigns in a mind riddled with cognitive dissonance.
Third quote is true, but not worth pondering much. There are an infinite number of possible delusions (like an afterlife) that are completely decoupled from the real world. We would be crippled if we tried to ponder them all. So why pick some random few, unless we hope to entertain with a good story wrapped in mystery? And yes, all of these things might exist, and at the first hint of truth, I’m sure many would want to explore further (given human nature – the desire to believe that we are much more special than we appear to be). We can rest assured that any evidence of an afterlife, direct or indirect, would not go ignored.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] Therefore all religion is equivalent to voodoo in essence. All notions of things like reincarnation, soul, spiritual power are likewise delusional states of voodoo equivalence and only scientific rationality is real. Lots of problems there like what is the state of reality sans human minds and science for one. Dogs are ruled by delusion and voodoo? Nature is delusional, etc. Dogs, Macumba , scientific expeditions, catholic missions, evangelicals, Indian shaman jungle chief healers, MDs, all coexist and give mutual support in Brazil for example. It gets surreal in a hurry, even inside the gated community much less deep in the old quilombo. I have found it is not a good idea to trust too much in how much your rational white scientific values do for you there as in many other places.
So if a positivist tells the Amazon Indian shaman her (not a pc affectation, I know one) claims are like Santa, entertaining or otherwise non scientific I will not want to be joining in on that expedition. Being skeptical about the big neon jungle snake head cats is one thing, seeing them in action with the chief is quite another. In other words I don’t want to deal with having to face a few of the infinite possibilities coming true for me in the middle of the jungle. Let’s see how your science works for you now there whitey. Same as if I am in Islamo-land, I really don’t want to find out the truth of that 1002nd tale they forgot to tell me about when I was laughing at their first 10001, Inasllah, got him with the good one Akbhar. -
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury] – "all religion is equivalent to voodoo in essence." Yes, of course! Define the difference.
What can break the spell with people like you? (Oh, maybe we are well into New Year’s celebrations?)
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] – love Will !!!
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Brazil gets surreal, magical real and syncretic real in a hurry. http://www.arcapress.org/projetos/
Or just watch Dona Flor and her two husbands. The Sonia Braga version is still the best
in classic Bahia erotic Macumba magical reality film. http://www.amazon.com/Dona-Flor-Her-Two-Husbands/dp/0307276643
Leave a Reply to solerena Cancel reply