Natural History: Some Even More Random Rambling

Sometimes you have a new thought, an idea, or eureka moment, but it’s not gutsy enough to expand into a reasonable length article or essay. So, here’s a potpourri of thoughts too good not to record, but with not enough meat available to flesh out. 

oooooOOOOOooooo

* We’ve all read and heard about how we consume way more salt than is necessary and that too much salt can cause high blood pressure and heart attacks and associated nasty conditions. What is never mentioned in all these health warnings about salt is the feedback mechanism that restores the proper balance. It’s akin to how many bars will put out free salted peanuts or salted chips for the customers. It’s not out of the pure kindness of the bartender. If you take in a lot of salt you get, surprise, thirsty. And so the bar makes up for the ‘free’ peanuts and chips by selling more drinks to quench the thirst you build up by eating all that ‘free’ salty stuff. In other words, if you over indulge in the salt, you’ll drink more fluids because you get extra thirsty, and the additional liquids will, when filtered through the kidneys, take the unnecessary salt with it (salty urine) and the proper balance is restored. So, if we consume way more salt than is necessary, we probably drink way more fluids as well. 

oooooOOOOOooooo

* I think most of us would agree that a reasonable definition of free will is the ability to voluntarily and consciously choose between two (or more) courses of action. You make a decision by your own free will that’s generated by your internal conscious self with no external influences, like someone, even Mother Nature, holding a gun to your head! However…

What if you view an optical illusion, an apparent reality of which there are numerous classic examples available? Initially you have two choices. You can convince yourself that what you are seeing is indeed reality (wrong choice) or you can convince yourself that what you’re seeing is not reality (right choice). But that’s mission impossible.

You know – you are consciously aware – that what you are looking at is an illusion and not reality. Can you now, of your own free will, take that course of action that will actually convince yourself that what you are looking at is an illusion and not reality? You know it’s an illusion, but can you convince yourself of that fact? Try as you might, no matter what, you will still see that apparent reality – the illusion – even though you know it’s just an illusion. Your brain is fooled and your mind can’t do a damn thing about it. Your free will cannot free yourself from seeing the illusion. You cannot negate that illusionary effect of your own free will even though you know it is not reality.

Now some optical illusions give you the apparent free will to view the illusion as this thing or that thing (like the classic two faces or one vase), but you can’t sustain that. You will shift perspective between the two illusionary options quite against what your own free will dictates. Further, you don’t have the free will third option of seeing neither of the two illusionary options.  

In a somewhat similar vein, watching one of the season three episodes of “Through the Wormhole”, part of that episode, exploring the subconscious, showed the experiment of a test subject who was fitted with a pair of camera-glasses that showed him an image of a test dummy dressed the same as the test subject. The test subject was fully aware of this. The test subject was then conditioned by being stroked with a rod while at the same time viewing the test dummy being stroked. Then, the test dummy was suddenly violently assaulted, and of course the test subject reacted as if he were being assaulted and not the dummy. Even when the test subject was told that the dummy was going to be assaulted, he was aware of this in his conscious mind, he still couldn’t help himself via his subconscious reacting as if he were being assaulted instead of the dummy. 

In short, your conscious mind cannot override or overturn your subconscious, free will be damned.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Despite the very popular but self-promotional conception, human beings are the least rational species on this planet. Any other animal that acts irrationally, say via a genetic defect or disease or the equivalent of dementia, is a dead animal. I have yet to witness any animal acting in any way, shape, manner or form that wasn’t rational for either its own survival or the survival of its genes, its community or its kind. I most certainly cannot say the same about the human species.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Here’s a wicked thought experiment. Create two clones of yourself. Raise them to maturity. Then, remove their brains and toss them away (this is just a thought experiment and so morals and ethics can be bypassed). Now have your brain removed (and toss your body away). Have one hemisphere transplanted into one clone; the other hemisphere transplanted into the second clone. While the two hemispheres of your brain have slightly different emphasis in terms of functionality, you can function as a reasonable whole with just one hemisphere. Now the question arises, will you be self-aware in two bodies at the exact same time? You could accomplish twice as much and be totally aware of the totality!

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Humans and cycles go hand in glove. Though most are artificial constructions and therefore rather phoney, cycles are important to humans and human society. The Day-Night cycle is of the most prime importance, and it is a natural cycle. Humans put a lot of stock in the seven day week cycle, which is an artificial construct, and to a lesser extent the month (also a phoney cycle even if ever so loosely based on the lunar cycle). The year is a natural cycle (in terms of the seasons) and probably of greatest significance next to the day and week cycles. Decades and centuries rank fairly low in importance and are artificial constructs in any event. The millennia are only important when the calendar changes over from say 1999 to 2000 (though the new millennia actually began in 2001) and 1000 year cycles lie outside of the human lifespan in any event. And that should be pretty much it – except for some ancient societies who had cycles of apparent importance so long that predated the very existence of those societies (and concluded well after those societies went extinct), like the Mayan long count (recall that famous doomsday date of 21 December 2012). Other societies measure ongoing cycles of creation-destruction in such lengthy periods that they really have no imminent impact on the societies propagating them. When societies have cycles of significance that are of no immediate significance, then you have an anomaly and you have got to wonder where hence gave that particular cyclic concept.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Try as I might, I could never teach my cats the barest and most basic rudiments of algebra or even those boneheaded elementary mathematics of arithmetic that elementary schoolkids master. I could never get my cats to understand and appreciate the ancient Egyptian cat cults and goddesses. Even the concept of biological evolution – the how and why cats evolved into cats and the ancestry of my cats would be so much triple-Dutch to them. Their wetware, neurochemistry, etc. just isn’t up to this. Sunshine gives them warmth – that they understand but not how the sun shines.

Now, the upshot of that is, despite the human arrogance that our minds can comprehend everything part and parcel of life, the Universe and everything, perhaps we just can’t through absolutely no fault of our own. Maybe human brains, in the here and now, are not capable of figuring all things out, like the meaning of quantum physics, and the theory of everything (TOE) which is basically a theory of quantum gravity and coming to terms with what exactly is dark matter and dark energy and answering all those other questions that have gone without resolution for thousands of years.  

oooooOOOOOooooo

* You probably think of yourself as one singular organism. The expression “me, myself and I” are all singular. Yet, you know perfectly well that you are really a colony of billions of organisms (cells) working in more often as not the case in total harmony. Yet, as things turn out, you play host to billions and billions more microbes. Nine out of ten of the microbes that make you up aren’t really a part of you at all, like say those bacteria that survive and thrive in your mouth. So, are you an organism, a colony of organisms or an environment for organisms? I’m quite astounded to learn that 90% of me isn’t me! So perhaps our real purpose in life is to serve as hosts for the greater multitudes. The needs of the many [microbes] outweigh the needs of the one [Human].

oooooOOOOOooooo

* In the simulated universe scenario I (and many others) have suggested we exist inside a computer as a software program or subroutine within a larger software program. The un-stated assumption is that the Supreme Programmer was of flesh-and-blood (terrestrial or extraterrestrial). But why make that assumption? Why not suggest that the Supreme Programmer was/is an Artificial Intelligence in its own right just being creative. Silicon –and-steel (artificial) intelligence is a logical evolutionary successor to flesh-and-blood (natural) intelligence and is likely to not only evolve far more rapidly (Moore’s Law) than human evolution ever did but have an overall longevity vastly in extent of ours.



Cull The Humans!

Our species has evolved on a pristine 4.5 billion year old planet and ruined it with 8 to 10 thousand years, and it’s not improving as we march headlong into the future. At seven plus billion and rapidly increasing, human life is cheap. So if there is any one species on Planet Earth that needs culling desperately, it’s the human species. Fortunately, humans do a somewhat reasonable job of doing just that, but as the report card always says, “could do better”.

You know there’s something very terribly wrong when non-human species are disappearing and going extinct at a rapid rate of knots while humanity breeds and breeds and keeps increasing its numbers by leaps and bounds.

Abortion: Anything that has prevented millions of brats from being inflicted on the world has got to be a good thing and needs to be encouraged. More of same please. And as a bonus, all those brats that never were, never turned into adults; adults that never were and didn’t breed even more brats. Yippee! 

Animal Attacks: Humans kill millions of animals a day (including fish) for fun and profit so it is only fitting and just deserts that every once in an all too extremely rae while, animals even up the score – well hardly even since the ratio is still millions and millions to one. Of course if you include all those bacteria and viruses as ‘animals’ then the score is a bit more balanced. And isn’t it lovely how all those nasty bacteria are developing ever increasing resistance to human antibiotics. We’re really overdue for a pandemic.

Bioterrorism: All you wannabe mad scientists out there bring it on!

Birth Control: This is a painless way of keeping the human population under control. Can you imagine the benefits if this practice were increased 100-fold!

Death Penalty/Capital Punishment: If you know the law of the land and you persist in paying your money and taking your chances, well, so be it. Maybe the death penalty prevents some people from doing stupid things; maybe not. However, the one absolute benefit of capital punishment is that the offender will not ever be a repeat offender, and it’s got to be a cheaper option to the taxpayer that keeping someone locked away for the term of their natural life.

Drug Use and Abuse: Hey, it’s a victimless ‘crime’ and if it kills the user, well that’s another user loser who bit the dust and as far as I’m concerned, the more who eat dust, the better.

Extreme Sports: People risking their necks by participating in extreme sports make me extremely happy if it results in an extreme number of fatalities.

Gun Control: I don’t think so. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people using guns and the more of that the better. I understand that, for example, a significant number of firearm-related deaths in the US of A are caused by young black males to other young black males. I’ve got no issue with this at all. We just need a contest to determine the last young black male standing.

Internal Conflicts in Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, etc: Muslims killing Muslims by the thousands! Hey, I got no problem with that. As Sarah Palin said, let Allah sort the mess out. But is WASP countries want to pitch in and contribute sending Muslims to their Promised Land, so much the better. I’ll look forward to the 21^st Century version of the Crusades! 

Natural Disasters: Religious types say this is God’s wrath and way of punishing wicked humanity. I could care less about the religious overtones, as long as nature keeps culling the human species. Humans should be encouraged, even given financial assistance to migrate to disaster prone areas, IMHO.

Obesity: Anything that shortens the natural lifespan or life expectancy of the human being has got to be a good thing (and it keeps the medical profession gainfully employed). So please keep on stuffing your faces, blubber-girls and remove yourselves from the gene pool sooner rather than later. And yes, it’s primarily the female of the species who over indulges and thus over bulges. 

Save the Children: Why? So they can grow up and breed like rabbits and produce hordes more brats that will need saving! It should read “Save the world from children”.

Suicide: This is a private and personal matter that is no one else’s business. If one has a right-to-life, then one has a right-to-death. That includes euthanasia as well. It’s better to go out swinging and of your own free will than risking another alternative. Suicide should be encouraged, or at least not be prevented. Again, this is a victimless ‘crime’.  

Traffic Accidents and Road Deaths: This should be encouraged, especially for carloads of drunken hoons. As a runner-up, drivers who engage in cell phone usage on the road, well they too deserve to meet their maker.

Kindly note by the way that I’m not discriminating against any particular human nationality; any particular human race or ethnic group; any particular human religion; or any particular human anything. All humans are grist for my mill. The only good human is a deceased human and one that kicks-the-bucket before his or her use by date.

However, I do have to admit that every once in a while, I read some story of some type of incredible bond between a human and his or her companion animal – dog usually, but also cats, horses, etc. Sometimes there will be some sort of heart-warming human interest story of a human putting the wellbeing and life of an animal ahead of his or her own. At times like those, I reflect that there just might be some hope for the human species after all. However, on balance…

But then I remember how the Japanese slaughter their dolphins and all those great whales that have been and are being harpooned. Then I remember how the Canadians bludgeon those baby harp seals to death. Then I remember the slaughter to extinction of the passenger pigeon and the dodo and other species way to numerous to mention. Then I remember too total overfishing and trawling the ocean floor killing unwanted species by the thousands. And then I remember all those so-called ‘sportsman’ hunters with guns blazing away 24/7 to the point I’m surprised there’s a wild animal still left alive anywhere in the world, though ‘sportsman’ hunters are happily rectifying that situation even as I write this. Then I remember that not all hunting is for fun and profit, and how the ACT government    revels in culling thousands of kangaroos annually because kangaroos get in the way of voters – or at least voters who own cars and hit the animals on the road when they get in the way. Then too I remember how many millions of lab animals have been tortured in the name of ‘beauty’ by having potential cosmetics tested on them first, often by rubbing the product into their eyes. Then too I remember the horrendous treatment meted out to Australian livestock in Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt, treatment that was so inhumane as to boggle the mind of the cruelties humans are capable of. There’s something especially barbaric above and beyond the norm about how Muslims treat animals.

It’s rare therefore to get by even one day without reading, viewing or hearing about yet another atrocity committed against non-human species, and I’m not talking about issues related to food or survival here (nature’s predator-prey relationship includes humans), but cruelty, torture, and slaughter just for the sake of cruelty, torture and slaughter.

I can take some consolation in that in the decades and centuries ahead, because humans have so totally screwed or stuffed things up, life is just going to get more and more nasty and miserable for the human species. In fact it’s already happening in that for the first time in recent history the average life expectancy of the human being is and will continue to decrease.



Natural History: Some More Random Rambling

Sometimes you have a new thought, an idea, or eureka moment, but it’s not gutsy enough to expand into a reasonable length article or essay. So, here’s a further potpourri of thoughts on or about natural history that are too good not to record, but with not enough meat available to flesh out. 

oooooOOOOOooooo

* There are probably as many different definitions of “what is life?” as there have been and are biologists, life scientists, naturalists and philosophers, etc. Most centre on or around concepts like growth, reproduction, response to stimuli, metabolism, violations of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), and related similar ilk. None have been entirely satisfactory otherwise we would have THE textbook definition. My take on “what is life?” is somewhat different. Life is some sort of complex organic structure that has a behaviour that is not absolutely predictable via classical (or even quantum) physics. Or, in other words, under the most tightly controlled and uniform set of laboratory conditions, the ‘structure’ will do as it damn well pleases!

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Speaking of life, there is no such thing as ‘living matter’ vs. ‘dead matter’. All matter is ‘dead matter’ since all matter, from the ground up, is composed of electrons, protons (quarks and gluons), neutrons (more quarks and gluons), photons, neutrinos, etc. Few if any would ague that an electron, proton, neutron, etc. is ‘living matter’. And the atoms, hence molecules, even complex molecules they make up are not alive. No matter is alive or is ‘living matter’. What is ‘alive’ is the organisation, the overall structure of various bits and pieces of matter, in highly specific arrangements, such that – and this is the key point – entropy, at least temporarily, is thwarted. Entropy finally wins when the organisational structure breaks down, that is, life dies.   

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Does free will require you to have an infinite or unlimited number of choices, or a finite number? If the latter, you’re still confined in a box, just a slightly larger box than if your box confined you to one and only one choice.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* The ultimate lack of free will associated with you is that you had absolutely no say in being conceived and being popped headlong into this world. You had no choice in your ancestry or in your genetics or your sex or even what historical era you were to make your way in. Now if you have absolutely no free will in these rather important, in fact absolutely fundamental, parts of your life being kick-started, why should you expect any free will from there on in?

Of course in some societies you’d have no choice in schooling or religion or upbringing or even to the person you got hitched to, etc. But all of that really falls under a separate category of sociology and culture and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or usual notion of what it means to have free will.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* It struck home to me recently how often we shift our worldviews. We have no worldview at birth. Our worldview at five is one that’s full of self, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, imaginary friends, and parties with lots of cakes, cookies, soda pop and presents. All of that certainly changes, and drastically so, when you hit the teens when your worldview shifts to the opposite sex and sex and rebellion against all things adult. Maybe somewhere there’s an easing in period, a first stirrings, where you start to acquire a worldview of a God and heaven and angels and all things bright and beautiful (that’s probably imposed on you by parents and social mores. Then you get trust out (usually by choice) into the adult world that’s full of bills and responsibilities and employment and/or family life raising your own brats. During all of this you probably never really think of the ‘natural’ cosmic context you find yourself in. But that tends to come as you pass the half-way mark and start heading downhill. The Big Questions come more to the fore and you start to adopt a worldview that makes comforting sense away from the normal routine worldview of taxes and nasty bosses and your kids in trouble with the police again. Again, for most, that tends to revolve around God and heaven and angels, etc. But some people start thinking more outside the comforting religious box and more about space and time, and before and after, and finite vs. infinity and what non-religious Big Picture makes the most philosophical and logical common sense. And whatever specific you come up with can also shift as you reflect on your earlier reflections without end as new concepts and connections come into being or focus which you’ve got to ponder and fit into the master worldview jigsaw puzzle you’ve established.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Death is not something to be afraid of. You experience dying, but not death since once dead, you have no existence and you need to have an existence, you have to be alive, in order to experience something, anything, even death. So you never experience death, only that up to but not including death.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* There’s one absolute reason I’m convinced telepathy doesn’t exist. As I go about my daily walkabout routine and associated observations, I’m forever passing out mental thoughts and images of what I think of many of the deadbeat drivers and other lesser forms of humanity I spy with my little eyes. My thoughts tend not to be very complementary to say the least. But since the lowlifes and rift-rafts haven’t ever proceeded to immediately stop their lowlife activities and drop what ever rift-raft things they were up to, to instead change direction towards me and beat me about the heat and body unto a bloody pulp for my unflattering thoughts, I conclude telepathy doesn’t exist. If it did, I doubt I’d be typing these thoughts now.  

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Humans call them weeds. Mother Nature calls them plants. So-called ‘weeds’ too have their place in the natural scheme of things. Stupid humans!



Self-Awareness Issues: A Resolution?

I’ve previously viewed an opinion that there apparently seemed to be no logical reason, in theory, why one couldn’t have more than one self-awareness spread over two (or more) bodies (a counterpoint to those having more than one self-awareness housed in just one body). I’ve now come up with a reason why one can’t have a self-awareness in dual bodies. At least I hope this explains the conundrum.

You’re self-aware if you respond to stimuli, so instead of “I think therefore I am” what comes before even that is that “I respond therefore I am”. Part of that response of course can be thought even if way after the event.

Self-awareness has nothing to do with emotions or intellect or memories or creativity. Poke a foetus with a pin and it will respond. The foetus is self-aware that it is receiving a stimulus.

But there has to be more to self-awareness that. You can respond to a stimulus; I can respond to the exact same stimulus (say a flash of lightning) yet we don’t share the same self-awareness. So, there’s got to be a physical connection between living things in order to share self-awareness (and I don’t mean holding hands either).

To illustrate: You are (or probably will be) self-aware if I stick a pin into your big toe. If that big toe however is then amputated from the rest of you, and I stick a pin into that amputated big toe, there’s no response from you. You’re not self-aware that your (former) big toe has been stuck with a sharp pin! That’s because there’s no longer any physical connection between your (former) big toe and you.

Or take the case of Siamese twins’ conjoined say at the hip region. Now normally these twins would have been just plain identical twins and thus have one self-awareness each. But, because of the physical connection, via a body structure common to both Siamese twins, should that common part be stuck with a pin, presumably both heads, heads that contain the self-aware infrastructure or apparatus, will react. Once separated, no such common reaction will take place. Though I don’t know this for a certainly, it might also be possible that while the twins are still joined, that stroking a part of one twin’s body not jointly shared might produce a reaction in the opposite twin.  

Conversely, if something living is grafted or transplanted onto or into you, that something now becomes part of your overall self-awareness.  But all that still doesn’t really explain why there is for all practical purposes just one self-awareness per customer and why you can’t also be self-aware in a second body simultaneously.

Say I take a 3-D snapshot of you and identify where every bit and piece, atom and molecule, that goes into making you up; what makes you, you at that precise instant, is. Then, using nanotechnology, I recreate another you from the ground up, atom by atom, molecule by molecule, cell by cell, tissue by tissue, etc. You would then have another self-aware you identical to your own self-awareness. That would remain the case - dual self-aware entities - even if you both go your separate ways - Right? Well probably not for several seasons.

Firstly, that definitive 3-D snapshot probably isn’t possible even in theory once quantum fluctuations and uncertainties are taken into account. 

Secondly, there’s that lack of physical contact between you and your built from the ground up alter ego. I once thought that if another entity had the exact same self-awareness as you, you would be aware of that bond since you both share an exact same self-awareness. But, on further reflection, I have to abandon that since that implies faster-that-light speed communication and that’s not allowed according to Einstein and thousands of physicists who have followed in his footsteps.

That’s nowhere more obvious than when it comes to the concept of the infinite cosmos or a Multiverse. If you postulate that the cosmos is never-ending in time and/or in space, then of necessity anything that can happen will happen, an infinite number of times. There will therefore be an infinite number of you which could occur in sequence (if the cosmos is infinite in time) or concurrently (if the cosmos is infinite in space). The same applies if you postulate a Multiverse – an infinite number (or nearly so) of individual finite universes all co-existing within an infinite cosmic landscape.

Regardless, the upshot is one you in the here-and-now (on Earth) and another you out back of beyond somewhere in the cosmos but also in the here-and-now. You, both of you, are equally self-aware; identically so. However, neither one of you is aware of the other. That’s because what one of you is experiencing can only be transmitted to the other you at a velocity that cannot exceed light speed. When you’re talking an infinite cosmos or a Multiverse, you are talking communication time frames between universes of trillions to zillions of years, assuming any interaction is even possible. You’ll be long dead before your equal number, who is out back of beyond somewhere, has awareness’s that can reach you. Except - that argument doesn’t really work if there’s an infinite number of you existing at all times. Some version of you that existed a zillion years ago should have an awareness-of-self that should impact on that you living zillions of years later. No matter which way you slice-and-dice things, one you within an infinite number of you cannot exist in isolation. But each one of those infinite number of you are not in that required physical contact with any one of the other numbers of you, thus no self-awareness co-sharing. 

CONCLUSION

All else being equal, each person has his or her self’s own custom-made, personalized, unique self-awareness. That’s because everyone’s brain chemistry and experiences are unique and so everyone will respond to the exact same stimulus ever so slightly differently.

But there is no law of nature that says that has to be so. It’s possible that two or more people could have an identical sense of self-awareness, if not on Earth, then especially so if there’s an infinite spatial cosmos or a Multiverse. Yet, even if you have an identical you, a more closely ‘you’ than even an identical twin would be, you wouldn’t share self-awareness with your other self and vice versa. Why?

The answer I suggest is separation. There’s no way to communicate one’s self-awareness to the other’s self-awareness, just like your amputated big toe can’t communicate to you if it is whacked with a hammer. There could easily be more than one self-aware you, identical in every way to you, in the cosmos right now but you do not share that identical self-awareness since there is no physical connection present.



Self-Awareness Revisited



Although the brain is the only bodily organ capable of contemplating itself, part of that contemplation, awareness of self, is an enigma. On the surface it would appear that there can only be a finite number of self-awareness configurations, since the brain is a finite structure, and eventually there would have to be a repeat self-awareness. Yet, there appears to be no record of any awareness-of-self in one body having dual awareness-of-self in another body. That’s an enigma. 

Presumably your self-awareness begins at conception, and thus there is self-awareness even at the cellular level. Now if you, and here ‘you’ could be a plant or a microbe, respond to stimuli (external or internal), then you are self-aware, albeit awareness of self comes in degrees – a mammal is more self-aware than a cactus even though both can respond to stimuli. If you respond to stimuli in a way that’s not predictable by the laws of physics then you are self-aware. A rock cannot be a ‘you’ since it does not respond to stimuli in any way that physics cannot predict and thus a rock is not self-aware.

Chain of Thought: Part One

Your self-awareness resides in your brain. Your sense of self goes wherever your brain goes. It’s an unbreakable link.

If, or rather since your self-awareness resides in your brain and since your brain is just a finite combination* of various chemicals, neural connections and energy configurations, then your self-awareness is also a product of a finite combination of various chemicals, neural connections and energy configurations.

Your awareness of self presumably only takes up a relatively small percentage of your brain’s chemistry, neural connections and type of energy transactions. That should increase the awareness of self finiteness and thus the probability therefore of there being more than one self-aware you.

So given enough bodies (animal or human) with brains, the particular combination that results in your self-awareness should repeat eventually elsewhere and/or elsewhen, but apparently it doesn’t. Something is screwy somewhere. 

If there is a limit of a singular self-awareness per customer, regardless of how many customers there are, who is doing the limiting?

* Though zillions of combinations might be possible, most would result in non-functionality. Presumably you wouldn’t survive if your brain instructed the stomach to pump and the heart to secrete digestive juices. That should at least reduce zillions of potential possibilities down to a more reasonable trillion(s) of actual viable functionality.

By analogy, there is only so many ways to assemble an automobile or building and have a viable and functional means of transport or accommodation. There are many, many more ways of putting together an automobile or a building that results however in non-functionality.

Chain of Thought: Part Two

Your self-awareness resides in your brain. Your sense of self goes wherever your brain goes. The question here is how I can shut down your awareness of self without destroying your brain thingy.

If I were to do it, the most obvious way would be to put you under – give you some sort of aesthetic (or get you so blind drunk you pass out, or knock you unconscious).

But you can do that yourself just by going to sleep. Your five senses shut down for the duration (unless there’s an extremely powerful outside stimulus). But you can only take that absence of an awareness of self just so far and no farther as we shall see.

So if you were born without any of your five senses operating, would or could you still be self-aware? Yes – there’s a limit to how far you can shut down the nervous system and still be or remain alive. So even if you couldn’t see, hear, touch, taste or smell, you’d still be aware of various sensations.

You’d still be aware of hunger and the opposite, the need to go potty in the bathroom. You’d still be aware of becoming tired and the need to go to sleep, and the opposite, of being wide-awake and unable to sleep. You’d be aware of the need to inhale and exhale. You’d be aware that something was wrong if you experienced a heart attack (even though you wouldn’t feel any pain). You’d still be aware of the need to cough, sneeze and yawn.

So awareness of self is not just about the external world that you are aware of and your place in it and what it is doing to you thanks to your five senses. Awareness of self is also about awareness of your internal world (your body), unless you want to consider anything external to your brain as belonging to your external world too, even if it’s your stomach and stomach ulcer or heart and heart attack.

So the bottom line seems to be that you have self-awareness even in the absence of external stimuli – external to your body that is, but not stimuli that’s internal to your body (like hunger, etc.). If you have no self-awareness of stimuli internal to your body but still external as far as your mind is concerned, then you’re dead – or soon will be.

So your self-awareness is dependent on the cooperation of your body (ideally including your five senses) – it’s a joint partnership (unless some mad scientist places and nurtures your brain in a vat in which case the vat becomes your body. As I said before, your self-awareness resides in your brain. Your sense of self goes wherever your brain goes).

As an aside, you can have a functioning brain without a mind (that which generates self-awareness) like when you’re in a deep dreamless sleep or in a coma or passed out blind drunk, but you can’t have a functioning mind without a brain. Just in case you were wondering about that particular chicken-egg or mind-body question.

Chain of Thought: Part Three

Your self-awareness resides in your brain. Your sense of self goes wherever your brain goes. That also applies to a lot of other personality traits.

Your self-awareness is not a separate and apart body organ or tissue or cellular conglomeration, like say the liver, gall bladder or the pineal gland. Instead it is housed in a nebulous sort of way in an organ, in this case the brain – as pointed out several times previously. But that equally applies to a lot of other equally nebulous things – morality, emotions, memory, decision making and creativity. And that brings up an interesting quasi-paradox.

There is some degree of morality or ethics that is born innately within us quite separate and apart from what society (religion, parents, teachers, the legal system, etc.) rams down our throats. I conclude this based on observations of my cats whose interactions with each other demonstrate a degree of inbuilt morality or ethics, and they never had any religious instruction shoved down their throats or any other book learning. So it’s probably not surprising that two (or more) people, of differing ages, sexes, races, cultural backgrounds, share much the same views on morals and ethics.

Two (or more) people can have identical memories of X. Say today is defined as being Wednesday the 10^th of July 2013. X might be the memory that yesterday was therefore defined as being a numerical date (the 9^th), on a day of the week (Tuesday), in the month of (July) within the year (2013). Lots of people would have that memory; all those would agree on that shared memory. Or, though my cats do not share the same self-awareness, they both share a common memory of where the litter box is; where their food and water bowls are; where the sunniest place in the house is (which changes as the seasons change, so that’s a neat trick on their part).

Two (or more) people on opposite sides of the globe could have an identical creative thought. That’s no big surprise. Coincidence is often the norm, not the exception.

Two (or more) people could experience the exact same sad emotion; say by watching a particular part of the movie “Bambi”, or experience the same adrenalin rush when hearing their nation’s national anthem.

Two (or more) people could decide to perform the exact same action based on the exact same set of circumstances, like say get out of bed ready to face the day at 8am or tune into the exact same TV program.

But no two people share the same self-awareness, even though morality, memory, emotions, creativity, and other nebulous things all contribute to an awareness of self. Self-awareness is associated with, but is not dependent upon any particular set of memories, morality, etc.

 Chain of Thought: Part Four

Your self-awareness resides in your brain. Your sense of self goes wherever your brain goes. Wouldn’t it be interesting if that one awareness of self could exist in differing geographies and go in several directions!

There can be more than one self-awareness in one body, like dual or split personalities. Then too, that would be the case if one (human or animal) were born with two heads (therefore two brains). Such freaks of nature have happened as in Siamese Twins. But what we’re interested in is not two (or more) self-aware ‘persons’ in one body, but an awareness of self in two (or more) bodies.

However, for reasons unknown, you can’t have an awareness of self in two (or more) bodies. Now that’s odd since extremely rare things happen. Amazing coincidences almost seem to be the norm. Some people have won top prize in lotto more than once for example. You’ll even find two (or more) humans with identical albeit extremely rare names (Christian; Middle; Family).

The ideal conditions or candidates for such a scenario would be identical twins sharing the same conception, the same DNA, total (100%) organ transplant compatibility, etc. 

However, even in the case of identical twins there are still two bodies (2 brains) housing two separate and apart self-aware entities.

Chain of Thought: Part Five

Your self-awareness resides in your brain. Your sense of self goes wherever your brain goes. But what if we duplicate your brain thingy? There appears to be two ways of doing that: the technologically-assisted ‘natural’ way (cloning), and the technological way (downloading).

There’s no theoretical reason why a human being, such as you, could not be cloned. The only reasons against doing that in the here and now are ethical and legal reasons. However, the brain of a cloned you would be a blank slate, since all those nebulous traits like memory and morality could not be cloned. But what about the self-awareness part of the brain? Presumably your most faintest stirrings of self-awareness begin at conception and increase as the complexity of your entity increases. Presumably a clone of your brain, all things being equal, would have the same chemistry and neural connections. But, all things probably aren’t going to be equal. There will probably be external and environmental influences which will alter, even if just subtly, the brain chemistry (diet, drugs, etc.) and neural pathways (disease, injuries, etc.) of the clone. Therefore, I suspect that your clone would not have your self-awareness and vice-versa. Your clone is in the exact same category as your identical twin.

The other, yet to be achievable, technological methodology of duplicating your self-awareness would be to download it into another form of hardware – not squishy wetware biology but as bits and bytes software into some sort of suitable receptacle, call it a computer if you will, perhaps with artificial arms and legs attached – a robot/android. [A cyborg would result if your actual squishy brain thingy were placed in an artificial receptacle or container or constructed body.] Again, there will have to be lots of legal and moral issues sorted out first, but the technology to do this should be achievable. So, the awareness of self in your biological squishiness will be the same as your awareness of self as, say a robot. Now the interesting thing is that you, your self-awareness, could be downloaded hundreds of times over, just like you can copy and paste a document on your PC. How could you cope being self-aware hundreds of times over in hundreds of different places? This might be akin to a hive-mind or to a computer network.

Which then leads to the next stage: if one could create a self-aware artificial intelligence (AI) then that could be copied again and again, then presumably whatever one AI entity experienced, all would experience. And with that we really enter the realm of science fiction.

Fly in the ointment #1: If there is a biological entity (human or animal) in one place that is a self-aware entity; and there is another biological entity (human or animal) in another place that has the exact same brain chemistry and neural network structure, then the latter entity presumably has the same self-awareness as the former. For each to be not only self-aware as being their own entity but self-aware as being the other entity too, wouldn’t there have to be some sort of telepathic exchange (call it communication if you will) between the two separate and apart bodies? How would that work? Actually it doesn’t logically follow. If you self-aware in another body there’s no need for communication of that fact since you are already self-aware of it.

Fly in the ointment #2: The most likely answer to this whole one self-awareness per customer issue might like in the statistical improbability of it all. Yes, very unlikely things can happen. It’s not inconceivable to toss a coin heads up 1000 times in a row; a monkey pecking away at a typewriter could reproduce say the U.S. Constitution. It just might be the case that the number of combinations of brain chemistry and neural network connections is just so vast, that the number of possible combinations, the number of possible self-aware entities, exceeds by many, many orders of magnitude the numbers of actual self-aware entities that have and every will likely exist. Therefore, the possibility of two or more entities sharing an exact state of self-awareness is just about the same as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and assembling a replica of the White House.

An Extra Chain of Thought:

Some, especial spiritual and New Age types suggest that the cosmos is and always has been self-aware or has consciousness because the cosmos contains entities that are self-aware (like us). We (for example) are the universe’s way of contemplating its own navel – of knowing itself. But I think several problems arise with that point of view.

Firstly, there was a time the universe contained no self-aware beings, even microbes. The spiritual types however extend self-awareness down to self-aware rocks and atoms and even electrons that have awareness of self. That’s an interesting but deluded worldview IMHO.

Secondly, if we accept that rocks and atoms and even electrons do not have awareness of self, we note that the cosmos is mainly composed of just that sort of non-aware stuff, from the macroscopic (stars and rocks, etc.) to the microscopic (atoms and electrons). That rock in your garden isn’t self-aware even if you, your pet dog and your garden plants are. In other words, can a cosmos be said to be self-aware if only the most minuscule part of that cosmos is aware of itself?

Thirdly, a self-aware universe (as defined by having self-aware inhabitants) would have to have an overall self-awareness that was a composite of all the self-aware entities in it which would also change and evolve as self-aware entities came into being, evolved, and then died out. What sort of self-awareness would result if you merged into one great melting pot all of the individual self-aware entities currently in existence on Planet Earth? It would be a dog’s breakfast methinks.     

Self-Awareness

You are a self-aware being. That’s no great revelation. And while there are many unknowns about self-awareness in need of continued research, it’s ultimately grounded in physics, chemistry and biology. The real mystery is why you have one realization of self-awareness in one body, not two or more realizations of self-awareness in two or more bodies. What prevents that from happening? What stops you from having more than one self-aware awareness right here and right now? There seems to be a self-awareness limit – one per customer, and that applies to both human and animal. 

What stops you having more than one self-aware awareness right here and right now?

THE WHEN OF THINGS: PRESENT, PAST & FUTURE

Presumably no other sexual conception – human or animal* - of the millions and millions that have happened since your own conception has resulted in another and simultaneously coexisting self-aware you.

Presumably, none of the other potential trillions of unfulfilled sexual conceptions that could have happened, but didn’t, since your own conception took place, would have resulted in another and simultaneously coexisting self-aware you.

Presumably therefore, none of the sexual conceptions that happened or had the potential to happen prior to your own conception would have resulted in the self-awareness being you call you. That pretty much rules out reincarnation.

Therefore presumably, no conception that will happen or will have the potential to happen in the future that will result in another self-aware being that the current you would also call you. 

Now that says nothing about that one-off unique self-aware you keeping on keeping on post biological death. Afterlife is a separate issue.

THE WHY OF THINGS: NATURAL & SUPERNATURAL

Presumably there is no supernatural force at work preventing two or more simultaneously coexisting self-aware entities both called you by you. The Bible says nothing about there being a limit of one self-awareness body per customer, unless you equate material self-awareness with the nebulous, immaterial and disembodied concept of a soul. 

On the other hand, I’m not aware of any natural law, principle or relationship, biological or otherwise, preventing two or more simultaneously coexisting self-aware persons each calling themselves you. You’d think that if a self-aware you could happen naturally once, it could happen naturally twice, especially given the sheer number of sexual conceptions that keep on keeping on, day-in and day-out. Yet, it’s always a case of one per customer – animal or human.  

The odd thing is that one per customer applies in two odd, but interesting cases. Your clone would not have your self-awareness but their own separate and apart awareness of self. That’s even more obvious in the case of identical twins – you have one sexual conception; but two beings; two non-coexisting, non-simultaneous self-aware identities.

THE EXCEPTIONS TO THINGS

There are people who are aware of having several selves. We call such people with such neurological or psychological symptoms as having a split or multi-personality. However, all these unique personalities are housed in the same body; the same brain, and therefore are the product of just one conception. Whether or not dual personalities reside in any animal species I know not, but presumably it’s not beyond the realm of biological possibility. However, the issue here is more dual self-aware personalities resulting from dual or not-unique one-off conceptions.

THE WHERE OF THINGS: THE BRAIN

You tend to associate your self-awareness with your head, probably because that’s where most of your sensory apparatus is. You do not associate your self-awareness with your big toe or with your thumb even apart from the fact that you know full well that you could lose those anatomical bits and pieces and retain your awareness of self.

Presumably your self-awareness part of you is housed in your consciousness which along with your subconscious collectively comprise your mind, which is housed in your brain.

Why the brain? Presumably I could, except for the brain, replace any part of you with an artificial equivalent (i.e. – hip joint, dentures, etc.) or a natural transplant from someone else (i.e. – heart, kidney, etc.) and you would still have 100% of your self-awareness.   

THE STUFF OF THINGS: MATTER & ENERGY

The brain complex is the ultimate and evolutionary product of raw materials - matter and energy. The brain is just another, albeit incredibly complex, product, a combination of the fundamentals – up and down quarks, electrons, photons and neutrinos.

The elementary components in and of your brain undergo every second by second various chemical reactions and physical processes that require, and in turn, give off energy; take in matter (raw materials) and give off matter (waste products). Part of those reactions and those processes gives rise to what you call your self-awareness.

Self-awareness is dependent on matter and energy. Up and down quarks, electrons, photons and neutrinos and their associated various chemical reactions and physical processes support the existence of awareness of self. The proof of that pudding is that you have no self-awareness when ‘put under’ for a medical operation; when you faint; or even when you are asleep**. When you go to sleep your self-awareness shuts down, tunes out and turns off. All of these altered states of consciousness require altered brain chemistry. The state of your self-awareness can be and is altered by relative states of matter and energy content and processes.

The biggest alteration to the matter and energy component that supports your self-awareness happens at death. And so your awareness of self dies when you die; when your body dies; when your brain dies.

That your brain matter and energy will of course survive your death is not in any doubt (those conservation laws we all learn in high school science class). The specific reactions and processes which require inputs and outputs will not survive. Death negates those. It’s like if your computer receives no inputs, then your computer produces no outputs and your computer for all practical purposes is dead. 

CONCLUSION

You and your self-awareness get but one go-round for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, etc., etc. until death makes your self-awareness and you part company.

Further, presumably in our near-infinite to infinite cosmos there exist an extremely vast number of self-aware aliens or extraterrestrials if you prefer. Presumably you have no additional self-awareness of your bug-eyed green monster-ness on the Planet Zork. So not only are you confined to just a self-awareness here on Planet Earth, but confined to just one self-awareness throughout the entire Universe (and maybe beyond if there is a Multiverse).

I’ve appeared to have painted myself into a corner here since there is no logical reason why one should be restricted or confined a singular awareness of self. So, somewhat reluctantly I have to suggest that this can-of-worms is either strong evidence for a one-off, presumably God-given soul and an existence in a supernatural universe, or a one-off Supreme [computer] Programmer-given barcode and existence in a simulated universe.  

*Animals have self-awareness as any pet owner, zoo keeper or livestock farmer knows.

**I’m not convinced you have self-awareness when you are dreaming since you are not self-aware that you are dreaming. Dreaming is just another altered state of consciousness, one that’s separate and apart from your wide-awake conscious self-awareness.

Guess Who? Part Two

Humans share 98% of their DNA with their closest animal relatives, the chimpanzees. That 2% difference however was enough to put man on the moon while the chimps still frolic in and around the forest trees. So, humans should pat themselves on the back, right? We’re king of the mountain; top of the tops, lord and master over all we survey. But what else has that 2% difference bestowed upon us? Perhaps a closer comparison to the rest of the species inhabiting Planet Earth should deflate our massive egos a might.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Sex and all that Jazz

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* Nudity or appearing in the nude. Why is this important? Is this really important at all, full-stop? No.

* Some of their members engaging in homosexuality. Why is this important? Is this really important at all? Not unless every human were gay, then the birth rate would tend to go down the gurgler, but clearly that’s not happening.

* Practicing birth control, which upsets other members of that species no end. Why is this important? Is this really important at all? Not unless each and every potential pregnancy is thwarted and the population plummets which again clearly isn’t happening.

* Practicing abortion, which upsets even a larger proportion of other members of that species. Why is this important? Is this really important at all? Not unless each and every pregnancy is aborted and the population plummets which yet again clearly isn’t happening.

* Those who practice abortion and not usually in an understanding way but rather by damning them, and often not just verbally. Since abortion isn’t important in the global scheme of things (i.e. – population), opponents are an irrelevancy.

* Pornography. Guess which species!

Fun and Games

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* Sports, both as participants and/or as spectators. This is not important. This contributes bugger all to your health, education and welfare.

* Sports teams and their fate. This too contributes bugger all to your health, education and welfare. So why is this important?  

* The Olympic Games (winter or summer). This contributes absolutely nothing to your health, education and welfare. So is this really important at all? Not in the slightest.

Traits

Only one species on this entire planet:

* Pats themselves on the back and awards themselves with unearned honorary titles like “Saint” or “Sir”, “Honourable” or “Right Honourable”,  “Your Excellency” or “Your Highness” or “Your Honour”, etc.

* Is a racist species.

* Is a sexist species.

* Gives a damn about making things go ka-boom, blowing things up and reeking destructive havoc in general.

* Makes it their business to butt into the affairs and business of other members of that same species. Curiosity is one thing but this species goes way, way, way beyond that.

* Needs a sense of history.

* Feels a need to shave or have haircuts.

* Feels a need for privacy when going to the bathroom.

* Rationalizes their idiocy.

* Tends not to learn from their mistakes.

* Has the highest rate of obesity which is ever increasing.

* Has the ways and means of driving themselves to extinction.

* Needs to use an alarm clock.

* Thinks they know how to manage an entire planet and the only species who has stuffed everything completely up.

* Deliberately fouls their very own nest.

* Engages in self-harming activities like using drugs, alcohol, tobacco, playing excessively loud music, speeding, over-eating, eating foods extremely high in sugar and salt, suicide, etc.

* Litters, does graffiti and engages in deliberate acts of vandalism.

* Kills his own and other species too just for fun.

* Kills for fashion, like for fur coats.

* Engages in acts of terrorism.

* Engages in acts of torture both of their own kind and other species.

* Builds and used weapons of mass destruction.

* Is totally obsessed with being in constant communication 24/7/52 with other members of that same species.

* Drives around the car park for five minutes just to avoid walking an extra 100 feet.

Economics

Only one species on this entire planet:

* Imposes and cheats on taxes (boo, hiss).

* Will use and misuse money (the root of all evil?).

Legal Matters

Only one species on this entire planet:

* Has a need for a Ten Commandments, a constitution, a Bill of Rights, and an entire legal system, and guess what, it’s not your average puppy dog.

* Needs to utilize policemen.

* Needs to utilize prisons.

Conclusions

Now, should humans continue to pat themselves on the back as lords and masters of life, the universe and everything, or perhaps pat themselves on the back as being the lone idiot species inhabiting the Planet Earth?

Guess Who? Part One

Humans share 98% of their DNA with their closest animal relatives, the chimpanzees. That 2% difference however was enough to put man on the moon while the chimps still frolic in and around the forest trees. So, humans should pat themselves on the back, right? We’re king of the mountain; top of the tops, lord and master over all we survey. But what else has that 2% difference bestowed upon us? Perhaps a closer comparison to the rest of the species inhabiting Planet Earth should deflate our massive egos a might.

There are millions of species living on Planet Earth right now (and untold millions that have lived on Planet Earth but have gone extinct). Humans are just one of those millions of here and now species, so you’d think other species would mirror our traits, or vice versa. Alas, humans are unique, and it’s not something to pat ourselves on the back about.

When it comes to what is important, for all practical purposes it boils down to filling what’s empty; emptying what’s full; scratching where it itches. A good night’s sleep doesn’t go astray either or a good role in the hay (though that might qualify under the ‘empty what’s full’ criteria). In fact to be honest, there’s only one thing that’s really important and that’s your own health and personal well being. All else, with the exception I guess of the health and wellbeing of family, is irrelevant.

Guess Who?

Dress & Fashion

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* Clothing fads and fashion. Why is this really important?

* Hairstyles. Is this really important?

* Wearing makeup. Why is this really important?

* Wearing high heels. Is this really important?

* Wearing a suit and tie. Why is this really important?

Special Calendar Dates

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* Holidays and the need for them. Is this really important at all?

* Anniversaries. Is this too really important at all?

Some Personal Stuff

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* Their family history. This is totally irrelevant to your health, education and welfare.

* What their neighbour thinks of them. This is also totally irrelevant to your health, education and welfare.

* Craving “Likes” on social media sites.

The Larger Context

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* Deities. Unless you really believe and are convinced there’s any possible relationship between your invisible friend and your post-demise fate of which there’s not the slightest shred of evidence, far less proof, then this too is irrelevant.

* Their nationalism. “My country right or wrong” has not exactly been a philosophical key to the establishment of peace on earth, goodwill towards men (and women).

* Their race (or breed). The concept of all DNA is equal but some DNA is more equal than others is chemical claptrap.

* Philosophy or metaphysics or the meaning and purpose in life. It maybe interesting, but it’s hardly important.

Special People

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* Royalty. Why are they important? Are they really important? Absolutely not! You earn you position in life; you’re not born into it.

* Celebrities. Why are they important? Are they really important at all? Absolutely not! Everyone sits on the commoner’s throne in the exact same way and puts their leggings on one leg at a time.

Entertainment

Only one species on this entire planet gives a damn about:

* The Academy Awards (and the thousands of related entertainment awards). Why is this important? Is this really important at all? Apart from the recipient, does anyone else really give a damn? This too is totally irrelevant to your health, education and welfare.

* Reality TV. Why is this important? Is this really important at all? You only have a fixed amount of hours in your life – why waste them of this sort of drivel? 

* Rap, hip-hop and heavy metal and thinks this represents something known to that same species as music. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

To be continued…