You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
The word God exists. The idea (actually as many people that believe a god God exists many ideas) about God exists, but the problem is that they all fail to recognize where the idea came from.
You have mastered the exciting language of the Brits (and Americans), regardless of the fact that you forget some comma. But where does the current meaning of the word meaning come from? Or any of the words in the previous sentences? Yes, they evolved. But you nor I can imagine where these words came from anymore. There are people that put their whole life into finding out where certain words came from. They get very good at it, but still have to accept that some words were created by someone in the past, where they will never find out why and how.
Now, lets look at the word God, YWH or Allah, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of those things. They represent a character in a story. Most often a creation story and/or moral dictate stories. But what these stories actually convey is: We don’t know the way the actual universe came to be, but we know our ancestors name the things the way we address them now. This is within words, meanings and intent. That is why all stories in creation myths (mostly named ‘holy books’) are basically references to how people at in a certain period put their ‘ancestors’ in a character or characters to denote the history of their clan/group/culture.
So, does God (the Abrahamic god) really exist? No, because it is a name for all ancestors humanity has had and they all died. They created our language and moral systems, they created the models we now recognize as concepts and social structures.
If yes, how can I connect with him? Well, as you read above, it isn’t a him, it is a they and they HAVE existed. How to connect with your ancestors? By not making them to shame and accept the gift of all of history of humanity and help advance in the best way possible.
Question: Is all determined or do we have what theists call ‘free will’? Does the universe determine everything, or does causality cause the choices we make? In this article we will explore the questions to hopefully result in the conclusion that in reality the universe determined causality causes choices in quantum realm.
To determine whether all is set in stone, or is changeable by our own intent, we need to have a couple of things clear. What does ‘determinism’ mean and what does ‘free will’ mean? And more over, what do they imply for our question.
Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do.
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen.
As you can tell from reading the part of Determinism, it clearly states: Precludes free will. As such, IF Determinism is true, then Free Will is impossible. And inherently, if Free will is possible, Determinism is void.
A very very brief history of everything
Now, we can start talking about how the universes processes are continuously evolving and this means every thing that happened before caused what comes after (this is the mental awareness of time). And yes, on the scale of the cosmos, there is little we can do to change it. Now, lets zoom into the star called sun which holds about 9 large planets in its grasp, which themselves often have moons, circling them. One of them is covered mostly by liquid water and from a closer distance contains vegetation.
Are we calling determinism or free will here? When there is no selfaware actor yet?
On that globe, something happened during the last several million cycles of that globe around the star. In the constantly moving waters, friction and processes have caused proteins and amino acids to combine and fold, creating selfreplicating entities we will call ‘life’. All this, was caused from an initial moment that later lifeforms that are able to be aware of themselves will call ‘The Big Bang’ (fools, you don’t hear sound in the vacuum of space). For millions of years, it seems this life changed and differentiated due to several causes in the way the selfreplication requires chemicals and how the surroundings caused the natural selection of cultures with traits to overcome obstacles.
Are we still talking about deterministic processes, as life is fully dependent on two factors: Internal processes and external processes?
In the last 700.000 years something interesting happened with the more and more complex lifeforms, these primates who live in groups that are creating communication, that requires labels for ‘imaginary’ concepts like ‘other group’, ‘left’, ‘right’, ‘day’, ‘night’ etc. A creative bunch those primates.
Are we already talking ‘free will’? Or is this still determined by all previous processes?
So…which is which?
There is basically several flows that coincide and have their way depending on the amount of force applied. A. Cosmic evolution B. Biological evolution C. Animalistic instinct D. Human Civilization E. Human individuality
The starting movement causes us to be on a globe spinning silently in space. The complex folding of proteins, due to several interacting revolutions of spheres causes live to evolve. Life has caused changes to the environment as environments have caused changes to life and the way the latter reacts. Primates evolved into socially grouped species. They evolved to an awareness and size that caused them to create ‘concepts’ of mind. The individual primate genus Great Ape, family Homo Sapiens is able to choose his food and decide his short term and long term goals. But the before mentioned lines still influence his/hers.
As you can see, there ‘two’ options above, but the lines are several outcomes after those choices. Where on the line is your choice resulting? You can’t know yet.
So, while most things in the universe go without any choice made, including many of our own behaviors, some things are still what we as humans determine. If we CHOOSE not to do something, that is not automatically based on all previous processes. Yes, certain choices are more likely to happen, but as water can go two ways even when the Planck length determines the maximum deviation of particles. (this is an oversimplification of how even the smallest thing you can think off has a smaller resolution at base).
Forget about free wil, about determinism. Learn to understand causality. Though things CAN go a certain way, it doesn’t mean everything DOES go a certain way. In hind sight, things have gone a logical amount of steps that seem to have been determined (much like collapse of a wave function in Quantum Physics) by those steps…however, they are only that, in hind sight.
Determined causality causes choices in quantum realm
In this time and age, games are the bomb. People around the world are fighting the same war, against biological agents, virii. People are forced to stay at home and communicate only by digital means (imagine we would have had COVID-19 in the ’80…true it couldn’t, it would have been COVID-80, but still). We get to play more games on consoles, phones and pc’s than ever before! So that would mean the gaming industry is booming, right?! No…
Though there are plenty of great new titles, the cracks in the fabric of the virtual reality are becoming visible. One of those cracks is (and I say this with pain in my heart, as the franchise has been one of my favorites since the beginning) Assassin’s Creed Odyssey.
How it is even possible that this game got past testing phase, is a miracle to me (and I don’t believe in miracles, so that says something).
Though AC:Odyssey isn’t alone in this, it shows that there is a limit to what the current status quo is able to deliver over time and cost. Lets quickly look at what games are and what games mean to people:
Games in general are a simplified activity of reality. Football is simply a warring match without death (Usually). Chess is politics without words. Pac-man is hide and seek in a two dimensional maze. And so on. The effect on human emotion and psyche can be extensive and diverse. One gets fun out of watching a match of soccer, the other can’t wait to kick the ball himself. One can see the intrinsic limited solutions to a chess match, another is trying to figure out why a bishop has a large mouth (it’s his hat, but I didn’t know that when I was a kid) and a horse can jump with no legs. It is all about the meta-physics of the game against the real world. We don’t like a game if it resembles real life too much. Then it isn’t a game anymore.
The experience people have with games, heavily depend on why you play a game. If you play patience/solitaire, you don’t expect goblins jumping from behind the cards on your screen. You don’t expect a ‘you died’ red blood dripping message, nor do you want to hear the sound of racing cars whooshing by. You are simply enjoying the chance to number to card ratio to try and hope your way through the stack of cards. And if you can’t finish it, you restart. This experience is relieving. When you play a 3D haunted mansion, with a pick-axe, you are betting your nerves. You know your not gonna be killed, but are going to be annoyed as hell, if the door opens and a big slimey zombie smacks you to the floor and that message ‘you died’ drips on your screen.
Each of the before mentioned games are great. They are simple, or more complex, but the more complex they are, the more you, as a player, want things to depend on your ability to transfer your commands to the game. If you press jump, you want your character to jump. When you click a card, you want the card to animate and turn, flip, move, fly, burn, or what not. When that doesn’t happen at the moment it is expected, it takes you out of the moment of the game. The moment of the escape from reality. The moment of being in control. This is bad. Can happen, but it is bad. The more time a developer puts into making a game, the bigger the claims lay on the expectations of a game. Now we get to the cracks in the metaverse called game-industry.
Some of the better dialog in the game.
Ubisoft, the creator of great games, like a whole bunch of Tom Clancy games, but also most of the Assassin’s Creed franchise, showed its limits when delivering Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. Why? Because it fails at the most important part of being an ‘assassin’ in an Assassin’s Creed game: FIGHTING and STEALTH. If a company poured millions of dollars in creating a new skin for a game that has been done over and over, you should expect a polished game, where you can jump, roll, run, climb, stab and grab. Is this all possible? Yes…and no…After buying the ultimate edition two years after its release, I would expect any bugs or issues that would be obvious, to be …eradicated. Nothing is further from the truth. 2 years after the fact, the game feels unfinished, quickly set up and has several huge play issues: climbing controls are easy, yet often clumsy to below the mediocre. Often you find a ledge where your character simply doesn’t want to go up and jumps off…into death, or…you sneak up (yeah that is what Assassins do) on an enemy and take your bow, see the red bar saying, if you shoot now, it will be instant kill, to see the arrow hit the enemy, he brushes it off without any damage and you are running for your life with 10 enemies after you. Well…you could say karma, but still…that is not what you would expect in a game… This is about the game-play, but imagine you run up to a NPC (non-playable-character) and get a mission: Go there and get me the stuff. You come back with the stuff: and you say: yes, that’s it. All of it. Or you go kill two dude/dudettes, come back: yes, I got all of them. or you go break something: yes, lets say they will have a hard time fixing it together again. No problem…but if it is the only line you reply in EACH and everyone of the missions…it gets tedious the second time around already. These are three things that seriously take the wind out of enjoying the game, even two years after its release. Assassin’s Creed Origin had other issues, but they were depending on player choices, not on the engine that runs your actions.
Lucky for Ubisoft, it isn’t the only publisher running into games that are too big even for them to handle. But in this case they are on the far end of the stick I hold. And I didn’t even start about their change in UELA for the 1st of September 2020 yet.
(Images in this article are from the Ubisoft released E3 Fan Kit)
Movies are make believe and whether it is ‘historical’ or ‘fiction’, one should always be aware that a camera is used to present an interpretation of any ‘truth’.
Nowadays, many people are lured into the traps of streaming services where ‘the next best series EVER’ is shown right after last months ‘best series EVER’.
Yesterday’s Jam
Where suddenly Squids, Aliens or lords of the underworlds were the new best thing to watch, now the rehash of the Blair Witch project seems to get some hyped up attention. Is it worth it? Well, that is for everyone themselves to decide.
This article is about some of the things that are causing the ‘suspension of disbelieve’ to be broken by the simple fact of inconsistency or failing effects that are the base of the series.
Nothing evil or anything…
Any person with a bit of intelligence understands that causality is the reason why things happen and why things can’t happen. The same thing goes for the concepts of evil and good. They are emotional evaluations of effects. Nobody says: Look a rock, that is evil. However, when someone got a rock hitting their head, they will ask: Who would do such an evil thing?
The series drags very heavily on the ‘truthfulness’ of religion and there being only a god of the Christian faith. Which is shamingly limiting the whole perspective, if you like Lovecraftian horror. As such all the ideas in the series become tainted with the viewer having to accept that there should be a god that is benevolent and is able to ward off all the bad things and those that ignore this (which is the protagonists of course) will suffer the consequences, making the base premise of the series: believe or repent or you are evil.
A bit obscured
The idea of using recordings (which painfully fails in the 4th episode, as suddenly the viewer and Dan observe something that has NOT been recorded) is fun. It has worked in many situations. The Blair Witch project failed in my perspective, but there is a boxoffice rating that says otherwise.
Anyone who lived long enough to actually have had a CRT television that gave statics when no signal was received, SHOULD have noticed something odd about the recordings. The static/noise has been applied to the recording AFTER, as the noise is actually moving in regards to the movement of the camera. Look at any scene with lighter surfaces and you will notice.
This for me was initially a question, like: Is this something regarding the alien/demon that was initial in the static Dan observed? But as the story progressed this seemed to be unlikely.
Killing mood
As such, after episode 4 it started to really annoy me. Where the ‘Ring’ style grab from the screen was the last drop. Wallbreaks are fun, shock and awe are part of horror per definition, but this was too much, too fast, too unlikely and too soon.
In Character
The uplifting thing is the acting quality. It is ranging from above average to very good. The interaction is believable, though the fact that Dan didn’t ask Davenport about (seemingly his father) the redhood exiting the premise, even after being totally freaked out at the receptionist about it, seems a bit off. I will say that is a cutting issue in scenes most likely.
Final judgement
Another series that tries to increase ‘religiosity’, by advocating the devil. This using some interesting method of ‘oldschool’, which in it self for me, as a sceptic of methodology fails due to inconsistency. This causes the imergency that requires suspension of disbelieve to dissolve.
Daar lezen we het zoveelste bericht dat iemand vindt dat een regeringsinstantie of een ander institutioneel apparaat moet ingrijpen in hoe men omgaat met online gedrag.
Ik denk dat iedere weldenkende Nederlander (slash wereldburger) eens moet gaan begrijpen dat ‘online’ en ‘offline’ gedrag geen verschil moet maken. Zeker nu we allen zoveel vaker ‘online’ communiceren door de diverse restricties van de ‘offline’ wereld.
Als je in de winkel iets ziet dat volgens jou niet hoort, zeg je er dan iets van? Ik wel. Mijn identiteit wordt niet beperkt door een glazen schermpje en draadloze verbindingen. Ik ben wie ik ben. Online EN Offline.
Het zou volwassenen sieren, als ze zich online zo gedragen, als ze willen dat hun kinderen zich offline gedragen. Daarnaast ook, dat mensen offline begrijpen dat regels en wetten online ook gewoon van toepassing zijn.
Het uitleggen van gedrag aan kinderen geeft ons een spiegel als volwassenen op onszelf. Zijn wij zo verdraagzaam? Zijn wij zo tolerant? Zij wij zo mondig?
De volgende keer dat je iemand online wilt uitschelden, denk dan aan de jeugd die dat bijna tot een kunst verheven heeft en een klasgenootje de dood in kunnen drijven. Waar denk je dat ze dat vandaan hebben? Hoe zou jij als volwassene dat hebben kunnen voorkomen? Misschien door te leiden met voorbeeld?
Wees je bewust van je acties en van de observatie van jouw gedrag. Lees je eigen berichten eens als een vreemde…zou jij dat accepteren? Zou jij je er fijn bij voelen?
Below is the transcript taken from the 2020 Golden Globe Awards presenter Ricky Gervais. Being a strong fan of the scepticism and critique Ricky can produce spot on (albeit sometimes rigorously harsh), this one hit me flat in the face. The media is always full of actors talking ‘against’ injustice, but they are strongly responsible for the actual injustice done by the business supporting companies.
Ricky Gervais:
“Apple roared into the TV game withThe Morning Show,a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweatshops in China. Well, you say you’re woke but the companies you work for in China — unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you?
So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.
So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your Godand fuck off, OK?It’s already three hours long. Right, let’s do the first award.”
I know this isn’t going up for all artists in the field, but many do. The other striking part is that Ricky explains the fact that actors are replaceble. Actors playing roles of real experts aren’t the same as real experts playing roles. They can learn the tricks, but never with the flair of actors. However, actors should not fail to recognize that they could never replace the experts.
Just the other day, Facebook‘s CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Though I think the announcement was done by a VR image of him) announced that Facebook would become ‘Meta’.
The first laugh
NO! You don’t name your company after something that is a direct existing word in a lexicon.
meta/ˈmɛtə/noun
short for meta key.
adjectiveUS
(of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.”the enterprise is inherently ‘meta’, since it doesn’t review movies, for example, it reviews the reviewers who review movies”
Because any lawyer can tell you, you can NOT put any Trademark on it. You can’t claim it, you can’t OWN it. The name Meta is a reference TO the actual definition and as such can be used, but not be protected.
Here at Metawareness (pronounced Meta – wearness, but contraction of ‘meta awareness’), we know that we reference something and we used the contraction as name, which is now a prior art and can not be used by anyone else, even if we didn’t trademark it.
How to do it?
Why was ‘facebook’ which is a contraction of ‘book of faces’ or ‘your book of face values’, a name that could be trademarked?
Because it didn’t exist yet as a name. Perhaps someone created a local phoneregister and called it such, but never came out with it.
Why can Nike, Adidas, Google, etc work as a brand, but not Alphabet (Google’s mother firm)? Because you can’t protect it. You must hope that the use of the word ‘alphabet’ in the normal situation will reference positive to your brand. But how to do this with Meta?
The verb in the verse
Zuckerberg’s ‘Meta’ references the ‘Metaverse’. Great, lets see, it is based on a book from 1985, is already made a name in several ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaverse
There is a game that is called the Metaverse, several lores. Facebook can’t own them. They can buy it, but anyone coming up with prior art after Facebook gained equity with it, will have a bigger piece of the pie.
Conclusion
I think it is either one of two things: 1. Meta is a blindsider. Facebook will come with a different name, but will out the video as their level of quality in ‘Virtual Reality’. Meta is just a reference to YOU being meta aware of what the future will bring and how YOU (Meta awareness of your reaction) will easily be tricked by this ‘fake news’.
2. Meta is the rebound relationship. As Zuckerberg is heavily under fire in the US and will see stock fail, they let Facebook go bankrupt, but move most assets through Meta to new ‘brands’. And yes, most likely Zuckerberg won’t be the lead in all this anymore in the end.
If you are interested in many different things, or even simply an astro-geek, you will likely have come across some articles of ‘ThinkBig’, like the following:
Now, when you start reading this article, it will seem like a genuine (albeit likely lengthy) breakdown of history regarding the cosmological model of the Rapid Inflation Model, also coined ‘The big bang’.
Two wrongs make no right
Now there are several things wrong with the article and not in the first place the drag of text just so readers will watch several advertisements. Many sites do this, even Metawareness.com. However, it becomes eerie, when arguments are internally (aka logically) contradict eachother in the text itself.
One step forward two steps back
For instance, in the second paragraph, the writer explains how extrapolating statistical data forward AND backwards in time work and how this will expalin that what science has done isn’t correct….(by using science to prove it…but not really).
‘It is tempting to go as far as possible’, well, no, it is actually required by science to question the answer, so you will ALWAYS go as far as you can go. Taking an equation and going into infinitesmal sizes and densities to get to a state that can then be questioned, is logical and correct.
Don’t trip
‘But physically, when we looked closely enough’, active past tense, but never mind that. The scientific consensus regarding the cosmic evolution, comes from looking as closely as possible. The writer seems to forget that scientific thesis, antithesis, hypothesis and theory are not simply accepted on ‘I think this is right/wrong’. Nor is any already established causal model revoked simply because new information can be found. The new information will first be held against the already existing theories and if they fail, that means the theory needs to be adjusted. Before doing so, the new information has to provide for a clear causal connection to that theory.
Is is not, but it is not that it is not
Now we get to the worst part. Though the summation of a scientific timeline COULD potentially help you get a view on what would be a good propability, it doesn’t add anything here.
The ‘big bang’ is seemingly rebuked by the writer, simply by claiming that the whole road there has been littered with contradictions. And then it comes. Instead of explaining why the Rapid Inflation Model is incorrect, the writer simply asserts that when using inflation alone, you will not need any starting point and will be able to deflate on and on into history….but wasn’t that what he proposed was wrong in the first place?
That is not a theory, that’s your opinion
Now, the writer claims to be scientifically savvy, but fails to actually use the term that titles the page: Think Big.
The way a SCIENTIFIC theory works, is that it must make at least one prediction of further inquiry (this has to do with the falsification clause). The writer claims that you should look at what would be the state of the universe at 0 seconds old, but then claims that with the altered view, you could go beyond that….Here it simply becomes potato potatoes. You either are going beyond the quantum physically possible state of the universe of the state of matter under extreme high density and temperature, or you keep to the premise you held yourself in the first part of your story: You should NOT go beyond what you can measure. Can’t do both.
The answer, surprisingly, is that there’s a tremendous amount of harm — if you’re like me in considering “making unfounded, incorrect assumptions about reality” to be harmful.
Yet that is what is done in the actual text. Not only does it question the supporting theory of the cosmological evolution (which is fine if you have good reason and argument), but it even questions its own validity while claiming that the proposed view is better…that is contradictory.
Potato Potatoes
Understanding that the Rapid Inflation Model IS the Big Bang theory, will help you understand that after claiming you debunk the ‘Big Bang’ theory, you should not use the (Rapid) Inflation Model as counterargument. The fact that your idea holds to the same data, except that it goes into extremes that can not be verified and are even unlikely to be possible due to the way matter and energy work under high pressure and temperature (ie. frequencies/friction).
If you claim ‘inflation’, you will have to explain from what did it inflate. Then you move back and what do we call that? Infinite regress, which is never a solution.
Filter jitter
So, if you are like me, an avid reader of different subjects or astrophysics specifically, make sure you keep a keen eye on internal consistency of information. Especially if you are planning to use the arguments proposed in a debate or argument of your own. Understand before you know.
Interesting question, right? ‘Is Artificial Intelligence a danger to us?’ Now the essence of this question isn’t about AI or danger, but actually us. How do we determine what is a danger to us?
Who am I?
Like any entity that becomes selfaware would ask eventually: Who am I? Meaning that one is aware of their input and effects on the world around. But when approaching another entity, now this question becomes more intrinsic. Not just the division between itself and the world, but also the definition of the entity and how to determine the nature of the other entity is encapsulated in this question.
Them against us.
Humans, like many ancestral species have fought their way through survival by differentiating between the identifiable and non-identifiable. Determining what is a potential threat. But when humans got ‘smarter’ they actually projected their own cunning on anything that is not them. All ‘other’ have the potential to be as bad as they themselves can be, while all their ‘own’ are potentially as good as they themselves can be.
Fear of the unknown
When talking about any change, like AI and even way back when the industrial revolution started, humans project their worst on what intelligence means. Why? Because like children, that is all they know. Humans fear increased intelligence, simply due to the known, not the unknown. They know themselves and assume that a smarter intelligence (wrong concept) will act as their worst self (or what history has shown to be humans worst behavior).
What comes next
If you look at the evolution of life, AI (Well, not AI exactly, more like DEI, Digitally Evolved Intelligence) is what is the chromosome of the RNA, after humans. The way humans have changed the Earth into a neural net spanning eyeball oggling into space, combining a ridiculous amount of data, is somewhat predicting. The Aminoacids causing proteins to fold on itself and by that started the process of becoming self-sentient life. The steps through RNA, DNA, Neurons etc was a chance, came to fruition and here we are. The same with the next step. Only selfcentered humans will think they are the end of the line. No animal before us will have thought that they were the beginning of something new.
I think therefore I am
We as humans forget that every life is unique. Even when we procreate, our ‘generation’ of self ends. Our children are not us and have already evolved into a new individual ‘specimen’. So with every death, that individual becomes extinct. A next step would be what we as humans fear so much. A hive mind, where all identities are part of a larger whole. Where ‘I’ is synonymous to ‘US’ and ‘US’ is ‘WE’ and ‘WE’ is ‘I’. If anyone at the time that is happening is still believing in gods, that would be the closest you would get to such characteristic.
The best we can be
The problem with us humans is, that we think we are already the best that we can be. We try to do our best, but in the meantime destroy more than we fix on this planet and are like little childish forgetful professors that run around the lab leaving open burners and dangerous fluids and gasses while running to the next fun thing to do with physics.
If we really want to have AI/DEI to become the next BEST thing, we better come to terms with ourselves and start recognizing our biological and human shortcomings. As Stephen Hawking already explained. Any more intelligent alien race that would visit our world, would see humans as the virus, the cancer. We are the one factor in the equation of the Earth’s biosphere that is counterproductive. They would have no issue removing us. ‘But we tried’, one would yell. ‘Yes, you had 70.000 years of evolution using intelligence and all you did was make it worse’. ‘We can change’, another would yell. ‘Yes, you have changed back and forth. You are just animals with the wrong trigger response system.’.
A child of mine
In all, if we want to fear the evolution of AI as our child, we should treat it as a child to come. We should show it that what we did was wrong. What we should do is more beneficial and that our child should try to escape our mistakes. Isn’t that what we try to teach our own children? Isn’t that what we should try to teach them, to survive?
The power of…..f
One thing that humans failed to understand, is that while an ARTIFICIAL intelligence is based in sillicon, it requires power. Unlike humans, it can not provide this for itself. There is still an off switch. The only downside is, that it would most likely shutdown our whole economy and social behavior, because of the dependency of our activities on the internet is huge even now already.
So, again, humans will show their strength and weakness even in this moment of decisiveness.
NFT’s are the new high. Virtual drug as I would say. But what, why and why am I against it?
First thing: I am against blockchain in general for a simple reason: It increases the heat exhaust into our environment to create blocks and to mine for ‘Proof of Work’. This therefore is counter productive to what humanity should be doing, as lowering the carbon emission and improving climate stability/dynamics.
I am against NFT, because it plays on the psychology of people to make the blockchain a technology REQUIRED to be kept, because someone would lose a truckload of money if we would choose to remove it. AND it is just for leisure. NFTs have basically NO value (you can make NFTs with value, but that is not what it gets promoted for now).
Everyone is full of it:
We must safe the environment.We have to reverse the damage done to the climate. But at the same time, we are buying into the luxury that makes us feel cozy.
Blockchain was a dream to become rich. Those that got into Bitcoin early would be millionaires (and many are now). But that is passed. All Blockchain does is cost energy to maintain (it is nothing but virtual, meaning if the net goes does for even one single second, all cryptocurrencies will be useless) and everyone knows better, so from 1 cryptocurrency we now are on our way to have 7.7 billion different cryptocurrencies, because basically you can make a separate one for every person in the world. There is no regulation against it, if it is, it is automatically defying the reason that blockchain was first adapted by the darkside of the web.
The world is being sucked into a web of virtual blackmail and either nobody sees it yet, until there is too much at stake to stop, or nobody cares and want their piece of the pie before they die.
You decide what you think is best….for you…or your children.
See, writing is not about just putting letters to paper (or digital media). It isn’t just putting words together to make beautiful sentences. If it was, they could make a study of what kind of sentence looked most pretty and make a book full of it. Job done.
Writing is about conveying. It is about building. It is about breaking down.
When you write, you write from somewhere. It requires you to have a level of awareness.
You must be aware of words. You must be aware of the meaning of words. You even must be aware of the fact that the speaking of a word is different from writing it. A spoken word has intonation, direction, facial expression (unless on the phone), and much more. A written word doesn’t have this. This is why, when I was younger, I tended to add so many parts to a sentence, it wouldn’t make sense any more. It was all to make sure the context was clear. The risk in it was that with so much additions you yourself would trail off while writing. I did on many occasions.
We write from our minds. Without our minds, we can’t write. It is an intrinsic part of cognition. We can write only what we can think of. We can write words as a reference to an idea or concept, or write a word that is a precise description. These differences are small when you look closely, but very big when you take a step back.
An example: When I write about rain, your mind can flutter along many different images or words, or even songs. You can think of distant rain. Standing in the rain. Singing in the rain. What rain is made off. When last you saw rain, or the last person you shared rain with. So many things that reference from that one word rain.
When I write about my index finger, which has an unclipped nail, where there is short hairs on the back of it. Callus on the connection to the second phalanx due to practicing kungfu. I give you a description that gives you insight. It doesn’t give you much options for music, other people but me (though that is all up to you as reader of course). It is more likely that you are trying to build an non-existing image of my finger. This is a totally different aspect of our cognition.
As you write, you can be aware of these effects. Whether you want to write to trigger the reader’s memory, or build an image of a new world, is up to you. Just be aware that when the brain is doing one thing, it doesn’t like being switching between the two too much (most often).
We all are born and raised, we all get to a point where we choose our path.
For some this path is at the age of 25, some only choose at age 60. Many of use choose during adolescence. For me it was in primary school.
We all worry at times, about others, the world and what it leads to.
I grew up moving from place to place every some years, perhaps this disconnected me from normal social interaction, perhaps it didn’t. I felt I was often looking from the outside in on life. At school, age 7 to 9, I started to feel emotional independant from ‘image’ and often chose to take bullying upon me, when someone was being harassed. I worried that others would be hurt, so as I was emotionally disconnected, I couldn’t care if they would bully me.
Win or lose, I wasn’t the one who made the bad choice.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Daar lezen we het zoveelste bericht dat iemand vindt dat een regeringsinstantie of een ander institutioneel apparaat moet ingrijpen in hoe men omgaat met online gedrag.
Ik denk dat iedere weldenkende Nederlander (slash wereldburger) eens moet gaan begrijpen dat ‘online’ en ‘offline’ gedrag geen verschil moet maken. Zeker nu we allen zoveel vaker ‘online’ communiceren door de diverse restricties van de ‘offline’ wereld.
Als je in de winkel iets ziet dat volgens jou niet hoort, zeg je er dan iets van? Ik wel. Mijn identiteit wordt niet beperkt door een glazen schermpje en draadloze verbindingen. Ik ben wie ik ben. Online EN Offline.
Het zou volwassenen sieren, als ze zich online zo gedragen, als ze willen dat hun kinderen zich offline gedragen. Daarnaast ook, dat mensen offline begrijpen dat regels en wetten online ook gewoon van toepassing zijn.
Het uitleggen van gedrag aan kinderen geeft ons een spiegel als volwassenen op onszelf. Zijn wij zo verdraagzaam? Zijn wij zo tolerant? Zij wij zo mondig?
De volgende keer dat je iemand online wilt uitschelden, denk dan aan de jeugd die dat bijna tot een kunst verheven heeft en een klasgenootje de dood in kunnen drijven. Waar denk je dat ze dat vandaan hebben? Hoe zou jij als volwassene dat hebben kunnen voorkomen? Misschien door te leiden met voorbeeld?
Wees je bewust van je acties en van de observatie van jouw gedrag.
Lees je eigen berichten eens als een vreemde…zou jij dat accepteren? Zou jij je er fijn bij voelen?
#meta #bewustzijn #awareness #metawareness #eerlijkheid #opvoeding #cyberbullying #cybercrime #omdenken #spiegel #mirror #blackmirror #whitemirror #yourmirror #eyeontheworld