A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

April 18th, 2009 by Sean
Emergence, pt. 2

What is the concept of “emergence”?

First, we create a system based on simple concepts, and simple rules. For example, suppose we have an image. We initialize the image with a random color at each pixel. Then, we randomly choose a pixel, and copy it’s color to a random neighbor. We repeat this process over and over again.

What emerges from these simple rules? It’s actually pretty cool to watch… the image starts to look life-like. At first it’s just random colors everywhere, but soon little pockets of the same color start to emerge. These blobs start small… but over time, they grow and shrink, and move around. They split in half… some die off completely. If the simulation is left to run long enough, sometimes two dominant colors emerge. They battle each other. One color might shrink down to a small section, only to expand again. Eventually, given enough time, one color will take over the entire image.

Why not take a look? I created a simple game where you can see emergence in action.

So what’s the point?

There are a lot of points. The main point is that it exists. Given just some numbers, and some simple rules, unpredictable properties emerge. It’s not a question of “faith” or “opinion” or anything like that. Emergence exists. It’s mathematically proven.

Big deal, numbers simulate stuff… nothing fantastic. What does it mean?

It actually means quite a lot, but it takes some more before we get to that point. The first step is to recognize its existence, and understand that - given a large enough system with some basic rules - things start to happen. And by things I mean life.

Posted in Philosophy, Science | 5 Comments »

April 6th, 2009 by Sean
Evolution of Psionics

What is “Psionics”?

“Psionics” is an umbrella term for a variety of paranormal and psychic abilities. Skills like Telepathy, Psychokinesis, Remote Viewing, Out-of-Body Experiences, Energy Manipualtion (Psi Balls, Shields, Constructs), Empathy, and Precognition. The reality behind these skills is unknown, and they could all rely on different mechanisms to actually work, but they are still grouped together under the term “Psionics” simply due to their paranormal/psychic classification.

Is it real? Are you crazy?

Since Psionics is an umbrella term, the “realness” of each skill has it’s own body of literature. My personal experience and research, over the past decade, has led me to conclude that all the skills mentioned above are real. Of course, I could just be a nut, or just making a few honest mistakes, so who cares what I think?

Now what?

For the few reading, I want you to take a step back. What I mean by that is I want your mind to stop moving so much. Instead of thinking about psionics, or about a particular skill, or how cool it would be, or how silly it all is, or all the questions… just stop. Stop moving. There is plenty of time to think about whatever you want after you’ve finished reading this article. But for now, at the end of this sentence, just stop.

…

You don’t have to freeze your body or breath. Please, by all means, breathe normally, and relax your muscles. Just stop thinking so damn much. I’m not trying to put you in some voodoo trance or anything, I just need you to drop all your preconceived notions for a few minutes. After you finish reading, you are free to restore all your beloved notions, so don’t worry :-).

The Hidden Puzzle

After talking to thousands of people about psionics, I’ve noticed that there are two puzzles. The first puzzle is obvious: is psionics real? If so, how do I do it? How does it work? What about science and physics? What about religion? Am I insane? This is the puzzle we try to solve. This is the puzzle that we set our sites on, and work towards.

The second puzzle is hidden. It’s the puzzle we’re actually solving, while we think we’re solving the first. It is the puzzle of mind and meta-thought.

As long as the second puzzle remains unsolved, the first puzzle will always exist. If you truly want to cease the questions in the first, you must solve the second.

Not-Self Denial

What happens, though? We focus on the first, and because the second blocks our path, eventually we tire out and move on to something else. But the second puzzle always remains… it infects everything. Our limits, in any field, psionics or otherwise, is governed by mind. It is only until we push hard enough that we notice this limitation. Perhaps psionics will be the subject that motivates you to push that hard. Probably not, though.

What will probably happen is that psionics will spark some curiousity, which will give you some fire for a while. Maybe only enough motivation to finish this article, or maybe enough to read some more. For the few, psionics will motivate beyond reading, and spark us to try some exercises out. For the cursed, psionics might become a vessle for self-discovery and deeper understanding of reality.

Evolution of Psionics

Show me a question, and I will show you an insatiable mind.

The evolution of psionics is the transition of focus from the external world to the internal. I need you to make this transition, because your thoughts are killing me. They’re killing you. Just stop. Stop.

But you can’t. So run away… move on to something else. Run as far as you can, until mind reaps another casulity. Psionics was never really for you anyways.

Posted in Note to Self, ESP | 6 Comments »

April 5th, 2009 by Sean
Completeness of Atheism

With the combination of evolution, emergence, and recognizing that the mind is responsible for the illusion of the world, I have stumbled upon a near-complete model of reality. I find myself saying things I’ve heard come out of the Atheist’s mouth. We don’t need a God to explain… anything. We can offer a more robust explanation using the Atheist’s concepts.

The Atheist has created a beautiful model of reality, really. It offers concrete answers to strange observations, and makes solid predictions about the future. It can answer more questions than any other system of beliefs I’ve come across. It is simple, elegant, and complete.

And that’s what bothers me :-).

First, let me state that Atheism is far better than any other modern theist belief structure. It is light-years beyond Christianity, in my opinion. Not that I don’t feel Christianity serves a useful purpose… I’m comparing the beliefs based on which offers more reasonable explanations. I.e., Evolution appeals to reason more than the Garden of Eden.

That being said, I find myself really upset with ESP and out-of-body experiences all of the sudden. They really ruin this perfectly complete Atheist model. I mean… they profoundly ruin it. By giving special exception to consciousness, we’ve invalidated the beauty of Atheism. The Atheist’s reply is to remove the special exception, restoring beauty to it’s model. But to be honest, I’m not really sure we can do that.

If I could ignore ESP and OBEs, I’d be a perfectly content Atheist right now. But damn it all to hell if reality hasn’t ruined it.

Incomplete or inconsistent. Gödel’s curse remains.

Posted in Philosophy, Belief Systems | 5 Comments »

March 15th, 2009 by Sean
Certainty

Why is it that, the older we get, the more certain we become about reality?

And the more certain we become, the less magic there seems to be in the world?

Of course we can answer this in the boring sense: by virtue of having “unknowns” in your belief system, you subjectively sense magic because you cannot predict the future. It’s an inevitable result, limited to the confines of the mind. An illusion born out of your own ignorance.

Yeah, I get it.

What if it isn’t an illusion though? What if, by virtue of holding on to uncertainty, you genuinely affect reality, and allow magical things to happen? Meaning that: if you hold on to uncertainty, reality itself behaves differently for you.

It’s a mind-fuck. It blurs the line between subjectivity and objectivity.

I would like to test this theory out, but I have no clue how to go about it. How do you measure how uncertain you are? How do you determine whether this uncertainty is affecting reality, or mearly your perception of reality? How do you locate and bottle up the unknown?

Posted in Note to Self, Philosophy, Belief Systems | 10 Comments »

March 10th, 2009 by Sean
Emergence

I’ve been on vacation the last two weeks. As is my routine, I like to buy an interesting book to read during the down times. It just so happens I stumbled upon a fantastic book that discusses many of the things I find interesting concerning the philosophy of science:

Reinventing the Sacred, by Stuart A. Kauffman

At first I was skeptical, but the author eventually won me over. Not by using some New Age mumbo-jumbo and dangerous thoughts… but by appealing to logic, reason, mathematics, science, and evidence! Fantastic! (On the down side, some areas become very hard to read because it can almost be too technical, and he is very long-winded.)

His argument is against the modern addiction to “reductionism”, which basically says: whatever object we want to study, we just need to take it apart, and study the parts. Kauffman argues against it by giving example after example of emergent properties of complicated systems. These properties are unpredictable. Not because we aren’t smart enough - Kauffman argues they are inherently unpredictable.

One example to demonstrate this is music. For example, your average song is around three minutes long, which is about three megabytes of information when stored in mp3 format. Therefore, given enough time, we could sit and listen to all three minute songs - simply by enumerating all the computer bits on and off, in all combinations. So, on the surface, it looks like there is a limit to our creativity, and reductionism is the winner.

Kauffman’s response is: it’s impossible to actually do that. The numbers are too large. So the only way to move forward is to creatively make new music, because this “listen to every song” experiment is utterly useless.

However, in creating new music, even more music becomes accessible. So there is actually an ebb and flow to this creativity process. Technically speaking, all songs created will fit in our three megabytes… so it’s not like we’re breaking any rules. But this process of creating is insanely important, because it finds the best and most diverse range of songs, in the most efficient matter.

Now, read that all again, but replace “music” with “protein strands”, or “economy”, or “evolution”, and you get the idea of what Kauffman is talking about. Except he is much more scientific, and actually has the data to back it up.

It’s a very interesting read, and I highly recommend it. I may talk more about it latter, if I can compress his ideas down into readable chunks.

Posted in Books, Science | 7 Comments »

February 16th, 2009 by Sean
The Spirit Is Not Special

(More ramblings)

There is a certain special property to the unknown. When we don’t know something, our imagination is free to fill in the details. Like a magic trick: when we see an amazing illusion, the fact that it fools us has a special feel. But once we learn the actual trick behind it - usually something very simple - that feeling is lost. It’s no longer special. It’s just a stupid trick.

As a culture, we don’t know what happens when we die. A lot of us have beliefs, but because the concept of death is irreversible by definition… there is no certainty. As a result, death holds a very unique place in our minds. It is inherently unknown, and therefore inherently special.

There are ways to study death without actually dieing, though. Out of body experiences might be related in some way (I believe that they are, but to be fair, I haven’t proven it). But there’s another way to study death. Study reality itself. If we learn something about reality, then we can apply it to death, even though we can’t study death directly.

The more I deconstruct myself, the more I realize that so many things are contained only in mind. For example: time. Is time etched into reality itself? Does reality know that it is 11:47am? No. “11:47am” is a result of mind. It was a system built by humans after noticing the frequency between night and day, and the seasonal changes, etc. If I go to Mars, then our human system of time is completely useless. Reality doesn’t care about time - only mind does.

Recently, I’ve discovered that “sacred”, “greater meaning”, “purpose”, “divine”, etc… is contained only in mind. Reality doesn’t care about what an event means to you. Remove the mind, and the meaning is removed.

Death is also a product of only-mind. Reality follows the conservation of energy: nothing is created or destroyed. What does this mean?

It means that we’ve circumvented the need to study death. Is there life after death? The question doesn’t make sense. Or rather, if I’m forced to answer, then the answer I come up with is:

If there is life after death, then ok. If there isn’t, then ok.

What’s so special about the spirit anyways?

Posted in Note to Self, Philosophy | 15 Comments »

February 5th, 2009 by Sean
Conceptualization

Steve Pavlina wrote an article on the 11:11 phenomenon.

Overall, I liked it. I like the message, and I found myself nodding a lot during the article.

However :-). There is still a glaring problem. It’s not a problem with Steve or anything, it’s a problem with this reality I see. Maybe those who read this can share their thoughts.

Steve’s answer to 11:11 is that it’s basically a way to break down belief systems, and open people up to new understandings of reality. Ok, I get it, sounds good. The problem I have is this idea of “achievement”. All throughout New Age and New New Age beliefs, is this idea of expanding your consciousness, gaining a better understanding, becoming a better person, etc. It’s about progress. It’s about moving up the ladder of awareness.

But hidden in that notion, is that where you currently are now is incorrect. You hold incorrect ideas, and need to upgrade them with more correct ideas. For example, from Steve’s perspective, an incorrect belief might be that reality is objective. A more correct belief is that reality is subjective, and this subjectiveness creates an illusion of objectivity. Therefore, it’s better to hold the refined “subjective” belief, instead of the normal “objective” one.

We can pick any idea, really. For example, if you believe that Zeus throws lightning from the sky, then I would disagree. A more correct belief would be the current scientific understanding of lightning (electrons, charge, etc).

Where I run into a problem is: how can I say that one belief is better than another? How can I say one belief is more correct?

If I reject an idea, then I reject reality, because that idea has been created in reality. If our purpose is to upgrade our beliefs ad nauseam, then that assumes we aren’t a part of reality, but instead floating outside of it, choosing which ideas to keep, and which to discard. Our reality is one - therefore, our (incorrect) beliefs have arisen from this reality, and reside inside this reality.

If I reject a belief as false, then I reject that reality has given rise to the belief. In order to accept reality, I must accept that the belief’s existence is correct.

However, if I accept that a belief’s existence is correct, then there is no reason to strive to upgrade my beliefs! Progress is therefore an illusion!

How can I say that progress is an illusion, though? Wouldn’t it be better for everyone to be fed, than have people starve to death? If I reject progress, then I must accept both equally.

Consciousness and beliefs exist inside of reality. Therefore, I must accept their existence in order to accept reality. If reality says that it’s legal to hold an incorrect belief, then I have no authority to strive for correct beliefs. This idea of “striving” or “progress” is part of the mind - it is not part of reality. Therefore, I must accept morally disgusting events - like starvation. The only saving grace is to reject starvation from a human stand point - not a reality one. So it is the human mind that strives for progress (however that individual human defines that word). The human mind is what tells me starvation is bad, and that we need to strive. Reality couldn’t care less, either way. Strive, don’t strive… succeed, fail… 4 million years of humanity, 11 billion years of floating gas clouds… it’s all the same to reality.

Conceptualization is the error. “Progress” is the act of favoring one illusion over another. Not only is the mind the source of all illusion, it can create only illusion. QED.

Posted in Philosophy, Personal Development, Belief Systems | 16 Comments »

January 27th, 2009 by Sean
Where Am I

Alright, so where am I on this path? Man, I’ve nearly forgotten. Forgive me if this post is about myself and my history… I know it’s egotistical. This is post is more for myself, than for the audience. Reader beware.

So I started with the intution that the world was a mystical place… but got slapped pretty hard by science. What… you don’t really believe in magic, do you? It’s just a trick, dummy.

My first incarnation was as an atheist fundamentalist. Life was simple. I was right, and everyone else was wrong. This lasted until my first death, at age 15, when I discovered a gapping hole in my logic. Maybe I was wrong? *gasp*

This new thought revolutionized my beliefs. If I could be 100% convinced of something, and be 100% wrong, then I must question everything. No belief could go unexamined. This ushered in a new era of doubt and uncertainty.

During the next few years, I dabbled in a lot of beliefs. I didn’t have the authority to deny any belief - it could be true, or have uniquely true parts to it - and therefore I had the responsibility to listen and try everything. Christianity? Check. Catholicism? Check. Buddhism? Check. Paganism? Psychic abilities? Life after death? Wiccan rituals? Goddesses? Check check check.

My psyche was split… I had an open-minded clean slate on one side, and a cynical close-minded skeptic on the other. Part of me had to try everything, another part of me had to ridicule it.

My second death happened in June of 2006. I killed my inner skeptic. After 7.5 years of effort, I finally delivered the knock-out punch: proof of non-physical energy.

So, things were good. My open-minded spiritual self had conquered the close-minded cynical self. Good triumphed over evil, right?

Alright! So, I gave my spiritual self free reign. To the victor goes the spoils.

My spiritual self kept lecturing me about purpose, and meaning, and personal development, and higher consciousness (whatever that means), and indoctrinated me in the world of expanded awareness. Oh glory day! I was born again!

But damn it all to hell, things just fell apart when I started to ask a few simple questions. For example: how do you determine your purpose? Can you change your mind? If you can change your mind, then how can you ever be sure you have the right purpose? If you can’t change your mind, then who the hell decided what my purpose was? Or how can I expand my consciousness without knowing what consciousness actually is? How do I measure progress? Can I use a ruler to measure the size of my consciousness?

My questions were no longer cynical in nature… they were just honest questions. Does everyone’s life have the same meaning? How can I figure out the meaning behind an experience? Does reality even care about meaning, or is this something my mind has just created?

Clearly, there are no clear answers :-).

Drunk on consciousness-ness, I devised a plan to put it to the test. Alright, spiritual self! Put some money where your mouth is! If your model of reality is correct, then you should have no problem winning the lottery :-). But no cheating… you can’t use mechanical methods like ESP or PK. Does reality have divine meaning? Is there an intelligent plan? Is there a spiritual purpose? Put up, or shut up.

My third death happened on the 25th of January. My spiritual self’s vision of reality has failed, and I have politely asked it to leave, and take all it’s belief-baggage with it.

Where does that leave me, today? Are there any illusionary self’s left to kill? The atheist died. The skeptic died. The divine died. Another one bites the dust.

I fear stepping into an identity will only lead me down the same path of non-self destruction. But mustn’t I have an identity to function? Perhaps I can just pretend for a while, and enjoy the ride?

Heh, whatever :-). Maybe life is easier than I think? “Just do your best”… you know?

Posted in Note to Self | 11 Comments »

January 25th, 2009 by Sean
Lottery Failure, Meaning of Life

It’s been nearly 2 years, and I haven’t won the jackpot. Therefore, I have failed my goal. I told myself, in March of 2007, that if I didn’t win by March of 2009, then I must deal with the failure directly.

On the plus side, I have won some money, and have beaten the odds. I can achieve some success… but not at the level I need to in order to win the jackpot.

I’ve been thinking a lot about it recently. For me, it’s been a question of Meaning. What is The Meaning of life, ya know?

A lot of people don’t really think about it… they pawn off the responsibility to some other person or book. That’s bullshit. Or, they conclude that they’ll never know, so stop thinking about it, and just move on. I also disagree with this approach.

If I knew the Meaning, then I could work towards that Meaning. For example, if the Meaning was to have babies… then I could just get married, have kids, and call it a day. Or if the Meaning was to help people, then I could just join the Peace Corps, teach people stuff, and call it a day. Or if the Meaning was to fight for freedom, then I could just become a Constitutional lawyer, run for public office, and call it a day :-).

The point is: how I answer the question of “Meaning” has a large impact on the decisions I make on a daily basis. It determines what direction I work towards. I’m willing! Give me a Meaning, and I will work hard for it! I’ve searched and searched, and all answers have failed.

“You choose your own Meaning of life!” Blah blah blah. If I choose the meaning of life, then it isn’t the meaning of life, is it? It’s the meaning of Sean’s choice.

See, I’ve developed another thought. Not only is there no meaning, but I think the entire premise is false. It’s false to need meaning. Instead of figuring out what the (non-existant) Meaning is, I should instead remove my need for a meaning.

What is meaning, anyways? What does meaning mean?

I get asked questions like, “I just had a really weird experience. What does it mean?” I never know how to answer those questions. What does it mean? What does it mean to you? I can’t tell YOU what it means to YOU. You tell me!

Ultimately, I think “meaning” is a bastardisation of “truth”. When we ask for the meaning behind something, we are really asking for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What does a car wreck mean? Well, it means you were going 40 miles per hour, and ignored the red light. Then, another driver who assumed you would stop at a red light, drove under their green light… upon which, you hit them, because the trajectory and timing of the vehicles put them in the same location, at the same point in time… which can’t happen… so instead, the cars rammed into each other. The metal bent, in accordance to how metal bends, based on the atomic properties of the chemical bonds in the material. Yadda yadda yadda.

There is no meaning outside of truth. There is no meaning of life, because the premise - that life exists - is incorrect to begin with. Sure, since we are human, we have human nature… which tells us to survive and reproduce. But the truth is, that if all humans were wiped off the face of this Earth… no one would care. There would be no one to care. Just like no one cared when the dinosaurs went extinct. The dinosaurs probably cared while it was happening… but they don’t care now. The atoms that made up the dinosaurs are layered under the Earth, or are flowing in a river, or maybe inside of your body. The very atoms that made up a ticeratops’ lungs are now protein strands in your brain, storing your memory as an 11 year old. And those protein strands couldn’t care less that they aren’t part of a tricertops anymore.

When we ask for the Meaning of life… the question is false, because the premise is that we are external to this world, looking into it through the lense of this human body. When we ask for the Meaning of life, we presuppose a false identity. The real question - the only question - is: Who Am I? What is the one true identity?

So what the hell does this have to do with the lottery?

The lottery was chosen as a vehicle through which to test life metaphors against the backdrop of reality - without relying on a human mind to give it meaning. The lottery project’s question was: does meaning exist outside of the human mind? The results responded: No. Meaning is created in the mind afflicted with the disease of identity. Meaning is not part of reality itself… it is a by-product of the human experience.

(As a side note, the observed phenomenon of “deeper meaning” is therefore a result of psychology and telepathy - theory #2 is correct.)

So: what is the meaning of life? A good answer is: peace, love, freedom, etc. A better answer is: whatever you choose for your own life. The correct answer is: Mu.

…

…Still, we are stuck.

Posted in Lottery, Note to Self, Philosophy, Belief Systems | 11 Comments »

January 18th, 2009 by Sean
Disclosure Project

I watched an interesting video the other day, consisting of individuals giving testimony at a press conference, about their experiences with alien spacecraft. It’s a little long, but it is interesting:

Disclosure Project Press Conference - May 9, 2001

There are two main themes that caught my attention:

1. The witnesses are (assumed to be) credible. Some are high ranking military officials, and many have high security clearances. On a subjective level, they all seem to be telling the truth.

2. Many of them describe the alien spacecraft as red/orange orbs of light, that show up on radar. This consistency suggests they are experiencing the same phenomenon (or at least, they are all delusional in the exact same way).

But there is a third theme that also caught my attention:

3. No one has any evidence. Everything is in the form of an anecdotal story, or documentation of an anecdotal story.

I don’t doubt that world governments research unidentified flying objects secretly. It’s in their national interest. I don’t doubt that people see strange lights in the sky. The question that remains in my head is: are little green men the only explanation for floating orbs of light? Sometimes it feels as though we’ve conditioned ourselves to think that if anything bizarre is flying around in the sky, it MUST be aliens. I’m not asserting aliens don’t exist - I’m just saying that perhaps some experiences are the result of an unknown natural process?

For example, imagine a society conditioned to believe that intergalactic spirits are attempting to possess the Earth. What would that society make of this image?

My god! The spirit is getting ready to take over the world! Or maybe it’s just magnetisim.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, and I’m open to that. The point is: without real evidence, there is no way to figure out the truth. At the end of the day, a story is still just a story. Show me shrapnel from a ship. Show me body parts. Show me advanced technology.

Either way, if you have some time to kill, check it out. It’s very interesting.

Posted in Video, Conspiracy | 2 Comments »

- ## Pages

  - Welcome!
  - Blog
  - Forums
  - Games
    - Emergence Game
    - Geiger Game
    - Lottery Game
  - Contact

- ## Experiments

  - Lottery Project, Part 1
  - Lottery Project, Part 2

- ## Categories

  - Belief Systems (28)
  - Books (7)
  - Consciousness (4)
  - Conspiracy (5)
  - Dream Phenomenon (24)
  - ESP (17)
  - How-To (11)
  - Lottery (32)
  - Note to Self (21)
  - Personal Development (17)
  - Philosophy (31)
  - Random Stuff (11)
  - Science (26)
  - Subconscious (14)
  - Uncategorized (1)
  - Video (16)
  - Website (13)

- ## Archives

  - November 2011
  - November 2010
  - June 2010
  - February 2010
  - December 2009
  - November 2009
  - October 2009
  - August 2009
  - July 2009
  - May 2009
  - April 2009
  - March 2009
  - February 2009
  - January 2009
  - November 2008
  - October 2008
  - September 2008
  - August 2008
  - July 2008
  - June 2008
  - May 2008
  - April 2008
  - March 2008
  - February 2008
  - January 2008
  - December 2007
  - November 2007
  - October 2007
  - September 2007
  - August 2007
  - July 2007
  - June 2007
  - May 2007
  - April 2007

- ## Links

  - A State of Mind
  - Dreaming to Infinity
  - Monroe Institute on YouTube
  - Shifted Perspectives
  - UC Berkeley on YouTube

- ## Meta

  - Login
  - Valid XHTML

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2007-2009 Sean Connelly and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
Best viewed with Firefox, with minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. Microsoft can suck my balls.
A Little Weird is proudly powered by WordPress - Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).