A Little Weird » Belief Systems

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

## Archive for the ‘Belief Systems’ Category

November 11th, 2010 by Sean Necessity of the Scientific Method (Part 1)

Oh lookie, it’s 11/11! Now what? Warning: Long post.

Something I’ve come to realize is the necessity of the scientific method. I know I’ve written about this topic in the past, but it has a certain clarity with me at this moment.

### Born Ignorant

The problem is that we’re born into this world with very little working knowledge of the reality around us. This is by design - by offloading the learning phase until after birth, it allows humans to better adapt to our environment (and therefore, survive). So instead of biology producing a human that knows everything out of the womb, it produces a human that can learn and adapt to its environment. We don’t come out of the womb with knowledge of how to speak French; we come with the ability to learn language.

Since we are blank slates coming into this world, we need to figure things out. We need to actively pursue truth.

### Truth is Evasive

It is destiny that truth is hard to figure out. Not for some magical reason - I can calculate and prove that truth is inherently hard to figure out.

Truth only has one strength: it can’t die. Humans can die. Ideas can die. Fashion trends can die. Truth can’t die. Because we can die, we need to be strong. We need to be smart. We need to reproduce. We need to adapt. Truth doesn’t need to do any of that. Outside of its immortality, truth is incredibly weak. Truth doesn’t need a job. Truth doesn’t need to be popular. Truth doesn’t need to gather resources. Truth is sitting pretty.

Some truths are obvious… for example, gravity exists. Just about every human and animal has this truth. We might not all agree on the word “gravity”, but we know that we get pulled to the ground. It’s quite obvious.

But many truths are not obvious. For example, did you know that any rubik’s cube can be solved in 20 moves or less? It sounds like a simple fact, but finding the number “20″ took 15 years of research. Was that fact any less true 100 years ago? Was it any less true 10,000 years ago? No. We just didn’t know it. Now we do.

### Necessity of Discovering Truth

Who cares about truth anyways though? Why must we actively pursue it? In short: to survive. Many things threaten our survival, and discovering truth is the only way to overcome these threats. A virus could kill millions of people. We could kill each other using nuclear weapons. We could get hit by an asteroid. Or 23% of us could just die from cancer.

See: discovering truth doesn’t just mean sitting and thinking. It’s not just about meditation (though meditation is definitely a part of it). If we discover the truth that an asteroid will hit us in 12 years, we can take action to survive. An asteroid could be coming at us right now, whether we discover it or not. Discovering truth is a necessity for our survival.

#### Non-Physical Truths

It sounds like I’m describing very physical truths. Cancer, weapons, asteroids, etc. Is it safe to ignore non-physical truths? No.

A group of extremists might believe they will die and be greeted with 72 virgins if they kill themselves in order to propagate their belief system. Non-physical belief systems use physical humans to propagate. Different belief systems have different strategies for survival.

If I somehow came into possession of a nuclear weapon, I would panic and call the police. If a terrorist somehow came into possession of a nuclear weapon, they might decide to kill millions of people, because of their belief system.

Violent belief systems are a threat to our collective survival.

What about non-violent belief systems? I suspect it is very hard to find a non-violent belief system (though we should certainly strive for one). For example, if you believe that freedom of speech isn’t important - is that a non-violent belief? Denying free speech is a form of non-physical violence. I will have to save this piece of the discussion for another day. My point at the time is that it’s important to discover both physical truths (i.e., how cancer works, when an asteroid is going to hit us) and non-physical truths (i.e., whether 72 virgins are waiting for us after death). Both impact our survival.

### Summary

Let’s summarize where we are at this point:

We don’t know the truth. Truth can be obvious, but a lot of times it can be very difficult to figure out. Something is true whether we figure it out or not. Certain undiscovered truths threaten our survival. We must actively pursue truth in order to better adapt and survive. Non-physical truths can have physical manifestations - therefore, we need to actively pursue truth in all our pursuits, not just those that have immediate physical impact.

Moving on…

### Ignorance and Enlightenment

Ignorance is dangerous. If we don’t know that an asteroid is about to hit us, that is an immediate threat. We must actively seek truth, and enlighten our ignorance. We can’t know everything, but we must try to do our best.

Anything that prevents us from enlightening our ignorance is bad. For example, suppose I believe that asteroids don’t exist. It’s a conspiracy! The truth might be that an asteroid is on it’s way to hit us in 12 years. But my belief is now serving as an obstacle to discovering this truth. My belief is a threat to our survival.

The obstacle doesn’t have to be a belief though. Maybe there is a virus outbreak, and there isn’t enough vaccination to go around. My body is denied the information on how to defeat the virus due to a limited supply. The limited supply is a physical obstacle. In this instance, “enlightenment” is a physical process; it is the transfer of knowledge from the vaccination to my body.

Enlightenment is simply moving from ignorance to truth. Whether it is physical (ex: vaccination) or non-physical (ex: learning something new) depends on the type of ignorance. Ignorance can be physical (ex: the body not knowing how to deal with a virus), or non-physical (ex: the mind not knowing if an asteroid exists).

So, we have two enemies: 1. Ignorance (i.e., not knowing truth), 2. Anything that prevents/delays enlightenment (i.e., not being able to discover truth). These enemies might manifest themselves as physical or non-physical, depending on the situation.

To be continued…

Posted in Belief Systems, Science | 5 Comments »

December 2nd, 2009 by Sean Wolfram, Again

I know a lot of you guys aren’t convinced that Wolfram’s theory of everything is correct. The more I think about it, and the more I digest his book… the more I become convinced that he has simply figured it out. I believe Wolfram will go down in history for being the first human being to discover how reality works. Again, if you haven’t seen his presentation, start here. If you need more detail, then buy his book.

Part of me always hesitates to align myself with one particular mindset. I like to hold conflicting views in my head, and force myself to see things from different perspectives. But Wolfram’s theory is just… genius. It’s amazingly convincing. It speaks directly to my programmer’s mind, and gives me clarity. Or maybe I’m just sick of all the philosophical questions, and Wolfram has become “good enough” for me :-).

-

It’s important to realize: Wolfram’s theory doesn’t really make predictions about how reality behaves. It sounds strange… you would think that if you know how everything works, then you should be able to predict what’s going to happen. Wolfram’s genius is in dispelling this assumption. How does PK work? Are OBEs real? Is there life after death? I still don’t know. Wolfram’s theory isn’t in the same ballpark as these questions.

Wolfram’s theory only really asserts two core ideas: 1. Reality is deterministic. 2. Reality is inherently unpredictable.

As you can see, these two ideas don’t really offer solutions to any “real world” problems. We still need to worry about global warming. We still need to explore space. We still need to eat, breathe, love, and survive. Nothing really changes.

But these ideas… They just feel like such a giant sigh of relief. They say, in a loud booming voice: Everything is OK. There’s always a third option. Reality is divinely balanced, and no one can take that away. Every experience is new and unique, and the only way to know for sure what’s going to happen is to wait and see.

And these ideas aren’t just nice thoughts anymore. They’re proven, in black and white, in Wolfram’s book.

I feel satisfied. Yes, I still have an infinite number of things to learn and experience — but that’s the point! My philosophical self has been extinguished. Thank you, Wolfram.

Posted in Philosophy, Belief Systems | 7 Comments »

July 15th, 2009 by Sean Timelessness

I’ve been trancing out before falling asleep lately, in an attempt to get back into OBEs. I haven’t escaped my body yet, but I’ve consistently hit a timeless state of mind.

I can’t pinpoint when I enter the state, but snapping back to reality is very distinct. I wake up with a sense of panic, completely oblivious to how long I’ve been in the state. The time is… lost. There is no sense for how long I’ve been laying there, stuck in this loop of non-awareness.

It’s not like dreaming, because I still have a sense of time while dreaming. My sense might be wrong (a five minute dream can feel like an hour), but the sense is there. Even with deep sleep, when I’m not in R.E.M., I still wake up with a sense of time. It’s not like an OBE, where everything might be blurry, but I still have a sense of time. This trance state is without this sense.

The reason this intrigues me so much is because the next question is: where am I while in this state? Which of course is a leading question. If I can be in a state of non-awareness, is it such a large jump to reason that death is just perpetual non-awareness?

Let’s say I’m a devout religious person who believes in life after death, heaven, hell, etc… I still can’t deny that this non-awareness state exists (because I’ve experienced it). So now I have an experience of non-existence. I have felt what not-existing feels like. How can I sit here and rationalize the existence of life after death when I’ve experienced death after death? Sure, life after death might exist, but what necessity is there for it? Not-existing already exists.

Thoughts?

Posted in Consciousness, Belief Systems, Dream Phenomenon | 14 Comments »

April 29th, 2009 by Sean Full Circle, Injustice of Science

I have two thoughts to express:

1. In identifying the unknown in the Atheist belief system, I realize I haven’t really accomplished anything, and have just come full circle. My conclusion is that the best way forward is to experiment with reality in order to convert unknowns into knowns… which is what I thought before I started this line of reasoning. The only benefit I’ve gained is deflating the ego and arrogance of the Atheist… but that doesn’t get me any closer to truth.

This makes me think that all belief systems have a realm of the unknown. In the Theist belief system, “God” is used to catch a lot of these unknowns. In the Atheist belief system, the edges of science showcase the unknowns. Particularly for our time period, quantum physics. Rewind a hundred years, and it was the atom. Fast-forward another hundred, and we’ll have unknowns about the things we invent to explain quantum physics.

At this point, even if we discover the theory of everything, it operates at such a low level that we cannot predict what is possible and what isn’t. And I don’t think we’ll ever discover a theory of everything!

Pursuit of knowledge and understanding is important… but it is never ending. And I don’t mean “never ending” in the poetic sense… I mean it in the literal sense! Hmmmmmm.

Moving on to my second thought…

2. My biggest complaint about science is how inaccessible it is. If I wanted to contribute, I would have to make a career out of it. Stay in college, study under a professor, learn advanced math, draft articles for peer review, etc. And even then, I could work my whole life, and never discover anything of worth. I feel as though it would take me a decade or two just to get up to speed with what’s currently going on.

I think that’s a shame. I think it’s great that people do do that… because I certainly enjoy hearing what they have to say about things. But I hate that “truth” and “unknown” has been sectioned off from the public, and isolated to a select few nerds, speaking a foreign language.

Why is it that I can’t study reality? Why do I have to hold certain qualifications? It’s both science’s strength and weakness. By rejecting laymen, they can search further and more accurately… but in doing so, distance themselves.

We all live in reality. Not just the scientists.

It doesn’t make sense that I need to be smart to understand reality. I am reality. Here I am. Intelligence is just a particular organization of reality… It doesn’t make sense that reality has to be in a particular organization to understand itself. In fact, it seems as though if we force understanding to exist on an intellectual level, then we are destined to never understand reality completely, because it will always be in organizational form. Never direct knowing.

That is the injustice of science. We are reality… everyone. You can’t monopolize understanding. You can’t deny our existence. You create a world that doesn’t include us, and pull out your devices and instruments that we created, and assert dominion! Back the fuck up, buddy!

I wonder how often it occurs to the scientist that they aren’t solving some math problem with billiard balls bouncing everywhere…

The microscope is pointed in the wrong direction. “Learning is not the path.”

Posted in Belief Systems, Science | 5 Comments »

April 26th, 2009 by Sean Hacking Reality

I’ve really been struggling lately, trying to piece together a consistent view of reality. With the introduction of emergence, I’ve finally understood the Atheist belief system. It sounds a little silly, because I can look up Atheism in Wikipedia, and I should be able to just understand the idea instantly. But I’ve discovered that I need to really immerse myself in an idea to truly understand what it’s saying - and this process can take weeks or months. These past months I’ve been focusing on Atheism, and a few minutes ago I feel I’ve finally graduated it.

Let me start by paying respect to this belief system. This Science+Emergence+Evolution concept is beyond revolutionary. I hold deep respect for people who truly study, understand, and apply this belief system in their lives. (Perhaps this “deep respect” is just a way to inflate my own ego, since I still use this belief system!)

The issue I had with Atheism is that I’ve experienced paranormal phenomenon. The modern Atheist would argue that such experiences are delusions. After all, if these experiences are real, then it really flies in the face of what Science and naturalism tells us.

I see that line of reasoning… and 20 minutes ago, I had no way to counter it. I felt utterly confused; unable to reconcile my experiences with such a strong belief system. Atheism offers so much explanation to what we experience, using reason, logic, and evidence, that it is an insurmountable beast. In the world of Atheism vs. Theism, Atheism wins. Sorry folks. The personal God simply does not exist - or at least - the things we witness do not need a personal God to explain. We can explain 99% of modern experiences using naturalistic lines of reasoning.

It’s that remaining 1% that is of interest to me, though. The modern Atheist will simply ignore it, because it’s such an asshole. It ruins everything. If that 1% didn’t exist, Atheism would rein supreme. But it does exist. And I finally have a framework for accepting its existence.

Atheism shows us that - given a system with certain characteristics - life will naturally emerge. Numbers self-organize, on their own. All that’s required is a system flexible enough to sustain it. For example, we already create digital life using computers. It’s not as complex as life in this reality, but as time moves on and computing power increases, we will be able to create more stunning simulations.

The point here is that: Given a flexible enough system, life will naturally emerge.

So, the reality we live in is currently flexible enough to sustain life (obviously). So, we witness life. The atoms have formed molecules, which have organized themselves into viruses and cells, and further organized into community of cells, and multi-cellular organisms, and evolved via natural selection and other undiscovered mechanisms, until finally it’s you sitting in front of your screen, reading this sentence.

All of that. Sitting on top of this flexible system.

Where does the paranormal fit into this? Simple. It’s experiences specific to this particular system.

The best example I can give is to think back to the digital life. The programmer creates a flexible system, runs the simulation, and then life naturally emerges from it. Now, imagine that the programmer has a bug in his code. The life could literally find ways to hack the underlying system, and experience things that would seem “paranormal” to the digital inhabitants. However, these “hacks” are very specific to the system.

The point here is that: The specific system that OUR life is built on might have some neat features that we are unaware of.

So… in conclusion. The Atheist belief system is a perfect model for describing how life is created, how it just follows natural laws, and self-organizes on its own. The Atheist model is simply true - given a system with enough flexibility, life WILL evolve. It’s a mathematic truth.

However, in our particular instance, we aren’t really talking about any willy nilly flexible system. We are talking about our specific system, that has life built on top of it. The Atheist model is correct, but it still doesn’t say anything about our specific system. It can’t. All it says is that our particular system is an example of a system flexible enough to support life.

Just like the digital life could “tap into” the system that is beneath it, so too can we tap into the system we are built on. Who knows what lies beneath the surface.

Atheism has solved a profound problem of thought concerning life and nature. It has provided us with an amazing ability to explain the vast diversity of our experiences. However, beneath the surface, there still exists the dark corner of the unknown. Perhaps I do exist after all.

Posted in Belief Systems, Science | 18 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 »

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 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 »

September 20th, 2008 by Sean Self-Replication vs. Truth

I haven’t posted in over a month. I had a revelation, which had the effect of removing a lot of my motivation for expressing myself. In fact, I feel very little drive to make this post… but I feel I should at least get my words on paper for my own sake - and maybe the few reading can provide insight as well.

“Survival of the fitest” describes so much. I’ve obviously read about evolution before… but it never really hit home until recently. Everything we see around us is only there because it self-replicates. The only things that persist are those things that can adapt to their environment, and reproduce. I’m not just talking about biology - ideas and thoughts are the same way. In fact, all of life as we know it is a result of self-replication and adaptation.

Now of course, I’ve thought about evolution in the past, and agreed with it mostly. I’ve known the concept of a “meme” for years. It’s not like I’m talking about any real new idea here. It’s just the level of appreciation that’s changed. In the past, it was an interesting idea that I touched upon every once in a while, that remained in the back of my mind. But recently it’s been thrusted into the forefront, and become a cornerstone of my understanding of what I experience on a day to day basis.

This actually depressed me for quite a while. It was like beating a game… yes, it feels great to be done with it, but at the same time it’s a little bittersweet. I was happy that I understood a lot of my experiences and beliefs… but at the same time, depressed that I could no longer be intellectually honest with myself about holding on to stupid ideas.

My depression was eventually overcome. My subconscious sorted it out for me.

Self-replication explains nearly everything about our human experience. On a biological, psychological, and philosophical level. Self-replication is so powerful because it has persisting power. Everyone has random thoughts, and does random things… but if those things don’t persist, then in the long run, you really won’t notice them. They will eventually fizzle out. For example, how many people believe that the Earth is flat? Not too many. The idea isn’t persistent.

I tried to imagine the most persistent thing. What could adapt and self-replicate the best? I started listing different organisims in my mind, playing out a long term simulation in my head. I listed different religions, and my knowledge about how they persisted and adapted to the populace. Then I thought about just general ideas, and their ability to persist. Mathematics should persist for a long time… math is considered a universal language. What else… what else…

Then it hit me: truth. Truth is the only thing that escapes this need of persistence. What I mean by that is: gravity will last longer than the human race. If something is true, then something is true… permanently. Truth doesn’t adapt… and it doesn’t self-replicate. The things that do adapt and self-replicate are constantly trying to align themselves with truth - for survival - but truth doesn’t really have that problem.

This removed my depression. But it also removed my desire to share my thoughts with the world. Who cares if someone disagrees with me? And who cares if someone agrees with me? Truth transcends persistence. So everything is OK.

In the past I felt a need to get my ideas out… but probably because I was convinced by someone else that it’s good to get your ideas out. Because they were getting their ideas out - to me. The idea of “you need to express yourself” is just a self-replicating thought. If I sit here and preach that everyone needs to get a blog, and tell the world their thoughts… then those who I convince to do so will spread the same idea… telling their readers to get a blog, and tell the world their thoughts. It doesn’t matter what my line of reasoning is for why people should express themselves… just the more effective the reason is, the more the “express yourself” idea will self-replicate.

But none of that matters now. Truth trumps all that. Do I need to convince you that gravity exists? Uh, no. A truth will exist whether the conceptualization of that truth is self-replicating or not. It’s not so much “who gives a shit” as it’s “truth has already won the fight”.

So… with that said… perhaps you can see why I feel no motivation for expressing my thoughts (as much as I used to, at least).

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

- You are currently browsing the archives for the Belief Systems category.

- ## 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).