Death Lively

"deathlively"
benjamin harubin 2015
digital collage

PATTERN RECOGNITION/PAREIDOLIA, LSD, 2 AND 3 D CONSCIOUSNESS, THE PERVADING META ORGANISM(S), RADIO WAVES, THE INFORMATION COSMOS AND THE VOICES IN THE MORPHIC FIELDS:

ok supposing you believe in some kind of Higher Power or you believe in the possibility of Intelligent Life somewhere out there, or you believe in God, or for that matter the Devil, or Angels, Elves, the Singularity, Human Goodness, Global Consciousness or an Abstract Concept of a Higher Order.  
all these concepts, these ideas... even The Future... 
and we just don't know the literal truth about them or agree what these things mean.  
do we? (collectively: not)  
and there are also feelings.
when, a scientist even, feels that there is a greater truth, waiting to be discovered
then is that the same thing as Religious Certainty or True Belief?  

(Search your feelings; you know it to be true!)

it CAN all be explained by observing that human intelligence operates as the supreme example (that we know for certain) of a pattern recognition and anticipation engine.   

you anticipate favorable outcomes, and discern survival relevant patterns in the sensory jungle.

that is a basic functional definition of intelligence generally.  

it has to have enough flexibility to operate in varying and chaotic environments, 

and having the ability to model numerous improbable scenarios does this.   

and it's always on- essentially creating appropriate responses to the environment, 

whether that be immediate or sometime in some mad dream.

that's what day and night and drug dreaming,  

and seeing faces in the clouds (pareidolia) is. 

we create models of events, including events like encounters with our cell-mates.

and so we model each other, creating voices in our heads:

what would Jesus say?

or Mom?

and how am I going to respond to that?

hence the voice of I.

the self speaking.  

and, anticipating favorable behavior, 

we create ideal situations and beings, 

in the attempt to emulate those patterns,

and hence achieve greater success, 

or perhaps merely to maintain a level of success.  

so is any notion of "greater intelligence" just a kind of wishful thinking or randomly evolved survival strategy?

instead is this evolutionary tendency just a reflection of an "intelligence principle" in the cosmos? 

how would you know the difference?

perhaps we humans are becoming (like) God, if not by instruction, then by creation?

will we invent this higher consciousness and become gods?  

why is the brain folded up in convolutions like a walnut?  

and why are highly convoluted brains associated with high intelligence?

why is the brain like a big piece of paper all crumpled up?

the cerebral cortex, at least, is two dimensional.

wouldn't it be better if it was a three dimensional blob?

you wouldn't have to go the long way round to get from one part of the cortex to another.

if the most advanced part of the brain were more three dimensional, 

you could have shitloads more connections, couldn't you?

maybe that's why some people find the concept of God a little thin.  

maybe 2D representation of reality is an efficient compromise, after all, the economy of words or pictures on a page is extremely flexible and useful.  

or maybe the foldedness of the brain makes it a good antenna for electromagnetic radiation.  

how would you know the difference?

the history of modern thought is one of decentralization of the human ego.
the concept of our unique place in the universe has been steadily eroded over the centuries into the present day.
from the realization that the earth revolves around the sun rather than everything revolving around us, 
to having our distinction from other animals destroyed piece by piece,
and almost all aspects of our valued intelligence discovered existing 
in monkeys, crows, octopuses and even slime molds can out-think the post office.
and now we make machines that can out-Jeopardy us.  
and now we find life existing in more places than seemed possible previously.
and hundreds of new planets where life could also have evolved.

it's hubris, hubris i tell you, to think.  
wait, what?
to think, that is, that the truth is out there.

greater speed of transmission

blort
benjamin harubin 2015
digital collage

the value of science is undeniable, 

although the achievement of absolute objectivity is impossible.   

forever. 

we are never going to understand the absolute truth about gravity (or whatever), but we may uncover increasingly useful laws of its operation.

what is the puzzle that jars so much as to be ignored?

it is that the machine that is formulating scientific theories and laws and making experiments and observations has unknown unknown biases and limitations.  

thus there is subjectivity. 

subjectivity is the limitation to a particular device or set of devices.

subjectivity (the machine that uncovers the facts) cannot therefore be separated from objectivity (just the facts, ma'am). 

although we could say that something is more objective than something else

(when sharing information across a greater network, greater pattern recognition and creation ability can be achieved).

the distinction depends on the definition of the network size.  

so perhaps at best the distinction between these two concepts (subjective & objective) is fuzzy at best, and not useful at worst.  

when a bunch of machines are in agreement that the information they are sharing is identical- errror free-  you have repetition and reproducibility, i.e., objectivity.  

but for that subset of information to be useful in pattern recognition and creation, it must be corrupted, adulterated, edited and distorted, thus rendering it less "objective"- thus becoming the new information state, the new paradigm.

i'm not sure that really there is any justification for using the terms objective and subjective in an information science context, even if it's the information science of your personal experience.  

thus we can strive for, instead, simultaneity (or a least, greater speed of transmission).

thus maybe we explain the hunger and expectation that c is not ultimate speed limit of the universe. 

are people machines, and likewise the universe?

or would any insufficiently understood set of operational behaviors (i.e., physics stuff) (perhaps forever, on account of that people are a knock off of; a derivative of those behaviors) be indistinguishable from magic?