I’ll do you one better: What is God?

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.

For more indepth on the correct translation of the Abrahamic scriptures in this sense:
20th Century version – of Abrahamic scriptures

Causality causes choices in quantum realm

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.

Definitions

From britannica.com:

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.

From wikipedia.org:

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

Gaming industry is breaking down

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)

Waarom veel mensen niet meer geloven in goden enzo

Bij het ‘waarom niet meer’, is het altijd handig om te begrijpen waarom mensen wel in goden geloofden, zoals die uit de Joodse of Christelijke verhalenbundel ‘de Bijbel’.

Om dit te begrijpen heb je echter wel wat antropologische en biologische kennis nodig. Het is namelijk belangrijk te begrijpen hoe bijvoorbeeld het zenuwstelsel van gewervelde dieren zich heeft ontwikkeld en hoe dat van primaten in het bijzonder uiteindelijk heeft gezorgd voor het bewustzijn op de manier waarop de mensaap ‘homo sapiens’ dat doet. (Als je met de voorgaande uitleg problemen hebt, zul je weinig correct antwoorden begrijpen).

De mens is een ondersoort van de grote mensaap. Na 1.5 miljoen jaar van verschillende onderverdelingen zoals de Neanderthaller, Cro Magnon, Denisovan en andere soorten, is de homo sapiens de overwinnaar gebleken in de historie. Wel te verstaan dat genetisch materiaal heeft aangetoond dat de andere genoemde soorten ook delen hebben meegegeven aan de homo sapiens (ja, door seks enzo). Waarom is dit zo belangrijk? Nu wel, de meest waarschijnlijke reden dat de homo sapiens de overgebleven soort is, is dat hij een vorm van leren en communiceren heeft weten te ontwikkelen die de andere soorten niet hadden: een fictieve werkelijkheid. Door deze fictieve werkelijkheid, een model van de werkelijkheid, maar dan in vervangend beeld en woord, te gebruiken in communicatie, kon veel informatie over de omgeving en over plannen worden doorgegeven tussen individuen en groepen. We hebben het hier niet over het ineens bedenken van een taal zoals we dat met Nederlands kennen (ook die is over de afgelopen 400 jaar ver geëvolueerd), maar van een prototaal (hergebruikte klanken) naar steeds specifiekere concepten. De stembanden van onze neefjes de Chimpansee en andere aapsoorten is niet zo ontwikkeld als die van ons. Dat komt omdat wij generaties op generaties hebben geleerd de stemband anders te gebruiken. Dit heeft ook zijn weerwerking gehad op onze hersenen en het vermogen om te ‘verbeelden’ (Leuk voorbeeld hiervoor is het spel Ancestors the human odyssey). Dit alles was nodig om gevolgtrekkingen te kunnen doen.

Weet je wat gevolgtrekkingen zijn? Het cognitief kunnen verbinden van een oorzaak met een gevolg. Er zijn grote kringen in een meer die van een punt uiteen gaan. Er staat verderop een individu stenen in het meer te gooien. Die stenen maken dezelfde soort kringen. Dus als je kringen in het meer ziet, komt dat door stenen. Dat is een aanname/gevolgtrekking van observatie. Maar de volgende dag is er niemand bij het meer….toch zie je weer kringen…klein, maar toch…ze zijn er plotseling. Er moet iemand stenen gooien, want die kringen kreeg je volgens observatie alleen met stenen. Maar je weet niet van vissen die ademen aan het oppervlakte en daarmee ook kringen kunnen veroorzaken. Al die tijd denk je maar aan kring…geen steen…iemand gooit een steen die je niet ziet. Je gaat geloven (aanname – niet empirische gevolgtrekking) dat er steentjes worden gegooid die zo klein zijn dat jij ze niet ziet. Zo vul je het beeld, zodat je niet meer bang bent voor de plotselinge kringen (een onverwachte gebeurtenis, die je onzeker maakt). Dus er zal iemand zijn die dat doet…maar wie. Een paar dagen later, sta je aan de kant en speel je met je speer om eten te vangen. De speer valt in het water, de verzwaarde punt schiet door het oppervlakte, daar waar kringen waren. Je pakt je speer op en er zit een vis aan…woowwww! iemand gooide een steentje en nu heb je twee dagen eten…dat moet iemand zijn die jou wilde helpen!

Een paar duizend jaar verder, de conceptualisatie van de mensheid is verder ontwikkeld. Veel ziet de mens wel, maar kan de mens niet uitleggen of onderzoeken. Mensen die plotseling gek worden. Mensen die plotseling dood gaan. Mensen die plotseling je helpen als je net bijna doodgaat op een bergrug waar je de opkomende kou niet goed had ingeschat. Was dat die stenengooier? Of de oorlogmaker? Of de ademer van het leven van nieuwe mensjes?

Nog eens een paar duizend jaar later. De mens kan nog steeds niet alles onderzoeken, maar veel heeft hij al gekoppeld. Sommige dingen kunnen geen antwoord krijgen, maar ze gebeuren wel. Er zijn inmiddels goden, geesten en kabouters. Maar de ontwikkeling van gereedschap en wetenschap van de omgeving stopt niet meer. Terwijl merendeel van de ontwikkelde mens in ‘goede’ gebieden zich heeft verenigd in het geloof in bepaalde goden en krachten, ontwikkelt de gestructureerde methode van onderzoek die later wetenschap zal heten zich verder. De goden verdwijnen in zeker zin naar de achtergrond en worden ongeziene krachten. Alles wat de mens nog niet begrijpt, zal dan wel door die krachten, god A of god B worden gedaan. We gaan door naar het heden. De wetenschap ontwikkelt zich nog steeds en goden die de mens rust gaven zodat ze niet bang hoefden te zijn voor wat ze niet begrepen krijgen alleen nog een geromantiseerde reden om samen te komen. Feestdagen, gemeenschapsbijeenkomsten in zogehete tempels of kerken, moeten de mensen in mindere tijden toch een goed gevoel geven. Mensen die het in de opbloeiende welvaart na de gouden eeuw en verlichting aan de betere kant van de maatschappij vinden, hebben minder nut aan goden. Veel van hun welvaart komt voort uit het begrijpen van dingen, zodat ze daar geld mee kunnen verdienen. De reden waarvoor hun voorouders goden juist nodig hadden, hun onwetendheid, verdwijnt meer en meer. We gaan naar 1960, een nieuwe ontwikkeling in gemeenschapszin ontwikkelt zich. Vrijheid wordt nu geestelijk, lichamelijk en relationeel. Woodstock, vrouwenrechten, flowerpower, steeds minder racisme en segregatie, voorbehoedsmiddelen die zorgen dat mannen en vrouwen niet meer vast zitten aan een getrouwd leven, alleen maar door een nachtje samen.

Mensen hebben geen denkbeeldige proxy meer nodig, zoals goden die je in je vraag noemt. Spiritualiteit is echter wel het onderkennen van het feit dat de mens een instinctmatig gedrag heeft EN een cognitief gedrag. Deze samen brengen lijkt voor velen makkelijker met de wat minder veeleisende wereldbeelden van Boeddhisme of andere new age ideeën. Astrologie etc zijn van een andere aard. Dat zijn bijgeloven die nog een heel andere mentale structuur nodig hebben om daar in te trappen.

The death of misconception and religion

There was a time, when all people around the world feared their world and what might happen. They gained this fear from somewhere and now we know what.

At the beginning of this universe and time, Rak the god-and-magic-eating invisible dragon unicorn at all the gods and fairies at moment of their conception. When it was done and the universe became cozy, it pooped a rainbow throughout the galaxies to create life everywhere.

Humans evolved from the excrements of Rak, after he ate all the gods. Some of the basic instincts of what gods could have become were still infused in their DNA, like in all animals. The instinct to survive. But the gods didn’t survive, so humans made up stories that they could imagine what gods would have been like.

Humans created group gatherings and forced their ideas of what they imagined about the long lost god ideas. They used misinterpretation of signals in nature to support their ideas. Fear of grass? That had been the gods. Surviving a week of famine? That had been the gods. But all were misinterpretations by our ancestors.

Read more on the misinterpretations here

Real understanding of reality

According to certain scientific figures, humanity is on an (I will call it) Alexandrian Breakdown of scientific progress.

The effect is seen in the trust of general public on both science and the governing bodies that more and more have based their choices on scientific advice and information.

The cause is the depth of where science has moved. The accessibility, regardless the tries of popular people like Neil Degrass Tyson, Richard Fineman, Brian Cox and more, to actually understanding scientific theories, or even the process itself, is deteriorating globally. Though this happens more in for instance the US, it is also

NL: Waarom bestaan magische dingen niet, maar zeggen mensen dat ze ze wel hebben ervaren?

Er is een verschil tussen ervaren (met andere woorden: Jouw hersenen interpreteren de door jou waargenomen werkelijkheid) en iets dat objectief (dus minimaal via consensus verifieerbaar, maar het liefst herhaalbaar en testbaar) bestaat.

Telepathie is het zenden en ontvangen van gedachten, die het gevolg zijn van electrochemische processen in je hersenen. Dit is bewezen niet mogelijk omdat je noch meer energie kunt opwekken dan er is in je hersenen, noch een entangled state tussen fysieke materie kunt genereren die zich in verschillende hersenen dus verschillende waarnemers bevindt.

Telekinese is niet mogelijk omdat de kracht van de menselijke hersenen DENKEN is. Om denken in uitvoeren om te zetten hebben we een medium nodig dat voldoende impact kan hebben in het systeem om ons heen. Ons lichaam is daar de directe optie voor, maar we kunnen ook tussenliggende media gebruiken, zoals lucht, water of een ander object. We moeten echter nog altijd eerst zelf fysieke kinetische energie overbrengen om een ander object of zelfs onzelf te laten bewegen. Al helemaal als het tegen de potentiele energie en daarmee de natuurwetten in gaat.

Helderziendheid is een geniepige, want iemand die heel intuitief is, dus voelt welke patronen in zijn/haar omgeving van invloed zijn op gebeurtenissen kan de schijn geven van ‘precognitie’ (van te voren weten wat er gaat gebeuren). Echter kan iedereen op bepaalde manieren voorzien wat er gaat gebeuren. Daarom vinden zoveel mensen horror-films leuk. Ze weten eigenlijk wat er gaat gebeuren, maar schrikken toch als er iets gebeurt. Die onzekerheid bij zekerheid geeft ze een goed gevoel. Echter, bij het oversteken van de straat kunnen we ‘voorspellen’ hoe snel een auto of fiets bij ons is. Dat is ons inzicht in gevolgtrekking. Het is echter niet mogelijk om zonder inzicht in voldoende patronen te zeggen: Die persoon (die ik wel of niet ken), in een totaal ongerelateerde omgeving gaat iets gebeuren. Mensen die achteraf zeggen: Ja ik had toen en toen een raar gevoel, hebben geen helderziendheid aangetoond, maar één van de volgende fenomenen meegemaakt: 1. Het moment dat ze het feit op afstand te horen kregen, probeerden ze zich te herinneren wat zij op dat moment deden. Ons geheugen is goed in het toevoegen van emotionele waarde met terugwerkende kracht (Dejavu). 2. De persoon voelt zich schuldig en vindt dat hij/zij dit van te voren had moeten weten, want ‘we zijn zulke goede vrienden’ (of enig ander ‘godcomplex’). 3. Toevallig voelde de persoon zich ongemakkelijk toen hij/zij aan de ander dacht, en na het horen van het nieuws schakelt hij/zij dit gevoel in tijd gelijk in zijn/haar herinnering. 4. Gewoon toeval. 5. De persoon kent de ander zo goed, dat hij/zij al signalen opving van gedrag die konden duiden op een situatie zoals deze zich uiteindelijk heeft voorgedaan.

Geesten zijn de makkelijkste van allemaal. Dit komt voort uit de wens van de mens om nooit te sterven. De ‘ziel’ is het gevolg van de fantoompijn die mensen voelen als een geliefde of bekende die veel in de routines van een persoon betekende. Je kunt dus zeggen dat de ‘ziel’ het gat is dat de ander achterlaat in iemands leven. Geesten zijn het gevolg van zowel misinterpretatie van signalen. Huilen van de wind, ritselen in een donkere kamer. Geesten ansig kunnen niet bestaan, omdat ze een probleem zouden zijn voor de realiteit. Niet voor de wetenschap, maar gewoon voor onze realiteit. Net als goden. Ze worden bedacht te bestaan en zichtbaar te zijn. We weten dat dingen die zichtbaar zijn, dit zijn omdat er licht van een object weerkaatst wordt naar onze ogen. Zonder dat, kun je iets niet zien. Daaruit vloeit dan voort dat een object dat iets weerkaatst fysiek is en dus energie verbruikt om te bestaan in een configuratie. Er is in alle tijd dat er geen, maar ook toen er wel camera’s en andere sensoren werden ontwikkeld, nog geen enkele aanwijzing of indicatie richting het bestaan van spoken, geesten of goden geweest. We kunnen inmiddels terugkijken tot nabij het begin van het universum, we kunnen zwaartekrachtgolven waarnemen (dingen die nog nooit iemand had gezien, maar die we wel konden berekenen uit ons begrip van de werkelijkheid), maar op de een of andere manier lukt het maar niet om dingen die een enkeling ‘ervaren’ heeft, objectief waar te nemen. Daaruit komen we dan op de simpele uitkomst: Het is een subjectieve ervaring en ligt binnen de mens zelf. Daarmee is de ervaring niet vervallen, maar de interpretatie van de ervaring wel. Die is daarmee persoonlijk geworden en heeft dus een andere oorzaak dan ‘iets bestaat’.

Er zijn dus geen mensen die ‘paranormale ervaringen’ hebben. Er zijn mensen die ervaringen hebben gehad waar ze geen normale verklaring voor hebben. Maar dat is het met ervaringen, zolang ze slechts meetbaar zijn in je fantasie, is er dus weinig werkelijks aan.

Archive 81 discrepancies

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.

Het innerlijke beest in de online facade

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

Image preview

When critique ‘hits’ the big screen

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 with The 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 God and 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.

How Meta of you

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

  1. short for meta key.

adjectiveUS

  1. (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”

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Why wouldn’t you do this?

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.

How even ‘scientific’ articles go fake on themselves

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:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/

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.

bigthink.com

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.