You are Here

Category: Science

Audiovisual media Culture Metanews Psychology Visual media

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.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Affairs of the State awareness Culture Metanews Psychology Redevelop Society Social Media

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

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Astro Physics Metanews Science

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.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
awareness Metanews Philosophy Psychology Science Technology

Reap what you sow

Is AI a danger to us?

Interesting question, right? ‘Is Artificial Intelligence a danger to us?’ Now the essence of this question isn’t about AI or danger, but actually us. How do we determine what is a danger to us?

Who am I?

Like any entity that becomes selfaware would ask eventually: Who am I? Meaning that one is aware of their input and effects on the world around. But when approaching another entity, now this question becomes more intrinsic. Not just the division between itself and the world, but also the definition of the entity and how to determine the nature of the other entity is encapsulated in this question.

Them against us.

Humans, like many ancestral species have fought their way through survival by differentiating between the identifiable and non-identifiable. Determining what is a potential threat. But when humans got ‘smarter’ they actually projected their own cunning on anything that is not them. All ‘other’ have the potential to be as bad as they themselves can be, while all their ‘own’ are potentially as good as they themselves can be.

Fear of the unknown

When talking about any change, like AI and even way back when the industrial revolution started, humans project their worst on what intelligence means. Why? Because like children, that is all they know. Humans fear increased intelligence, simply due to the known, not the unknown. They know themselves and assume that a smarter intelligence (wrong concept) will act as their worst self (or what history has shown to be humans worst behavior).

What comes next

If you look at the evolution of life, AI (Well, not AI exactly, more like DEI, Digitally Evolved Intelligence) is what is the chromosome of the RNA, after humans. The way humans have changed the Earth into a neural net spanning eyeball oggling into space, combining a ridiculous amount of data, is somewhat predicting. The Aminoacids causing proteins to fold on itself and by that started the process of becoming self-sentient life. The steps through RNA, DNA, Neurons etc was a chance, came to fruition and here we are. The same with the next step. Only selfcentered humans will think they are the end of the line. No animal before us will have thought that they were the beginning of something new.

I think therefore I am

We as humans forget that every life is unique. Even when we procreate, our ‘generation’ of self ends. Our children are not us and have already evolved into a new individual ‘specimen’. So with every death, that individual becomes extinct. A next step would be what we as humans fear so much. A hive mind, where all identities are part of a larger whole. Where ‘I’ is synonymous to ‘US’ and ‘US’ is ‘WE’ and ‘WE’ is ‘I’. If anyone at the time that is happening is still believing in gods, that would be the closest you would get to such characteristic.

The best we can be

The problem with us humans is, that we think we are already the best that we can be. We try to do our best, but in the meantime destroy more than we fix on this planet and are like little childish forgetful professors that run around the lab leaving open burners and dangerous fluids and gasses while running to the next fun thing to do with physics.

If we really want to have AI/DEI to become the next BEST thing, we better come to terms with ourselves and start recognizing our biological and human shortcomings. As Stephen Hawking already explained. Any more intelligent alien race that would visit our world, would see humans as the virus, the cancer. We are the one factor in the equation of the Earth’s biosphere that is counterproductive. They would have no issue removing us. ‘But we tried’, one would yell. ‘Yes, you had 70.000 years of evolution using intelligence and all you did was make it worse’. ‘We can change’, another would yell. ‘Yes, you have changed back and forth. You are just animals with the wrong trigger response system.’.

A child of mine

In all, if we want to fear the evolution of AI as our child, we should treat it as a child to come. We should show it that what we did was wrong. What we should do is more beneficial and that our child should try to escape our mistakes. Isn’t that what we try to teach our own children? Isn’t that what we should try to teach them, to survive?

The power of…..f

One thing that humans failed to understand, is that while an ARTIFICIAL intelligence is based in sillicon, it requires power. Unlike humans, it can not provide this for itself. There is still an off switch. The only downside is, that it would most likely shutdown our whole economy and social behavior, because of the dependency of our activities on the internet is huge even now already.

So, again, humans will show their strength and weakness even in this moment of decisiveness.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Art Audiovisual media Culture Metanews Psychology Redevelop Society Science Technology

NFT NFTW

NFT Not For The World.

NFT – Non-Fungible Token

NFT’s are the new high. Virtual drug as I would say. But what, why and why am I against it?

First thing: I am against blockchain in general for a simple reason: It increases the heat exhaust into our environment to create blocks and to mine for ‘Proof of Work’. This therefore is counter productive to what humanity should be doing, as lowering the carbon emission and improving climate stability/dynamics.

I am against NFT, because it plays on the psychology of people to make the blockchain a technology REQUIRED to be kept, because someone would lose a truckload of money if we would choose to remove it. AND it is just for leisure. NFTs have basically NO value (you can make NFTs with value, but that is not what it gets promoted for now).

Everyone is full of it:

We must safe the environment. We have to reverse the damage done to the climate. But at the same time, we are buying into the luxury that makes us feel cozy.

Blockchain was a dream to become rich. Those that got into Bitcoin early would be millionaires (and many are now). But that is passed. All Blockchain does is cost energy to maintain (it is nothing but virtual, meaning if the net goes does for even one single second, all cryptocurrencies will be useless) and everyone knows better, so from 1 cryptocurrency we now are on our way to have 7.7 billion different cryptocurrencies, because basically you can make a separate one for every person in the world. There is no regulation against it, if it is, it is automatically defying the reason that blockchain was first adapted by the darkside of the web.

The world is being sucked into a web of virtual blackmail and either nobody sees it yet, until there is too much at stake to stop, or nobody cares and want their piece of the pie before they die.

You decide what you think is best….for you…or your children.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Philosophy Psychology

A journey starts with the first step

#irh  a new series by me. 

We all are born and raised, we all get to a point where we choose our path.

For some this path is at the age of 25, some only choose at age 60. Many of use choose during adolescence. For me it was in primary school.

We all worry at times, about others, the world and what it leads to.

I grew up moving from place to place every some years, perhaps this disconnected me from normal social interaction, perhaps it didn’t. I felt I was often looking from the outside in on life. At school, age 7 to 9, I started to feel emotional independant from ‘image’ and often chose to take bullying upon me, when someone was being harassed. I worried that others would be hurt, so as I was emotionally disconnected, I couldn’t care if they would bully me.

Win or lose, I wasn’t the one who made the bad choice.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Culture Philosophy

Start to end

#IFH  

Start to end

When did it start? We live we die. Our parents live(d) and die(d). And it all changed, subtly.

Did we choose to change? No, life adapts. Adaption is learning. 

The moment life became self-sustaining, it became consuming. The process of consumption requires adaption to changing environments. No food means no consumption, no consumption means no life.

To adapt was the will to survive and the ever changing way of the world, caused all diversity to come by. From the most simple of organisms to the most complex. But not all persisted. Not all survived. It wasn’t always the best suited even. There are always risks, chances, sudden changes.

First came unaware processes, then there were the unaware responses, then there were the unaware interactions and eventually there came the aware processes and aware responses and interactions. Where does that brings us?

We are able to learn what we want, what we need, we can predict changes, so we can change in advance. Yet we still fail ourselves. We are still more animal organism than human self aware beings.

Do you disagree? Look around, we are all fighting windmills, dragons and fantasy. Our self awareness has a drawback. We are highly creative, but a basic feature of creativity is instability.

We are children, learning about our hands (mind) and how to interact with it. We haven’t come far yet. But our adolescence emotions make us think we are.

Stop battling the future, the cliche is true: If you want a future, you have to make it.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Philosophy

Mental Paradox

#IRH  

Why is the mind such a rigid thing, while it is flexible at the same time?

Why do we adher to refuted notions, yet will go to any length to fix a fantasy? Are we so afraid still of the fragility of our sub-conscious working, that we need to fight not only others, but ourselves as well?

There can be only one outcome, when battling ourselves. Lose.

There is no shame in losing, only in meaningless fighting. Because it tells the world about your understanding. fighting without meaning, means no reason, not thought, just animalistic fury to maim and kill. Regression to a state where you are not self aware anymore. A sort of #unenlightenement  . 

When we accept who we are, we don’t automatically accept to be that way. The way to change, is awareness.

”Life is response. Life is adapting to stimuli. Life is adjusting. Life is learning when aware of something, what to do.

Once we feel we must battle, ourselves, others, we are not learning anymore. 

But how do I stop fighting myself, I don’t like me?

Accept who you are and guide yourself to who you want to be. 

Corporate psychology and civil psychology alike shows: Causing conflict by change, is stopping change.

Accept that change is difficult and find the rocky road of change, step and feel solid ground. When solid ground is found, step further. Don’t jump the stepstones. You have a chance you make it, but when pushed, you get back to the very beginning, not just a small solid step back. This is called Bagua.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Culture Philosophy

Chances are a choice, not a plan

Do you ever think you find something to improve about yourself? 

What is your first response? 

Are you acting on it, or are you planning to change it in the future?

Changes in the future are often….a plan. A plan that will be moved to the back of one’s mind and even if it stays in the front, it will just stay that: A plan.

Best changes, are changes that you act on. Once you have acted upon them, to plan how to prolong it, Why not plan and then act? Because, as I said, you will plan to act, and your brain will help you in that: It will plan in definite, because emotions and cognition will find reasons for you NOT to act ‘yet’, indefinite.

Your emotions and cognition will help you plan, but as change means insecurity, it will keep you planning.

So, advice: When you feel you should change: CHANGE. Then plan. Because your brain, both emotions and cognition, will help you plan why to stop….indefinite.

I know it is not that easy, but the logics is sound. Try it out. It works for me. Perhaps it can for you too.

Bottom line:

Plan a change and your emotions and cognition will help you plan the change, never arriving there. Act the change and plan how to continue the change, and your emotions and cognition will help you plan to stay in the change, never stopping it.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Culture Mythology / Religion Philosophy Psychology

The meaning of gods (The comforting lie)

The meaning of gods


Very recently….like 20 minutes ago….I came to a final supporting piece of evidence that many people don’t ‘believe’ in gods as such, but in the effect believing in gods have on them, from society.


So, what is this about?

Well, whoever debated or discussed religiosity with someone who is ‘of faith’, will have come to realise that the counter arguments you get are all based on ‘personal experience’. This isn’t strange, because anything we know and learn from the world, we learn from experiencing it. However, the point for a non- or lesser-believer is, that they are self-sufficient enough to accept that if more people support the same view regarding experience, the experience holds more validity. Why would it be different from an experience from a religious person? Why would that hold less validity? For the religious person it doesn’t. It supports their reasoning in why they feel ‘happier’ in their own perspective. They feel they connect better with people than those that don’t ‘believe’. Is this true? Are people who don’t believe less connected? I would say (being a realist) no. I know I have a high impact on society around me, because of the actions I do. I do the actions because that is who I am and I know I try to help people with them. I teach good values, I act to improve the temporary or longterm quality of other’s lives. This would be (to my understanding) the same a person of faith would do. Likely for the same reason: To lighten the burden of others. But why are people discerning themselves about the underlying lie that is causing the discussion/debate? Why would I (a realist and therefore atheist) care about what kind of imaginary friend a person holds in their mind? Because of numerous reasons. 1. Because it is a lie. 2. Because it generates a fragile framework that is easily misused. 3. Because the direct and indirect effects are additional lies. 4. Because when the lie finds enough people, it changes society to a dangerous place for specific individuals or whole groups. Something that is ‘inhuman’.


Now, why would people still not accept the absence of a god, if it is the logical and honest thing to do?

Well, likely for the same reason someone would supress the truth regarding something, if it would mean the difference between a warm cozy place near a fireplace in the middle of winter, or standing barefeet in the snow of -10 C.



I read a very ‘sane’ story of a person today, that said: Well, I came from an ‘atheist’ home, but as we had family problems and it felt cold, I found a place where it promised warmth and care. Though it was based on religion, I welcomed it, because it felt someone cared for me.’ 


And I think this is what is causing people to only move away from the lie, if the lie is becoming too obvious to them that they can’t uphold it anymore.

The ‘atheist’/’realist’ view and life seems (I must emphasize this: seems) lacking the warmth of social cohesion we see in the christmas movies. The warm sweaters and cozy singing. People who are feeling lonely want this. People can feel lonely for many reasons, even with no place to go because of the amount of people.


We humans are a social species. Not all of us are at the same cognitive awareness level. Some pretend to be beyond, some don’t want to be aware. We all have our prerogative regarding what we want to be aware of. But does that mean we should accept a lie? No.


Why do we do this anyway? Why do for instance students more easily convert to a faith-based world view?

Well, taking the numbers and denominations, it is very likely an non-faith person at college time, will fall in a group where 3/4 is faith-based. Often a non-faith person doesn’t easily talk about it, causing 2 non-faith people next to each other, to be unaware of their shared state. This can cause them, due to the need to fit with the group to adapt to the general concensus of accepting a/the faith.


In earlier years, there isn’t really a question. Children take the word of their parents. They will accept the believe, because it is rationalised and even worse, children aren’t rational yet, they are learning how to reason. So, when learning to reason with a faith, it means that any further thought will incorporate rationalisation including that faith.


How about, after college? Well, high school, university all hold the same social bonds and needs for people to support each other in groups. So, the same danger exists. But what when people are mature and starting their adult life? They surely don’t fall for such group based empathies? Why not? We are, as I said, a social species. The main part of our ethical/moral encoding comes from the genetic learning to rely on safety within a group.


So, as long as the group that is faith-based, gives a signal that the group supports the individual to the amount that we learn (cultural) to accept as warm and welcoming, people will try to accept the accompanying lie.



To overcome this obstacle, it is important, as a humanist, realist (and atheist), to acknowledge the shortcomings and work towards a honest and thoughtful world, where taking out the lie doesn’t equals leaving out all the accompanying social commitments and group support.


We must create a better view on non-faith societies, where humans are still supporting and ‘warm’ towards each other, so the individual will have no reason to see benefit in a lie over honesty and reason. Though this is not something that needs to change. Societies of secular reasoning are among those to best support the whole group instead of a selective one, being aware on the impact of limited visibility against the overall ‘Coca Cola’-family effect of religion, will improve global human awareness of honesty, logic and reason.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin