Important News
Art Writing

Oscar’s heart

I am currently editing a story I wrote together with my friend for life Jennifer K. Garcia. The story is about a girl who is in a bad place going worse. The story evolves around an unexpected relationship that ends in a epic event.

Currently the story is start to end done, but the story line isn’t…entirely correct. It misses consistency and many of the scenes should be written into either more extensive detail or anachronisms need to be removed.

I have looked at the scenes and they are also under consideration to be reordered.

To give you a ‘teaser’ of the story:

I noticed a change in posture. Like a moment ago when Ally didn’t respond to inquiries, she slowed her breathing, but deepened it with a sigh. Her facial expression changed.

‘I will check what his agenda says, don’t activate the protocol, without oversight please.’

The other girl said sternly, followed by a wry smile at Ally. Then she turns she walks out of the room.

‘Allison….why did your expression change a moment ago?
I read differences in neural patterns, but I don’t understand.
Did you activate a subroutine?’

I asked when the door closes behind her.

The mention of certain words will already give some indication on the direction and genre of the story. This is a scene that I have rewritten, yet am still not too happy with. Likely you will see it in another post being rewritten again.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Art Writing

The dawn of a bright day (working title)

The story of ‘Dawn of a bright day’, is actually a fantasy story. Currently it is planned to be an ongoing series, but the first story is finished and a small part of the second episode is started on. I am currently editing the story, which was created through extensive roleplay writing.

Basically Roleplay writing is nothing more than writing responses as one of the characters. Each writer takes one protagonist, or more and writes what happens with them. This often results in suprising events and pretty original content, but often it also adds a layer of missing context. As the writer of the character and having it respond to another character, makes the character in-depth, but many times misses the depicting of the environment around it.

In Dawn of a bright day, Rin and Asteria are the main protagonists. As always, the story start in a ‘running’ fashion, which I like. No description at forehand, the story starts in action. Blanks are filled in on the go. This always eases the roleplaying part, in my opinion.

Here is a short excerpt of the story as it currently is.

Asteria smiled with a nod, not showing her surprise.

I can hear you little light. What happened to you? Rin recollected the events and tried to bring the new world to Asteria slowly. With a glow on his cheeks he started.

I am Rin. I am a protector from the Dawn-world.
I am not sure what happened to me. It seems the shadows hit me with something, then I raced to reach you, but I lost consciousness. I think their poison took me out.

Rin almost yelled, so he didn’t need to use too much magic, which was draining fast it seemed. he assumed it was because of the fact that the light was not natural sunlight.

More to come later.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
awareness Culture Mythology / Religion Uncategorized

No original ‘sin’

For those reading this who feel that there was a Christ and he had to exist, to rid humanity of its ‘sin’, should seriously try to view the following logic from different perspectives. Not just your own. If you want to be open-minded, you should be able to. The following is written in ‘laymen’s terms’ so people not knowing about the different parts of different religions, aren’t pushed away by reference to reference etc.

Here goes.

The main reasoning of a Jesus Christ to have existed for Christianity, is for his teaching, but moreover for his supernatural link and dying for everyone’s ‘sin’.

To look at things that are represented in words, it is important to understand words. Thus knowing the definition of words that are used. This is a requirement in any situation, because words would be useless otherwise.

Not only is it important to understand the implications of the word ‘sin’, but also what dying means, what supernatural means and what teachings are. Lets start with one and then the other.

‘Sin’ Wikipedia (which I take as a critical platform to provide information, controlled by a global community) says:

sin is the act of violating God’s will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as any thought or action that endangers the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the perceived ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as “to miss the mark”.[5]

Etymology[edit]
The word derives from “Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō… The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'”.[6] The English Biblical terms translated as “sin” or “syn” from the Biblical Greek and Jewish terms sometimes originate from words in the latter languages denoting the act or state of missing the mark; the original sense of New Testament Greek ἁμαρτία hamartia “sin”, is failure, being in error, missing the mark, especially in spear throwing;[7] Hebrew hata “sin” originates in archery and literally refer to missing the “gold” at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[8] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a “miss”.)

To shorten the above: In Christianity, Sin is a religious notation to things that are seen as a thought or action of a religious person, that go against the will of their god.

‘Dying’ Again, Wikipedia is my source here:

Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism.

Well, to be quick to kill any confusion, this is the globally accepted biological definition of dying. Christians will say that dying can also be interpreted ‘spiritually’ or ‘religiously’. They will refer to the illogical promise of death by a god, which then isn’t happening (or the story would have been over right away), so Genesis 2:17 the chapter where the ‘first human’ gets told that if he eats from a specific fruit, he will surely die, would be a failure on both sides. But, after many years, about a couple of thousand, someone came up with this illogical part and ‘quickly’ changed the meaning to ‘spiritual’, making the ‘literal’ interpretation already ‘metaphorical’ from line one. Yet, keeping all of it as ‘literal’ as possible.

So, to use another source to make sure to cover all bases:

gotquestions mentions:

Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God.

As you might see, there are some new things added to the equation. ‘soul’, ‘God’, ‘separation’. We will have to distinguish deeper, to make sure we are on the same single page when coming to any conclusion about this.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Affairs of the State

AoS: Focus (part 2)

Well, we are two days down the line and I am still struggling. I felt it would really do something, but I am starting to feel more that the tools don’t really matter. It is a matter of personal perseverance. You want to change, you make the change.

I have two sets of planning papers, one for my work and one for my personal stuff, yet both don’t seem to go far. I did add some changes I want to run on both sides, and the why, but somehow the incentive isn’t causing me to actually put all the effort into it yet. Honest is honest. It depends on myself.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Affairs of the State

AoS: FOCUS

I qualify! I actually qualify!

Yes you heard it here first. I qualify for improving my planning. Yes, seriously, you might not have though I would, but I DO!

I have been trying and trying to change my habit of procrastination. Wrote articles about it, writing articles about anything, but still only marginally changing my behavior. So what?! Well, that means that I keep slamming into the same walls I warn others for. The same premature ending of ‘projects’ that should be finished for it to have effect.

So now I do the following:

I have found a planning document set that I will use to test if it works:

Free planners at Productiveflourishing.com

I didn’t take ONE planner, no I choose to take all of them. And I will explain why, but first the package:

  • Individual Project Planner (one page per project)
  • Daily Habit Planner (one page per month – 5 habits)
  • Daily Productivity Heat Map (one page per day measured)
  • Monthly Momentum Planner (one page per month)
  • Weekly Momentum Planner (one page per week, should have 4 or 5 I guess)
  • Daily Momentum Planner (one page per day, should have approximately 31 or 21, in case of business change).
  • (Only in my private paper package, due to this blog) The Blog Post Calendar

Now, why do I include all this?

Because I want to see if this is a way to get good insight into why things fail, what insight I can get into it and how I can address it to improve it. I know habits take a bit of time to sink through the cognitive stage and emotional stage into the instinctive stage, so I hope using this paper work, instead of all the different ‘Apps’ I have tried for this, I will be able to track and improve.

Of course I added the last part, so I will make sure I have a ‘leverage’. I will need to update this blog to have keep track.

If you have questions (taking it, that someone will some day read this), ask away.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Design Patterns Technology

Base of DEI

DEI stands for Digital Evolutionary Intelligence.

The base of this starts at how the universe caused life (yes, please understand that religious thinking and superstitious wishes don’t really help in science). Life started at the point where an element of the universe started to self-replicate and its reaction to every interaction with the universe was to find ‘equilibrium’. This sounds like a lot of mumbojumbo, but I will explain a bit further.

It all started when I was reflecting on life and how we, humans, determined certain things. Especially ‘good’ and ‘evil’ or ‘bad’. See, these concepts are made by emotional evaluation. Emotional evaluation is the way an individual looks at the result of an event/action and how it impacts the chances for the individual or group he/she is concerned with. However, if we look at other mammals, like apes and other empathic social animals, we see that responses are often the same to specific events that we also have emotional responses to. But they do not decide to give it a label. This is also why only humans can create conceptualized language and naming of things. Likely other animals also are able to label objects or physical dangers, but they can not give something a conceptual naming. This because they lack the expansion of certain areas of the brain (frontal cortex, temporal lobes, etc). Humans are aware of ‘time’, because we have a larger memory ‘module’ than others. We are able to plan, because we (our body/nervous system) have developed the ability to recognize patterns and understand the possibility a pattern will return in the future and choose on the historical events what would be best beneficial response to it. But it didn’t start here. It all depends on the ability to survive. And as we named it survive, it all simply started with: A cell that dries out, dies out. A cell that adjust when in risk of dehydration, survives. A cell that responds to a threat, like something that causes its internal working to fail, will survive more likely. A cell that divides when resources cause its internal working to become a threat, is even more likely to survive, as its structure is now twice as strong for future risks.

The way DEI will look at intelligence, is going into the most basic of complexity that allows decisions (for more on this, read DTM on this site) and build from there. See, inorganic matter doesn’t have any decision process. It doesn’t respond, as there is no internal working that will cause it to respond. The forces of the universe (as far as we can tell) are effects of matter and energy on each other. Movement causes gravity, gravity causes shift in entropy. Everything seems to move towards an equilibrium, the maximum entropy (which is a misinterpretation. Many think it is maximum chaos, however, at maximum entropy, all elements/particles have a maximum distance which causes all effects of forces to cause it to hold position and nothing else to change).

If this project works out, it will result in a system that will work on both conventional digital systems as well will create a unsurpassed situation on (if they ever become real) quantum systems.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Game Design Technology

AI*

In development of AI movement, A* pathfinding is a sort of summum. You use Dijkstra A* pathfinding and you are an ‘intelligent’ coder or developer in general.

Though the above is true, I think there is something sincerely lacking in the whole method. It isn’t logical. The default states of enemies/AI in games tend to be: Patrol until a signal comes in view. Hunt the signal, no matter where it goes or stop when it goes beyond reach. That is all very well, but is that something a person would do?

Example: Lets take a guard of a mansion. He patrols. Specific weak spots in the ‘defense’ of the perimeter are the points of interest and he moves from each to another. A->B->C. Now the player must infilitrate the perimeter and does so at C. The guard happens to just walk about the spot of C and the raycast (technical term of a signalling line into the distance) detects the player would be in view. The guards FSM (Finite State Machine) dictates that he should be alert and ready to attack the intruder. He turns towards the player, who hastely returns into hiding.

Now, what happens in most games is: FSM dictates alert state cools down and guard will return to default sequence. But is that logical? Only if the guard had the memory of a gold fish (Or Dory). The guard now knows that there is an intruder near C, so his guard will not go down anymore. Worse even, if YOU were the guard, you would either stay at C spot or you would shorten the time on other spots and return to C more often (because you have memory of the incident).

Therefore I will try to extend the A* with a ‘legacy’ or ‘memory’ model. So the agent that follows the path will only follow a path he/she remembers and will more likely take a route that is more valid from memory perspective. Unlike the games where ‘armies’ keep running towards a wall that obstructs the path to the goal, while the previous members of the army got slaughtered. It would make more sense to NOT go to the obstruction, until memory serves that it was removed. In other words: Sentient pathing.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
awareness Metanews Philosophy Psychology Science

The Evil Truth about Goodness

“Nothing is evil which is according to nature.” – Marcus Aurelius

A good start

Think of a person you know. Whether that person is a close relative, or a person far far a way in some forgotten place and time. Imagine that person that has the best intention to the world. The best impact. You would consider that person to be a ‘good person’, right? Why so?

We often find the person that has the most relatible behavior to what we would want to instill on the world, to be a good person. It is the bias of our own emotion and empathy that causes us to consider a person as good. Not just someone that acts like we do, but a person that acts like we WANT to do. This is the person we most often see as good.

Now turn it around. Think again, close and home, far and wide, for a person that you think is a bad person. A personification of evil. Yes, that one. Whether it is a man or woman, killed one or millions with their bare hands, or caused such grief it would be considered equal to as if he/she had killed those. Did you find such a person? Of course you did. Again, we find people that do the farthest of what we would do, the worst, the most evil, the most bad person alive. Not just farthest from what we do…but what we imagine we would do.

Can we agree, from this moment on, that someone we think of as good, is a person that upholds the highest positive values we can imagine (want) and a person that upholds the oposite, or undermines the earlier mentioned values the most, we call a bad or evil person?

If you can agree to the above, you are already quite a step further down the line of acknowledging what the end of this post will tell you (no peeking!)

See no evil, hear no evil

“Half of the results of a good intentions are evil; half the results of an evil intention are good.” – Mark Twain

In the previous paragraph, I tried to show you, that there are distinct features to what you will see as evil or good. These distinctions are very important, but the most important part of them is, to understand that they are SUBJECTIVE. It is what you want them to be. The power of upholding your own moral compass depends on the will to believe that what you do is right and what you envision as good IS good, and visa versa.

But imagine that you were actually wrong? Look at the item you hold as good (whether you have rational reasons to accept this as good or not), and see it as evil for a second. Can you? No? It will be hard, but there are reasons you can’t easily change your view. They are the ways your emotions have been ‘etched’ on the cognitive biases you have created/enforced, in your neurology.

“You can think of anything to be good, until the aftermath of the action shows you otherwise.”

People that you might think as evil, have done the same as you, but visa versa. Even sociopaths and psychopaths don’t automatically wake up in the morning: ‘Woah, I need to do something superbly evil today, or people will not think I am a psychopath!’. They wake up as Joe next door, mind you, married and playing in a soccerteam or hard laborer at their company. They don’t intend to do evil, they tend to approach their ideal of good as best as they can. This ideal can seem bad to you, but imagine you have been searching your life for what is good and you found out all around you are dellusional and lying people. Even if they don’t, if you believe it, it will mean those are bad. We can agree that lying is bad, right? Being dellusional is not a healthy treat, right?

Evil is as evil does

So, why do we think that someone did good, even if that person has a history of violence? And now I will come with a very dangerous example, because I myself find this man to have changed the world for the better, as many do: Nelson Mandela.
He fought against apartheid, by many means. He did so by being a lawyer, by presumably using militant force against citizens (these days called terrorism or rebelism). Thanks to his effort new generations of humans live more equal to each other.

Another person, who many think was good, is someone I do not think in any way represents what is good:

Che Guevara.
He fought for freedom of his people in Cuba, but used such brutal force and enjoyed violence at one point, that I can not find myself to agree with anyone wearing a Che silhouet shirt. It is, to me, a utter sense of ignorance of history.

These two are examples of many people, ranging from Mother Theresa, to Ghandi, to worse examples like Stalin, Hitler and Mohammed ‘the prophet’. Sainthood can be attained by showing good, even when being bad. As such, if you don’t openly ‘do bad’, you are not seen as bad or evil (example most vile is Mother Theresa, who gained sainthood, while she openly has shown misconceptions on the need for human suffering on more than one occassion).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

As you will know from this page, it is in no means a religious page. Even the opposite, it is rationalist and atheist. So why use this phrase used often, regarding an imaginary place from contemporary religious writing? Because of the meaning that is indistinctive calling from it.

The general idea of a place called ‘hell’ in judeo-christian religion, is that of bad omen. If you go there, you did something bad (or not enough good, depending on the perspective of religiosity). In general, all participants of this believe that if you do evil, you go to this place.

Regardless of faith, if you equate ‘hell’ as destructive and negative impacting the environment around one, you could say, that one easily causes unwanted negative effects, while wanting to do good things.

You can think of anything to be good, until the aftermath of the action shows you otherwise. The same is true in reverse. How many stories or movies have you watched, that you were sure the bad guy was bad, until at the end, the real cause and effect was differently explainable, making the bad guy the good guy all along? Yes, that is right. Until the point where the protagonist in the 12 Monkeys accepts that HE is the one who brought out the disease, all viewers are thinking that HE is the good guy. Now a more heavier load is the latest (year 2020) ‘phase’ ended in the ‘MCU’ Marvel Cinematic Universe), where the bad guy Thanos was portrayed as such a rational guy, that his reasons for doing what he did almost seemed good.

Good measurement, evil insight

Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. – Will Rogers

Now, I did add the ‘almost’, but the most important thing to remember is, that good and evil don’t exist. They are constructs in our emotional-cognitive worldview. They are concepts, a hatstand for combining observations into a more complex judgement.

Once you forget about the idea of evil and good in the judgemental sense that even the best religions and politics try to hold you on, you will start to make better judgement for yourself. Remember, any human is as good as you, you are as good as any human.

Let me know what you think.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
Culture Mythology / Religion

Persian Mythology

Mythology

Many will claim that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are living ‘religions’, while in fact they fall within the same mythology range as all other magical stories regarding ‘creation’ and ‘gods’.

Other religions have been moved to mythology for having the same base as these monotheistic. The oldest of the three, is Judaism. It is said to go back 4000 years. It is therefore oldest monotheistic mythology.

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/judaism

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin
awareness Metanews Psychology

Masked truth or blurred vision

We, as a species are in a weird predicament. Our entire species, no matter what culture, is in trouble with a new version of a virus that we have been threatened by several times over the last few years. Now we can go into large detail on what the virus does and how it is a danger to young and old. But the bigger problem isn’t the virus. It is our sudden inability to distinguish between usable patterns and non-usable patterns (aka superstition/conspiracies).

Super stitious

Humans have prided themselves (especially from scientific perspective) on our ability to distinguish patterns and to use concepts regarding patterns that exceed our visual observation. However, as a species, we have learned many things parallel and these things haven’t all be correct.

Some of the most obvious superstitious items that have been lingering in western society for a long time, was black cats and walking under ladders. There are many more, but these most likely everyone knows. Lets consider the claims and see why they exist and why they are bogus (or not).

Bad luck

‘Black cats bring bad luck’. For one thing, when in the dark, black cats are hard to see. When a cat is in heat or are fighting, their screams sound very very unearthly. Combined with the fact that because they are hardly to see in the dark and when you do see them, mostly you will see the prying eyes that judge you as all cats do, it makes them mysterious and scary creatures.

So, if someone stumbles (literaly) on a cat in the dark, one can say: That is bad luck. But if more people admit this has happened to them (black, brown, grey, turtleshell, whatever color the cat had), the patterns starts to become very easy. Sometimes someone repeats it as a joke, sometimes someone wants to be the middle of attention and reiterates the story altered or that of another. Eventually, the story sticks and people start to create constructs in their minds that will RATIONALIZE the pattern that they should be able to distinguish. For some, all cats become a danger. Others stick to the specific story. If we take a look at when the superstitious tale about cats started to diminish, we see a trend with street lighting. The more electric streetlights (and therefore continous bright) the less the story would stick. Nobody tripped over cats in the dark anymore. Cats don’t like looking into bright lights, so they would mostly look away, diminishing the ‘scary judging view’. Additionally, more and more people in western countries started holding cats as pets and their different breeds started to make the stories less ‘general patterned’.

Math and geometry magic

Then how about ladders? This is more of a goofy thing, where people took religious concepts into realworld situations. A ladder against a sil will create a triangle (often almost perfect), which people from abrahamic religions would adher to 3, thus trinity. This combined with the fact that a ladder is mostly used to bring things to a height (like paint or water to clean windows), it could happen that someone got some of that paint or water on them when walking under a ladder. This seems to be the most legit version of rationalizing illogical patterns. It is better to not walk under ladders, though there is no actual ‘superstitious’ reason for it.

Con spiracy

Most often we seek patterns that are biased to what we want. This is logically, because we as an organism, want to trust on our ‘instincts’ to get us easy food and lazy life fast and easy. If something falls in our expectations, we are easy to accept it as confirmation of our bias, so we don’t have to venture into scary territory. When we add confirmation bias on confirmation bias and the bubble/box we keep ourselves in, is not broken, we will claim that something is true. Our subjective observations can not prevent this mistake, because we are less ‘intelligent’ than we think.

Masked truth

The problem is that most of our actions are hidden from ourselves. Our thoughts are only a small portion of our cognitive activity. When we are children much of our thought is new, because much of what we observe is new. We conduct investigation. Question everything. But when we get older, things we have observed before, are processed by our brain automatically. Much of the patterns that we have recognized and determined (whether right or wrong) as some kind of causal effect, will remain beyond our future vision. These patterns then cause an automated reaction in our brain, a reflex/instinctive behavior, and we are then sometimes wondering why we behave a certain way in certain situations. We, depending on what values we have before learned, decide these actions are having special meaning. Nothing is further from the truth. If we were to have learned of these behaviors before, we might have thought differently about them.

Blurred vision

But the result of this ‘masking’ of our own behavior by the fact that our identity is only a limited part of ourself cognitive awareness, is that anything we observe afterwards depends on the way we have created the filters before. These filters are the automatic processing of patterns by our brain. The reflexes and instincts. Anything we observe and think is objectively processed, is not so. It is always subjectively processed. Depending on our reference frame and our internal processes. This causes us to never see clear.

20/20

How can we prevent that we fall for the most obvious of mistakes in superstition and conspiracy thinking? By taking the first step back that is possible and be honest that whatever we observe will NOT be the whole of the pattern and what we will think of it is NOT determined by the moment alone. Once we are honest to ourselves and say: Look, whatever I think will be influenced by how I became who I am and judging things based on that will not do much more than confirm my bias. Take a 360 perspective first. Look at it how you think it is, BUT then also look at it totally opposite to what you think it is (But that is only 180. Correct.). If you have a clear overview of where you might be right and you might be wrong, shift the burden of proof halfway against and halfway for yourself (and yes, then you have 4 directions).

Conclusion

The most important part is, acknowledging that you are human and that humans are nothing more than primates with additional neocortex functionality (aka selfawareness). Also, as soon as you think you are clear on a subject, expand your view, include more parts. If the pattern from smallest to broadest part concur, it is more likely to be correct.

Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Linkedin