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.


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.

The why: Heritage of development

So, why and how did I come to the realisation of decision trees?

Well, I assume I am not the only one who has come across this venture and moment of clarity. So here goes and likely you have heard/thought it all before. I just write it down, so my own mind makes sense.

I have two children and they evolve. Before my eyes, they become bigger, they learn and they come across every awareness level, we all have at moments in our lives. Sometimes more often when we ‘rediscover’ some clarity. Seeing my children evolve and recognizing the moments from before their birth, as the phases they are changing, I began to realize that humanity and from that actually all of the universe and life on Earth in specific, wasn’t really evolving much different. Of course it doesn’t, because every current state of species grows along the same line. But not just physically, we as humans evolve in mind, along the same path. Humanity as a whole follows the same path. I guess someone already made some ‘great unification’ theory, explaining how this is true. Children first learn of input, then of acquiring the necessities to survive physically (cry, find a caretaker). After the moment it feels secure it will live, it learns of its body (aware of ability, not of self), it learns of the world close by, small steps in grasping things, seeing things, then interacting with things. It finds out, that there is a ‘Pavlovian’ effect, Cry and food comes. Cry and attention comes, attention is activating neurons, feeling good. Then it starts to feel comfortable about its abilities and recognizes its interaction and its results. Stimuli and response, but also intent and reaction.

So, that is all fine, it is how a child gets to know itself and learns to be human. YES, but not just humans have this. EVERY species has this. They learn up to their abilities. The closer their neurological network resembles ours and their physical abilities resemble ours, the closer their learning/adapting process seems to ours. This means that it is not the human conscious that causes learning and adapting, but something earlier. Children with low cognitive abilities, still are able to act on simpler impulses. They are still able to adapt, to respond. Life is all about responding.

What I have named above, is actually the fact that humanity grows like all species, and even the whole of life on earth grows in awareness. Like every individual organism that starts live, it has to come to understand what it can do, where it is, how to interact. What it is, depends on whether it becomes self aware. To understand how our psyche works, it is imperitive to understand that our drives, our inner nature, comes from…nature. From the first photosynthetic plantlike organism that consumed sunlight to mix chemicals, up to the actual animals of any size and complexity, it had specific responses to stimuli. Our brains are created after milions and millons of years and millions and millions of generations adjusting into a neural network that is able to respond to stimuli of its surrounding and, in our case, also able to act upon its environment. The responses are the basic results when a stimuli is processed by the body and nervous system. The brain is the center of action, because the signal will be sent there for a decision to be made. As Michael Shermer explained already with Patternicity, it is simply a response to a complex amount of stimuli that might cause the organism harm. If something touches the skin, the skin will send a signal to the brain, the brain will send the haptic values (heat, cold, pinch, puncture) to different parts of the brain that have been previously activated by comparative signals. The build up of the brain is generally the same with every human, when they are growing up, because the same pathways/decision trees are build, based on cultural structure. This is no different with an amoebe or a coyote, just the level of intrinsic complexity differs. Now, this is the base on which I seat my theory of decision trees and I will work this out as I continue to find objective reasoning for it.

To put it short:
The model came to be, based on my research/understanding of how humanity came about ‘religious’ ideas. Like children (or rather children like humanity, being an individual evolved from the ancestral relative), we started having very little ability to cognitively understand the world. We start with emotions. Our parents are our world. Then we start to become able to move ourselves and our parents become our protectors in the surrounding we now see as our world. Then we try to mimic cognitive abilities after we mimicked physical abilities. This will give us freedom, but we still hold to the affection of the parent/protector/ruler of our world. The emotions are still vivid, but we are then moving into a more cognitive phase. We start to understand the world, bit by bit on a cognitive level. But lacking language and the possibility to see causality, we fill in the blanks. We have a ‘magical’ world, because we don’t know everything yet. We see a chair and it is an object, it moves if we move it, but when we kick it, we are surprised it didn’t move. We expect it to behave as ourselves. ‘magical thinking’, agenticity as some scientifically knowledgeable people call it. This was the start on which I based my theory that the way humans think and evolve, is caused by the ‘development’ of inherited abilities. This means that in the same analogous way, humanity will grow as humans grow in their understanding of their life and abilities.

Human architecture – inventing the ‘wheel’

So, using humanity as a principle, how does that work?

Well, as a person who likes to ‘normalise’ things as much as possible, I see things as entities.

What is the prime entity for care?

You can imagine that from my point of view, this is a human being (or living being if you will, taking the level above just humans). A human is the driving force, the central measurement, main subject and actual linchpin concerning his/her health. A human is even a part of the health of humanity. Like a cell is a part of the health of a body. As is the behavior of a human of influence of the health of his environment. But more important, every human, whether they are living their lives, or living to improve other people’s lives, are looking from themselves as a perspective.

How would that be visualised?

Well, for one: The center element is the life of a person (lets keep it to human health care for now). A person, with history, future, current state, body, mind and environment.

Great, so now you have the base of a human life…so…er…how are we going to incorporate that in a system for health care?

Imagine someone goes to a physician or hospital.

In the above image, you can also identify the ‘group’ identity. An individual hardly ever lives entirely alone (or should never). Such group has the same characteristics as a accumulation of the individuals it is comprised of.

A health institute doesn’t really deals with the individual as such, but rather a part of its sympthoms. Institute is a very broad item here: Local doctor, physician, physiotherapist, psychiater, psychologist, pathologist, etc. Especially if you incorporate the connection the group the individual is part of. Imagine pandemics, epidemics, forensics, etc.

Why would you want to change the setup? Can’t you just adjust the existing systems?

I honestly don’t know whether they can, but I think it is important to have an architecture worked out that takes the honest and right approach towards the ownership and entity base of information.