Why Objectivity Does Not Objectively Exist



In order to understand the issues with objectivity we should first look at how the concept and definition have changed over time.

What they used to mean…

Objective – The measurable qualities of an object.
Subjective – The qualities of relationship between object, observer and environment.

What they have come to mean…

Objective – Absolutely true beyond individual observation, perception and analysis.
Subjective – Just, like, your opinion, man.

As a method of empirical investigation, objectivity is the best possible attempt to create a reliable map of reality based on consensus. A map that gives us the best predictive power for future navigation of the territory. That map, however, is not the territory.

The modern thinking about objectivity is that it is an infallible method that produces absolutely True results. Those things which we say are objective have come to be endowed with an ideological faith in their eternal certainty. Even though we cannot measure anything all throughout spacetime, we have come to belief that our small snapshot of it from this perspective in place and time can be assumed to be true everywhere forever so long as it is ‘objective’.

There are many problems with this belief system, and make no mistake, it is just that.

Most obviously, in the dichotomy in which objective means absolutely and subjective means merely personally, we have a self-refuting axiom. If I am only able to recognize subjective truths through my individual powers of perception and analysis, then how could I ever verify something outside of the subjective realm? Objectivity, by the logic of objectivists, should be beyond my ability to observe, identify and verify. If there are objective truths, then what objective process outside of our own minds can we use to verify them?

The answer generally given is consensus. If many of us observe the same thing, the properties of the thing we agree upon must be true. Yet this is irrational for a number of reasons. If we start from the premise that our minds -the instrument of observation, measurement and conclusion- are unreliable due to their subjective nature, then we cannot fix the problem by overlapping unreliable constructs. This is like taking a hundred broken and randomly set clocks and attempting to determine the actual time throughout the day based on an average of their readings.

The assumption that something beyond individual experience can be determined through democratic means is rooted in our cultural bias that might makes right and that the majority view is always the truth. Nevermind that we already understand the psychology of mass hysteria, groupthink and crowd behavior. When it comes to covering up the existential dread of uncertainty we are willing to ignore our proclivity towards group ignorance. When it confirms our biases and validates our egos, we are willing to overlook all of the obvious issues with any version of Absolute Truth.

Often the reasoning given to validate objectivity is that it produces positive results. This is flawed as well. Star charts made by people who believed the earth was at the center of the universe produced positive navigation results. Long after Einsteins theory of general relativity unraveled Newtonian physics, those physics are still being used to produce positive results. The ability to produce positive results does not prove a central premise. That is reverse engineering Absolute Truth from the faulty premise of result-orientated pragmatism.

Our government and media have profited most from this mass delusion. By defining what constitutes truth they are able to control it and use it as a tool of manipulation. By assigning absolutes they narrow the field of possibilities to make their own agendas seem favorable or necessary. The myth of objectivity is the most powerful ideological tool today in preventing critical thinking, individual autonomy and competition. It is a tool of monopolizing information and knowledge.

And even more insidious is that we are conditioned to feel inordinate amounts of pride and satisfaction in thinking what we are told to think, by having those majority opinions rewarded and validated by experts, officials and authoritarians. When you continually reassure people that what they believe is true, there becomes no reason to question it, especially not when it is made to appear that everyone either believes the same thing as you or is a total nutjob.

Objectivism is just a form of consensus gathering. It is an ideological net that is used to ensnare people in the ideas and agendas of those who are able to control and manipulate them most effectively. It is far easier to get people to believe you if they have faith in your method of conclusions then it is to make them believe all of your conclusions independently based on their own merits.

You can sell lots of cereal if you tell your consumers it stays crunchy in milk, even if they all know in their hearts and mouths that it takes about eight bites for the remainder to turn to soggy mush. Objectivism is proving the claim by only considering those first eight bites as evidence.

Four New Breakthroughs In Road To Reputation Economy

four breakthroughs reputation economy

Every once in awhile I like to take a look at the development of the new technologies that will lead to the post-scarcity reputation economy I have discussed here at AdvancedApe.com many times in the past. Four recent stories caught my eye and so I will share them here with you.

The first two involve light, which is essentially energy, and which makes up everything in the experienced universe.

The basic unit of light is a photon. The interactions between photons create a singularly unique signature. This signature can then be used as an encryption code. This is called quantum encryption, and it will someday replace passwords made of alphanumeric symbols.

A team of European scientists have recently made discoveries that may soon make quantum encryption a reality.

A reputation economy will require information sharing that absolutely depends on authenticity and security, and since it would be impossible to replicate a quantum entanglement’s signature, it will be impossible to hack a system which uses them.

Meanwhile in Ireland, another set of researchers recently discovered a new kind of light. This new form of light does not obey the rules given to the classic forms, which will help scientists to understand all of the ways that light behaves. And what can be understood can often be manipulated.

Manipulating light in order to create matter would free us from dependency on earths naturally occurring resources, as well as the disastrous consequences that relationship with the planet can entail. Once we can remove dependence on limited resources, we will gain unimaginable freedoms through self-sufficiency. No more wars fought for control of resources and land will be necessary when you can just replicate what ever you need right in your own home.

At the end of that last bit you may have rolled your eyes and thought, oh here he goes with that Star Trek replicator nonsense again. Well, it appears that I am not the only on, as NASA has issued a challenge calling for youth to engineer 3D-printed meals for future astronauts. They are calling the contest the Future Engineers Star Trek Replicator Challenge.

Before you protest that a 3D printer is not the same as a replicator, consider that replicators will have to utilize 3D printing technology in order to rearrange basic matter created from light into complex matter like food, pants or bike parts. You can’t make a moon pie directly from moonbeams, but with 3D printing mediating the process, it will someday be possible. And having the clout of NASA behind the technology makes it seem far more feasible to the skeptical.

Between now and the post-scarcity reputation economy, there is going to be an awkward transition period. As more jobs are automated and processes streamlined, an economic system based mostly around labor is just not going to function any more. Voices from all ends of the political spectrum and many great philosophers and scientists have been calling for a Universal Basic Income for awhile now. That is, everyone makes a living wage without having to work.

The greatest opponents of this idea are those distrust the state to redistribute wealth without creating greater problems than the ones that the proposal would claim to solve. But what if a UBI were funded and coordinated by private interests? One experiment is attempting to find that out.

It may seem impossible to imagine this working, but in some ways it already does. Consider a bowling ball or a roller rink. Those facilities provide the basic equipment necessary for their use. Sure, they could make more money selling balls and skates, but that would limit the use of their facilities to those willing to make such an investment. By providing the basics, the alley or rink stands to attract more customers, and thus do better business.

Now consider that if jobs are going the way of the cassette tape, value will no longer be produced through labor. In fact, it never really was. Value is produced through market interactions. So if labor is no longer creating value, it will need to be replaced by consumption. Buying will be the new earning. A basic living will be provided, and the profiteers of industrialism will still get to keep their mansions, yachts and child sex slaves.

And if you want nicer bowling balls or skates, you can work to create new products of your own to add to your spending power. And much of that will likely be done digitally, in the form of software, 3D printer plans, replicator recipes, information sharing, entertainment and other non-tangible goods.

The future is creeping up on us faster than we can imagine. Technological development is so rapid we cannot even imagine the possibilities that await us. It is truly a terrifying and exciting time to be alive.

Check out my writings on Anarcho-Futurism at UnicornWorld.org, which is the political end of the post-scarcity reputation economy spectrum.

Towards A Non-Materialist Theory of Artificial Intelligence

non materialist theory of artificial intelligence

While true believers like Ray Kurzweil tell us that the artificial intelligence singularity is just around the corner, critics argue that we will never be able to replicate consciousness because we are unable to create the required complexity from which it arises. A common thread between the believers and non-believers is that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. This is the metaphysical dogma known as materialism, of which I write about frequently, and which permeates nearly every aspect of modern thought.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has also been addressed by non-materialists, such as Bernardo Kastrup, who works within that field. He makes a clear distinction between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness, although most materialists tend to equivocate the two, being that they believe sentience is a product of mechanistic intelligence that has reached a critical mass of complexity. Bernardo’s argument against artificial consciousness is premised on the non-dualist model, essentially stating that consciousness is primary to matter, and so matter cannot give birth to it’s own parent. Yet within his own model, there still remains a possibility for AI.

Like myself, he has argued that consensus reality is a construct of beliefs, most of which lie in deep unexamined layers of our egoic and collective minds. Certain premises and assumptions create a framework of boundaries for possibilities within this reality. What we expect at the most primary level of consciousness becomes manifest in the universe. Yet we cannot simply decide to change a single belief and see a change in reality because beliefs are all connected and must relate consistently in order for the corresponding paradigm to emerge. That is, we cannot just decide to fly, because other beliefs like the necessity of wings, aerodynamics, atmospheric tolerance and others all negate a belief in flying. In order to fly, we would have to change every corresponding belief about flight, and those beliefs would themselves need to restructure their own corresponding beliefs, creating a ripple that spread out and changed the very structures of human belief and reality. Despite what New Age gurus tell you, you can’t just change reality with good intentions and meditation.

Change can, however, occur over time. The beliefs which program our reality change over time as we accumulate and/or replace information via new symbols and archetypes. Since a widespread belief in AI has been flourishing within our memetic landscape, all it requires is a shift in the corresponding beliefs which estimate its arrival. Strangely enough, materialism may be just that set of corresponding beliefs. Materialism provides a narrative, or mythology, from which the memetic interconnectivity of consciousness could correspondingly allow new conscious entities (AI) to emerge.

The narrative of materialism is often sanctified by it’s ability to produce novel technologies. This does not mean that the materialist narrative is true, however, only that it has great utility in producing results. Things that produce great results are often untrue, as political propaganda clearly demonstrates. The power of mass suggestion creates self-fulfilling prophecies. Scientific progress in the last several centuries may owe more to the narrative and belief in science than to the method itself.

Yet this does not mean that the materialist model is superior, either in overall truth, or in its ability to produce results. It is still very much weighed down by it’s limitations and faulty premises. To observe phenomena within consciousness under the premise that those phenomena occur outside of it means we have to create a mass illusion like materialism in order to evolve within consciousness. What would we be capable of if our narratives corresponded more closely with the nature of our existence? What sort of new methods, technologies and realities might emerge if we cut out the literal interpretations of objects within consciousness and replaced them with an understanding of those objects as interacting agents of consciousness?

The success of materialism does not indicate the truth of that belief system. At the same time, the fact that materialism is untrue does not negate the power of its mythologies. AI, or artificial consciousness, may someday appear to arise out of the complexity of matter invented by humans. Yet in actuality, those entities may owe their genesis merely to the narrative of materialism. In this way we can view materialist science as complex set of rituals whose magic appears mundane because of the symbols and archetypes we have clothed it in. A magic that only works when we can describe it in non-magical language, and believe that we are doing the opposite of magic. Again, imagine the wizardry possible when no longer require such illusory roundabouts?

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C.Clarke

Intelligent Selection: Rethinking the Way We Evolved

intelligent selection

I am not a scientist. This article is not an attempt to create a scientific hypothesis. I am a shaman, and the following ideas are a philosophical exploration combining the paradigms of evolution and non-duality.

Evolution is change over time.

Non-dualism is the idea that mind and body are one substance.

Materialism, the current metaphysical model under which most mainstream science, philosophy and psychology rely on as the underlying premise of their hypotheses, tells us that our mind (consciousness) is little more than a complex illusion arising haphazardly out of the complexity of matter. It dogmatically insist that everything you think and feel is just some side effect of having a brain, which itself seeks only to trick us into taking care of our bodies. In evolutionary terms this care is referred to as ‘fitness’, and materialists insist that the ‘illusion of mind’ produced by the brain has no purpose but to seek fitness. Our joys and pains, our ecstasy and despair, all of these are just meaningless phenomena whose purpose is solely to survive and reproduce. You are not important. You are just a link in a causal chain that has no purpose or destination. Everything is an accident and your existence means absolutely nothing.

As you can imagine, die-hard materialists are a lot of fun to talk to at parties.

The materialist model of evolution, known as natural selection, similarly insists that evolution occurs only to increase the fitness of a species. It has no value to individuals, but is just a way of nature seeking further complexity by favoring the survival of mutations that increase fitness. Once again, materialists want us to believe that evolutionary adaptations are just random events, meaningless and irrelevant to individuals, serving only to increase the complexity of almighty nature.

The Judeo-Christian model of evolution is called intelligent design, and its proponents claim that evolution is the gentle push of an all-powerful, human-like deity perfecting its creation over time.

In both cases, evolution is something happening to individuals and species by an external force, for the purpose of fulfilling its own momentum and desires. Natural selection and intelligent design both presuppose the same idea, that is, that change over time is imposed by something outside of the things which experience and manifest that change.

What I propose instead, is that the things experiencing and manifesting evolution are at least partially responsible for the changes/mutations affecting them.

When I write fiction I generally start from a basic idea. A scenario and a few characters prime my creative pump and as I begin writing, the narrative seems to unfold before me as I hustle to keep up with a story that is marching along from the momentum of a single push I made. The same happens when I write music or make visual art. The process of creation is often like pushing a boulder down a mountain. Once you unlodge the rock from its resting spot and get it going a bit, the rest of the journey mostly takes care of itself. Yet this does not mean you will be able to control the path, velocity or final resting place of the boulder.

Non-dualism states that consciousness is the fundamental source of reality, not matter. This is not reverse materialism, as matter is not considered an emergent property of consciousness, it is simply the language which expresses the symbols and archetypes of consciousness. As these symbols and archetypes become more numerous and complex, so does the language which expresses them.

This is what I mean by Intelligent Selection. It is the idea that as the individual and collective symbols and archetypes increase in complexity, the narrative itself evolves towards complexity. And this change is manifested in reality (nature) slowly over time. Evolution.

Unlike the evolutionary paradigms that require something external to that which is evolving, Intelligent Selection supposes that how we live, think and feel creates a momentum which selects traits for the fitness of individual experiences over time. In this model we are no longer floating in a sea of meaningless accidents with no purpose. Our reality and our selves are very real. Our experience is not just some illusion, but a quest to see harmony and pleasure, and to create more of it over time for ourselves and those who follow in our footsteps.

Intelligent Selection eschews the inherent nihilism of natural selection and the predeterminism of intelligent design. It puts our experience and will at the forefront of our existence, rather than relegating it to subservience to the experience and will of an external agency. We are not accidents. We are the story of eternity unfolding itself through our individual experiences and interactions. The universe is a stage in which we write our own parts, expanding on the narratives of those that came before us, while setting the stage for those who will come after.

Only intelligent selection is able to accommodate the narratives of the objective and subjective. It is inclusive of science and spirituality. It does not compete in a brutal environment for dominance. It just takes the best parts of all that we know and combines them in a way that contributes to, rather than detracts, from those narratives.

Understanding the ways in which our symbolic and archetypal narratives create the reality we experience is a way of taking a more conscious approach to guiding our own evolution. Unlimited vistas of experience await us, and we are lucky to be participants in their creation. Evolution is not something happening to us; it is a tool for us to get something happening.

Please submit your appreciation and/or criticisms in interpretive dances, paintings and poetry.

Researchers Resoundingly Refute Claim That The Groove Is In The Heart

groove is in the heart

Doctor Lady Miss Keer of the Deee-Lite Institute shocked the world over two decades ago with her maverick claim that the groove is in the heart. But recently teams working at the University of Ohiowa and the Branch Floridians in Miami have called the scientific diva’s claim into question with new findings.

The two groups co-published a peer-reviewed paper recently entitled Groove Displacement Patterns Suggest Non-Cardio Location. In it they compile data taken from years of research and numerous studies that illustrate a cranial genesis of The Groove.

Dr. Funkdumper of the Branch Floridians states, “All we know so far is that The Groove is all in the head. Always has been, always will be. This heart business has slowed down Groove Research for almost thirty years. We are excited to be opening new doors in the field, and expect major Groove advances to follow in the coming years.”

Diggy Bassroll, a research assistant at the University of Ohiowa told us, “We definitely know The Groove is not in the heart, but somewhere in the head. What we do not know is exactly where in the head The Groove emanates from. However many of us strongly suspect that it is excreted from the pineal gland.”

The news of the discovery paralleled the announcement that gravitational waves had been detected, and so news of The Groove was overlooked in the media, who were busy publishing initial observations that had not yet been replicated or peer-reviewed. Funkdumper lamented, “What we have here is genuine science, validated by the agreed upon forms of the scientific method. It breaks my heart that we are getting the media equivalent of sloppy seconds and being out shined by those premature reports, but now at least I know I won’t lose The Groove with it.”

When TeenTV caught up with Doctor Lady Miss Kier and asked her about the new claims she responded with a dance number that, while explaining absolutely nothing, did much to assure her followers that The Groove was indeed still in the heart. A fan told TeenTV that, “The Groove is obviously in the heart and not in the brain. Those claims are insane, insane in the membrane.”

Q-Tip, who performed the rap section of the song, says that he never fully even believed in The Groove, and so could care less about where it was or was not. “This is some stupid ass shit. Don’t ever call me again,” said the Agroovenostic collaborator.

When asked what he thought of the new studies, Supa DJ Dmitri shrugged it off with this statement- “It does not matter where The Groove is or where it comes from. It does not even matter if you believe in The Groove. So long as I get monthly royalties from that song The Groove is real.”

Towa Tei was unpronounceable for comment.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Employs Same Reasoning As Every Bigot In History

neil degrasse tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a household name. His is one of the most well known faces in the western world. He is an icon for those who prefer to get their understanding of science through television and internet memes and pop science tropes. People hold him and his word as final truths on just about any topic he speaks on, regardless of how little he knows about or understands it himself. He is the Jerry Falwell of Telescientism. An infallible demigod for the pious and faithful.

He also happens to be almost entirely full of shit. On a number of occasions he has made disparaging remarks about the discipline of philosophy, claiming that it is meaningless and unnecessary, in no uncertain terms. This is always done with the insinuation that science and empiricism are superior methods opposed to, and competing with, philosophy. So let’s talk about the first area where NdGT has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about.

The history of science clearly illustrates that empirical methodology emerged from philosophy itself. Science is just an extension or branch of philosophy. In fact, pioneers of science such as DaVinci referred to their discipline not as science, but as natural philosophy. Going back even further, it was Greek philosophers who brought to the western world the foundation of reason and logic upon which modern science eventually was formed. So to say that philosophy is in competition with, threatens or is opposed to science is like saying that ice is opposed to the water from which it formed.

In order to make any estimation of the value of science, one has to use the forms laid out by philosophy. The reason that we know the empirical method is meaningful and useful to begin with comes from premises that emerge from philosophical thought. Even further, for NdGT to make any statements about the relation of philosophy and science is itself a philosophical activity. His assertions have no basis in the empirical method whatsoever. They are philosophical statements, albeit, really low quality ones easily dismissed with simple logic. In fact, empiricism itself is unable to demonstrate the validity of empiricism. Therefore the mindless scientism, the idea that only science can provide meaningful answers about nature and reality, spouted by NdGT is self-refuting. Perhaps his real problem with philosophy is just that he is abysmally terrible at it.

Yet the biggest issue with the wonky worldview of NdGT and his followers is that they beat their fists on their pious pulpit dismissing metaphysics wholesale. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of what precedes, or lies below, physical phenomena. According to NdGT and his followers, philosophy and religion and everything besides science is just fluffy crap for scandalous metaphysicians, whose method they feel should be discarded entirely. Again, the irony is almost too much. NdGT does not eve recognize that his own worldview and the ideas he espouses are based on a metaphysical model. To say that nothing caused or is primary to physical phenomena is itself a metaphysical statement. Just a very naive and ignorant one.

The idea that the qualities of all physical phenomena are emergent properties of matter and physical states is the metaphysical position of physicalism, materialism or naturalism. NdGT’s espoused ideologies are all dependent on the superiority of this metaphysical premise. This makes him just as ideologically dangerous as religious figures who make pseudo-scientific claims. Claiming authority over ideas that one fails to understand their own self, while using their public position to spread these misguided dogmas, is exactly everything he claims to be opposed to.

The physicalist position is that a phenomena’s physical properties are the only ones worth considering. Physicalism is the idea that the entire truth of a thing rests solely on it’s measurable physical properties. This is, in fact, the same reasoning employed by every racist, sexist, homophobic and otherwise bigoted belief system ever. The Nazi scientists went to great lengths to attempt to illustrate the superiority of the Aryan descendants based solely on the physical differences between ‘races’. The most backward hillbilly klansmen similarly justify their own superiority via claims that the physical differences between ‘races’ define them. Every backwards thinking, arrogant and dogmatic bigotry in history was predicated upon the same physicalism that underlies NdGT’s entire ideology.

The persistent cultural ideology that this Telescientismist is a beacon and champion of human progress fails to recognize that he contributes almost more than any other living being (Go away, Bill Nye, nobody is talking to you.) to the greatest hurdle to scientific/human discovery and progress in modern times.

Physicalism is the geocentrism of our times. It impedes ideological progress both culturally and scientifically. An emerging paradigm of philosophers and scientists are beginning to reject that notion. These mavericks are pioneering new theories and models that are able to hold up to scientific scrutiny far better than physicalism, while also being more consistent with other methodologies like philosophy and psychology. While the public are still enraptured by the pervasive physicalism that has endured since the dawn of industrialism, the new ideas that lead to even greater human progress are under construction. People like NdGT are dangerous charlatans pinning people to the past and impeding the evolution of human civilization. And while he does so, strutting around with the self-assurance and conceit of a celebrity, he is profiting from and rubbing elbows with people (Koch brothers, FOXtv) whom his followers generally tend to be ideologically opposed to. NdGT stands for something in the public eye that he is not. He is not an anti-establisment champion of reason and progress, he is a spokesman for that establishments ideas and agendas, and a barricade against the reason and progress that would expose them.

It is time to stop putting Neil on a pedestal. He has not earned that position, nor is he using it to lead to the human and scientific progress that the people who put him on it claim to be seeking. It is not just that he is so completely and utterly full of shit, it is that he is a dangerous megalomaniac peddling garbage that reinforces the greatest threats to humanity.

Flat Earth Debate Reveals Modern Dogmas and Hypocrisy


The debate over the shape of the planet that we live on has gotten back into full swing recently. It seems that people everywhere are professing a belief that the world is in fact flat. Surrounding this rejection of a spherical earth are other doubts about other theories of nature, such as gravity. Suddenly it has become popular to believe that the knowledge about nature we take for granted is wrong.

There was a point in history in which humans believed that Earth was at the center of the universe. When Copernicus and Galileo came along insisting that the world was revolving around the sun, they were scoffed at by all of the ‘rational’ people of the time. And even though the logic supporting geocentrism was not able to withstand the scientist’s new model of the universe, people persisted in believing we were smack dab in the center of the cosmos simply because everyone else seemed to believe. Geocentrism was popular knowledge, and in almost all cultures throughout history, popular knowledge always acquires more widespread acceptance than fringe ideas, even when those outlier ideas have superior reason and evidence supporting them.

Now, I am not saying that in the current debate that flat-Earthers are engaged in is supported by superior reason and evidence. But it is quite true that most of the people opposing the idea that our planet is pancake shaped are themselves only using an appeal to the majority as the basis of their argument. I have not seen many people dropping some serious science on flat-Earthers, but rather just generally deriding them and their belief from a position of ideological superiority supported only by the idea that something must be right if everyone else believes it. Especially the ‘experts’.

It is one thing to have trust in people who have devoted more time to studying a phenomena than you have. We cannot possibly all test every human idea, so it becomes necessary that we place some basic faith in others to help us understand our reality. However when that faith is transmogrified into absolutism and certainty, then it quickly goes from rational to irrational. Unless you have hurled yourself away from the gravitational pull of this planet and made several passes around it to verify the shape of the planet yourself, your own belief in a spherical Terra is merely a matter of faith. Yet what I am seeing in social media is a lot of certainty about the roundness of our planet. And in almost all of those cases that certainty is unjustified.

I myself have never hopped off this planet to make a qualified measurement of its shape for myself. While I suspect that the ball model works better than the pancake model, I am not certain. I am certainly not certain enough to begin deriding others for their equally uninformed matters of faith. For all I know the planet could be shaped like one half of a giant bunny rabbit that was hollowed out. And since for all intents and purposes I am pretty much unaffected by planetary geometry, I don’t really mind that some people have wacky opinions about it. In fact, truth be told, my opinion may seem to you to be the wackiest of all.

No matter what side you take in the planet shape debate, you are starting from the assumption that the planet is a Thing which precedes humanities conscious ideas about the planet. This is another dogma I am not too quick to buy into. What if the planet is just a manifestation of our perceived notions about what the planet is? What if our collective beliefs about the planet are able to influence how we perceive it, or even what it ‘is’? What if nature and all of reality is not a noun thing, but a fluid verb that responds to our ideologies about it? You cannot have an idea about what something IS without having an idea. It is therefore not rational to rule out that what we are observing is some feedback of ideas, and not a universe that exists independently of them. You cannot think of a thing that exists independently of thought without thinking. It is therefore far more logical to assume that whatever reality is, it has a direct relationship to our thoughts about reality, not that they are separate or independent of one another.

So who knows. Maybe at some point in the past, conforming to the beliefs about what it was in conscious beings, the earth was flat. And as those beliefs changed to one in which the world was round, well so be it. And maybe the beliefs about planet shape are shifting towards the flat and astronomers in a few hundred years will send us evidence from space showing that the planet is actually a giant frisbee, while Round-Earthers are derided in public for their silly archaic notion that the planet is shaped like a ball.

And maybe all of these people who are professing to believe in a flat earth are in fact some kind of social magicians using the flat earth idea as a way to illustrate our awkward obsession with unearned certainty and the dogma it necessitates. Or maybe it is some unfamiliar sect of Discordians collaborating in a giant mindfuck in order to derail the Illuminati’s plan to immanentize the eschaton through very obscure methods. I don’t know. And neither do you. The only thing you can be certain of is that you exist. Everything else requires an open mind and sense of humor.

And also, the Earth actually is shaped like a hollowed out half rabbit, though you aren’t ready for that knowledge yet. But your kids are gonna love it.

The Rosetta Pill- The World’s First Pharmaceutical Language Instructor

the rosetta pill

Have you struggled with attempts to learn a foreign language?

Fed up with all of that reading and all of those confusing words?

Can’t make sense out of the jibber jabber you hear in audio files?

Tired of teachers who insist on practice and patience?

Do you just not have the time to engage actively with your own intellectual growth?

A breakthrough in science has allowed us to condense all of that information into an easy to swallow pill. No longer must you suffer the arduous task of learning a language. With the Rosetta Pill you can just swallow it whole!

“The Gold Standard in pharmaceutical based language absorption.”

“I learned me the spanish speaking so now I can tell them damn mexicans to go back home and I didn’t even have to think.”
-Jebediah McKray

“I can’t even spell kantuneez but now I can speak it!”
-G.W. Bush
The Rosetta Pill is the only pharmaceutical on the market that can offer this miracle in chemical linguistics. The active ingredients go right to the language centers of the brain and imprint the neural synapses which contain a whole new language!

The Rosetta Pill is available in Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Arabic, Legalese and many more!

For just five easy payments of $39.99 you can consume one of our many languages in an easy to swallow gel capsule.

And now, for children, a great tasting grape syrup that will have them speaking languages they have no cultural context for in just a few hours.

But don’t wait. Act now and you will receive a free gift, even if you decide to regurgitate the Rosetta Pill. Rosetta Topical Cream is a stunning new, easy to apply cream which will familiarize the user with recent events and other current news topics. That is right. Not only will you be speaking a new language, but you will have all of the most popular recent talking points to practice it with!

But don’t wait. Initial supplies are going fast, so put down that German 101 book and pick up the phone!

Warning: Rosetta Pill may cause serious side effects including diarrhea, nausea, anal leakage, learning disabilities and decreased intellectual appetite. Please speak to your pharmucational professional if you experience any of these side effects.

Within weeks of writing this satirical piece in late spring 2014, articles began circulating claiming that a pharmaceutical that teaches language might actually happen in the near future.

Understanding Human Institutions As Living Systems With Their Own Lives

Understanding Human Institutions As Living Systems With Their Own LivesOur human hubris reassures us that we are the dominant form of life on this planet. This is done through a delusional semantic trick by which we have narrowly defined what constitutes a life form. So long as we keep that definition confined to traditional narratives, the delusion prevails. We are currently empowering that falsehood by insisting that life conforms to some basic principles based on physical characteristics, such as a genetic structure. This materialist fiction, predicated on a metaphysical assumption that is full of circular reasoning and self-refutation, then goes on to define life by what it IS and not by what it does; thereby employing the logic of every narrow-minded bigotry to ever exist.

So if instead of defining life by what it is, perhaps we should define it by what it does. And once you begin viewing life from the perspective of it’s verb-state, rather than it’s noun-state, it begins to become clear that our current definition of life is narrow, restrictive and exclusive of other macro-systems that behave exactly as we do.

In 1978 James Grier Miller published a theory under the title Living Systems: The Basic Concepts. READ IT ONLINE HERE FOR FREE.
Do a quicky wiki HERE to get the basics of his basics.

In it he discusses how non-random organizations behave in the very same ways that everything from cells to plants and animals do. He defined several levels at which all living systems tended to do at least one or more of the following- process energy, matter or information in their environment. At the micro level he considers the cell the smallest LS, with the nation state at the other end. We organisms are only the third most complex LS’s of eight, with the supranational LS at the top. In relative evolutionary terms, the supranational entity is pretty recent.

At every stage above us in the complex matrix of living systems interacting with one another there resides a life form dominate to us. The power, influence and abilities of these entities are greater than any human could ever achieve, which is why the socially aberrant psychotics that work most closely with these systems attach themselves to them. Their opportunism is essentially waste management of a more dominate life form, like bacteria that turn organic waste into proteins that can be converted to energy. The ruling elite are the lips of humanity, suckling directly from the rectums of these more dominant life forms like some kind of Human & Nonhuman Centipede flick. Since they get first taste and are not the ones being fed to the dominate life forms, they are perceived as dominate human beings. Their power, influence and wealth are all products of their gleeful association with the predatory entities who lie above us on the food chain.

This truth about the nature of life forms is precisely why it is not possible to expect these living systems to stop harming us. When we think of entities like the nation state as something we have full control over and can use to limit and punish itself, it is akin to carrots believing that they can prevent humans from eating them by appealing to humans to put carrots lives above their own nutritional needs. The nation state cannot be made to stop preying upon us in order to meet our preference for not being consumed by it, because it has to eat and we are a plentiful (and apparently delicious) food source in its environment.

Terms like ‘accountability’, ‘regulations’ and ‘checks and balances’ are meaningless misnomers that we have weaved into our delusion of superiority. To those entities above us, those terms are like camouflage or other evolutionary paradigms that make it easier for them to trick their prey. For us to believe that we can make these higher order systems put us before themselves is a foolish vanity supported only by our self-deception, which exists only to support our vanity itself. It is a circular reasoning that makes us weak and keeps us obedient to the predatory entities and the humans who work most closely with them.

A few of the levels above the organism (individual) do provide symbiotic benefits. Voluntary associations and communities empower humans by giving us a stronger hand to work together with. By the time we get to cultural systems we begin to see some aggression enter the relationship. Force, coercion and compulsion all begin to occur in the interactions of these entities. By the time we get to society and the nation state it is a full on parasitic relationship with all but a few of us on the losing end. The so-called 1% are not winning the evolutionary game, they are just benefiting slightly more than the rest of us by selling out our entire species. And so they use their power to create the narrative that these systems are necessary in order to prevent us from becoming prey to one another, while using those irrational false constructs to feed us to the beasts above us.

Yet this is just not so. Those larger entities were created by human beings. We brought them into this world and we can take them out. And we should. As soon as possible. They are growing exponentially. While it may be true that there will some injuries among our species as a result of working together to kill them, those injuries are nowhere near as grievous as the ones the predatory parasitic entities will be forced to inflict on us as it requires more food to feed its exponential growth. None of our fears about what we might possibly do to one another are rational when compared to what will most certainly be done to us all if we do not slay the beast before it is too big to kill.

Oh my fellow fishies, do you hear me when I tell you that the thing in front of you that looks like a tasty worm is actually the tongue of a larger fish using its oral appendage to lure you in so it can swallow you whole? Do you hear me when I tell you that the exotic display before you is not a glory to behold, but a clever trick to entrance you while a far more advanced fish takes advantage of your stupor to prey on you?

Or will you continue to insist that the bigger fish are the only thing keeping us from eating one another, while they feed lavishly upon us? Will we join together in a swarm to strip the meat from the bones of our common enemy, or will we stand divided to be more easily picked off under the false pretense that the big fish are immortal and eternal?

And what pray tell, my fellow finned friends, would you say if I told you that we could kill the big predatory fishes simply by removing our consent to be eaten? Yes, it is that easy. The living systems above us do have a genetic structure and their dna is our belief, faith and consent. If we were to take those from it, its physical structure would collapse and we would be free. And when all the fishes eventually stopped fighting in the ensuing confusion, the waters will calm and we will no longer live under the constant threat that accompanies low status on a parasitic and sometimes cannibalistic food chain.

The nation state is not the solution to the weakness of man. It is the  primary beneficiary of those weaknesses. It is like the vampire, it can only harm you on your own home (planet) if you invite it inside.

The most dangerous enemy is the one that is capable of convincing you that it does not exist. Our misguided belief that our institutions are just tools that are subserviant to us, rather than a clever master using us as tools to its own ends, lies at the very heart of the enemies subterfuge. We apply our own shackles and prepare own bodies for consumption through our hubris, ignorance and fear. The enemy is within.


Science, Technology and Art – The Imbalance and Threat of Scientism

arttechsciWhen you examine the social phenomena of scientism, the dogmatic belief that science is the only meaningful way to understand or convey ideas about our existence, it begins to become clear that the reason it has become so cultural invasive is the tenuous ideological relationship between science and technology. There can be little doubt that technology has improved our lives in untold ways, even while sometimes harming us and the environment in the process. The gratitude for technological advancements are then often given to the scientists who developed them, and in the process science itself becomes elevated to a God-like status of creation. Considering how a quasi-religious belief in the infallibility of the empirical method has grown from this paradigm, it might be fair to ask- Is science really solely responsible for technological advancement?

Lets explore this through the medium of technology itself.

Ralph wants to make his girlfriend a piece of jewelry for the holidays. His 3-D printer is capable of creating any design out of precious metals, so long as he can program its parameters properly. Even though Ralph is quite capable of programming any design, the analytical prowess that allows him to do so does not really help when it comes to aesthetic creativity. So using Google Image Search, he looks for a design that he can program into a 3D model. The resulting jewelry is beautiful and his girlfriend is duly grateful and impressed.

Now the question is, did Ralph create the jewelry? Sure, he programmed and operated the machine, which in turn manufactured the jewelry. Yet it is possible that the machine could be programmed to do a web search and transfer 2D art in to 3D jewelry without Ralph. But what the machine could not do is to create the original 2D artwork itself. And even if it could, it would only be predicated on algorithms obtained by  studying the artwork of humans that came before the machine. At least for now, machines have no aesthetic prowess. While at the same time, machines are already beginning to illustrate the ability to reprogram themselves and adapt human artifacts into computational models. Ralph is the weakest link in the chain.

Now let us explore this another way.

Janess grows up reading science fiction novels, her favorite of which is a series featuring a machine that allows people to share sensory perceptions. So intrigued is she by this fictional technology that during the course of her education she takes a path that will lead her into a career which allows her to explore the possibility of creating such a device.  And lo and behold, she eventually does create such a device, which radically changes the face of the world for the better in uncountable ways.

Should Janess receive all of the credit for the creation of this device? Would she have grown up to do such a thing had she never read those books as a child? Would any scientist have ever imagined the invention for themselves had not it been used in a purely speculative matter by the author first?

It is quite possible that, yes, they may have. Creativity and analytic thinking are not necessarily exclusive of one another. Yet when we look around us at the world of modern technological marvels, most of them do have a genesis in some purely abstract idea that preceded them in paintings, sculpture, literature, film, etc.

Science fiction, since its inception in the latter half of the 19th Century, has been the sketchbook for many of the technological artifacts we use today. Long before we began building rockets to travel into space, the idea was dreamed up by writers like Jules Verne, who then inspired early rocket developers like Jack Parsons. Before you were ever reading articles like this on a handheld electronic device, writers like Isaac Asimov were writing about them, while cinematic artists then adapted visual forms of them in science fiction outlets like Star Trek, which then influenced the scientists and designers who created them.

What I am trying to relate is not that science is unimportant. I am not even trying to rank importance here, but to illustrate the interdependence between the seemingly divergent methodologies of art and science. Yet scientism has done just that. It has given undue credit to a single methodology and ranked human methods and disciplines according to it’s own singular criteria. And such a cultural force could be potentially disastrous.

The emphasis on math and science in our culture, through educational institutions and media, comes at the expense of arts and humanities. Our dogmatic insistence in the superiority of the empirical method in creating more human and environmental wealth and harmony than other methods may have a destructive cost. What would happen in a world full of scientists? Who would create the symbols and ideas that inspired their developments? Who would explore their social influence and ethical consequences? Science without art is like a lab technician without a theoretician. Science without art is like an instrument without a melody. Science without art is like conductivity without electricity.

Our ideologically embarrassing pitfall into the clutches of scientism has become a potentially destructive strain on the relationship between the interdisciplinary feedback that allows different kinds of human intelligence to work together for the greater good. It becomes critical then not just to question scientism in culture and science itself, but to restore the prestige deserved by the arts and humanities so that they might thrive. Not just because they are a part of our humanity, but because their neglect will eventually have destructive consequences for science, technology and the health of our species and it’s environment.

Studies Show Children of Scientists More Likely To Be Passive Aggressive


A new study from the University of Ohiowa seems to indicate that children who were raised in a household with at least one parent working in the field of science are more likely to use passive aggressive methods when interacting with other children. The study tested eight hundred students, almost a third of which lived in scientific homes.

Hundreds of hours of interactions between the children were monitored, recorded and analyzed to see if any patterns would emerge. Kids raised in religious homes, which made up about half of the study were found to be less generous than the children of atheists. Although the study did not require the children to be labeled according to their religious background, it became quite clear when the atheist kids immediately marched around and proudly proclaimed their lack of belief in the divine.

At the same time the children of scientists, who fell mostly within the atheist camp, scored far higher than average in several categories, including: condescension, pretension, sarcasm, apathetic dismissiveness, self-righteousness and passive aggressiveness.

In one test the children were asked to draw pictures, later ranking one another’s artwork. Rather than just assign the artwork of their peers a rank or numeric value, the children were asked to write a short commentary on the pieces they reviewed. While the non-scientist children tended to comment specifically on what they did or did not like about the drawings, the scientist children often used roundabout ways to make smarmy comments about the artwork.

“Not bad for someone whose parents believe in mean sky men.”

“Obviously the work of someone who still believes in Santa, The Tooth Fairy and Jesus.”

“This artwork proves that baptists are unable to understand the color wheel.”

Howard Phillips, one of the lead researchers said that it became impossible to tell if the non-secular kids were less generous because of how superior and patronizing the scientist and atheist kids were, or if the latter two kinds of children acted that way in response to the lack of generosity in the religious children.

“The only thing that I was able to ascertain from this research is that children are pretty much total douchebags, and the only real differences seem to be what kind of douchebaggery they emulate from their douchebag parents beliefs and behaviors.” said Phillips.

As a result of these studies the parents of children everywhere have taken the opportunity to either gloat about the results or to use them to bolster their perceived feelings of societal victimhood. An analysis of social media responses to the research indicate that while the scientistic and nihilism inclined adults are almost certain to respond with ‘I knew it!’ or ‘I told you so!’, religious responses tended to gravitate towards vague statements about a mythical war that was being waged on religious peoples.

Head researcher Gunnar Wilson, who himself identifies as a Scientific Pandeist, says the study proves that the eventual heat death of the universe is just too damn far away.

“I would just kill myself, but I am afraid that if there is an eternal afterlife, then i’d just be stuck in it with all these idiots.”

The conclusion of the study recommends that to avoid becoming a total douchebag, or raising more of them, families should continue to evolve their belief systems, never settling on a final set of rigid ideologies that make them unbearable to pretty much everyone else.

“Beliefs are like underwear. They are a good way of securing your junk, but if you don’t change them regularly the only thing holding the holes in them together will be the awful stench.”

New Study Proves That Everyone Is Actually A Vegan


The University of Ohiowa, working on a research grant from the Pepsi Marketing Science Division, has made a startling discovery regarding the true nature of human appetites. After completing their studies they have concluded that all humans are actually vegan, whether they express or repress their true dietary nature or not.

The study was being conducted to help marketers measure the effect of certain visual stimuli in order to maximize advertising reach and potential. They tested visual response phenomena in a number of diverse categories with over two thousand participants. The participants were chosen from a variety of demographic sectors locally available, including different ages, races, socio-economic status and other factors. The tests included numerous exercises in which different physical responses to a wide variety of images were recorded.

One interesting outcome was a statistical anomaly indicating the universality of vegan dietary preferences. In salivation response tests, subjects responded favorably in almost all cases when shown pictures of flowers, vegetation and other plants. However, it was equally true that images of dead animals failed to provoke a significant salivatory response in nearly all participants.

“Despite the stated preferences and history of an omnivorous diet in individuals tested, the results of these studies undoubtedly prove that each and every human is evolutionary and psychologically more suited for a vegan diet and lifestyle,” says Saul Craigan, senior research leader at U of Ohiowa.

“Not quite what we expected, but we are pleased with the results,” said Pepsi Marketing Science Division spokesman Hal Bix. “We will use this knowledge to tailor our advertisements to our audiences most primal nature. Expect to see more bananas and succotash in our commercials in the next several months.”

The Ohiowa Beef Council was not so excited about the news, calling the research “blatant pseudoscience with erratic conclusions drawn from jumbled nonsensical data.”

Moonkiss Yewell, a second year undergrad and secretary of the U of Ohiowa chapter of Meat Is Terrorism, was ecstatic about the results. “This proves what I have already known for a very long time. Nobody wants to eat meat. It is a maligned behavior conditioned in the population by the capitalist patriarchy. Veganism is beautiful and so it is no surprise to me that as animals, we would embrace the beauty of other animals by not eating them.”

Meanwhile we have been unable to reach Jimmy Buffet to ascertain if he will change the iconic lyrics of his song to ‘Black Bean Burger In Paradise’.

Scientism or Misogyny?: Study Claims ALL Women Gay/Bi, Never Straight


Details of a study claiming that true female heterosexuality is scientifically disprovable hit the internet today, causing an explosion of ‘I knew it!‘s to blanket social media in a matter of hours. And while everyone was busy validating their own sexual fantasies, I was once again left feeling alone and alienated in a culture so quick to swallow whatever scientistic snake oil it was being sold by sketchy researchers doing dubious studies.

The first hint that the study results and their eager media approval were total cockamamie bullshit were the words ‘all’ and ‘never’. These kind of absolutes just do not exist when discussing individuals, who are all fundamentally unique. Since my readers from CopBlock.org will recognize that I have often claimed that all cops are bad, I will explain the difference. When we speak of all cops as being bad, we are referring to the institution of policing as whole. In a rigidly defined system, such as policing, it becomes possible to make a generalization about all of its parts. But sexuality is not a rigidly defined institution or system, so we can not generalize about the individuals identity within these parameters. Further it defines women as a single group, rather than as one classification among many in a wide spectrum of individuals.

“Groups are grammatical fictions; only individuals exist, and each individual is different.”-Robert Anton Wilson

Let us first examine the science and its assumptions.

First of all, the test group is insufficient to make statements that apply to all women. I very much doubt there were aboriginal women tested at all. In fact, I am sure many other categorical parameters used to define women were not present for the study. Yet the conclusion includes statements about even their sexuality. Next, the size of the study is a pretty small sample group. There are several known medical conditions that exist that would not be found in a sample group of that size. So even if the study was an accurate marker of those who participated, it cannot account for all women.

My next issue is that the conclusions are based on physical response, but deny the individual experience and identity of women, making it both misogyny and scientism in one fell swoop. Earlier studies looking at sexual fluidity found that women were more likely to have physical response to just about anything remotely related to sexuality than men, including animals copulating. However, if one were to conclude that women were all into beastiality, there would be some serious concerns about the people making those statements. A biological response to a phenomena does not always lead to causation. And certainly when it comes to something as personal as our sexual preferences, these automated physical responses mean far less than how one experiences desire. It is our desire for specific kinds of sexual behavior that defines our sexuality, and not a statistical analysis of machine-acquired information. Denying our desire as the key component for sexual preference identity is the scientism of physicalist philosophy. While denying women’s own individual accounts and experiences of their sexuality in favor of strict binary absolutes beyond their own conscious desires absolutely reeks of the projection of male fantasy onto all of womanhood, and thus has at least a flavor of misogyny mixed in.

The fact is, the study itself only qualifies as science in name. The empirical method is not the proper tool by which to measure our subjective experience of things. Empiricism is an attempt to objectively understand natural objects and phenomena. Yet the culture of scientism allows all sorts of unscientific trash to parade itself in the media as valid science. The Cult of Scientism allows for even the subjective experience of death to be explained in quasi-scientific terms that have no business in addressing those questions. And while the unraveling of the scientific method occurs amidst an atmosphere of religious-like dogma for anything advertised as scientific, even greater problems threaten that discipline. Because we have come to unquestioningly accept anything labeled science as actually being scientifically valid, the number of published studies later found not to be credible science continues to skyrocket. Even scarier is the fact, like our media, almost all of this research is coming from a very small group of about six corporations. Scientism bends a rational, logical method into a worldview that makes it easier to control the masses. If corporations are the true nature of the state, then scientism is that states religion.

And as feminists have been saying for a very long time, “Keep your religions off of our bodies.”

Remembering In Reverse: Premonitions, Predictions, Deja Vu & Synchronicity


A common ‘conspiracy theory’ found often on social media is the claim that a movie, television show, book, etc. from before a major event predicted the event in question happening. The most popular of these involve 9/11, and these supposed ‘predictions’ can allegedly be found in The Simpsons, Back to the Future and a number of other cultural icons. While it is completely irrational to believe that 9/11 happened in the manner claimed by government and mainstream media, it is also irrational to believe that the events were predicted beforehand. In fact, the insinuation is generally not that the events were ‘predicted’ but were hinted at by the monolithic agency that both makes and influences media as well as government. But why would ‘The Illuminati’ (or whatever you wanna call it) go through all of the trouble of planting clues years ahead of time about an event that they planned to maintain secrecy over?

If you ask me, that seems both unlikely and irrational. I have a better idea.

Let us imagine that reality is two dimensional surface extending outward from any phenomena through space and time (the two dimensions). Since reality is a product of consciousness, an argument which I have made several times in recent articles and will not repeat here, let us call this two dimensional surface consciousness. Now let us regard every phenomena or event as a point somewhere along that surface. The occurrence of events and phenomena will cause a ripple to spread out from this axis point of space/time. The more potent the event/phenomena, the greater the ripple. A kid dropping their ice cream cone in the sandbox would effect, concern or be known by very few people, so its ripple would quickly dissipate.

However, an event like 9/11 that is known by and affects a large number of conscious beings would create a much larger ripple. This ripple would carry the symbols the event conjures in consciousness outward in space and time. Therefore our consciousness would contain symbols or ideas about the event even before it happen, which would then be manifested in the works of conscious beings. In this way we might imagine that the symbols of those towers falling would be embedded in consciousness to the degree that they would appear before the events that ‘inspire’ them ever occur.

If this ripple effect were real, how else might we notice it in reality?

Our last look at ‘predictions’ were all hindsight. However it is true that predictive powers do seem to be indicated by things like ESP and in the strange world of quantum theory. Psi-research has presented many instances in which predictive powers are far above statistical probability, suggesting that at some level, humans can and do consciously and/or unconsciously ‘predict’ events before they happen. The subatomic world is full of non-local interactions between particles, something Einstein was not very keen on and called “spooky action from a distance.” Despite his misgivings, years of research do seem to indicate that particles react to the activity and measurements of particles over great distances. But just as Einstein imagined gravity causing ripples in the space/time matrix, so might events. Especially if those events have more ‘gravity’ on conscious beings. Could the effects of ESP and quantum activity both be related to the same ripples in time/space that cause 9/11 to occur in cultural symbols long before the actual event?

How about even more intangible and arcane phenomena? Premonition, somewhat distinct from prediction in that it is often less specific and can occur in altered states of consciousness like dreaming, could also possibly be another area in which we can see this ripple effect.

Deja Vu, the feeling that you have experienced something present in the past, might also be a product of this ripple effect. The particular feeling that you have experienced an event/phenomena already may be due to the fact that you actually have, yet you were unable to understand the information you received prior to your arrival at the epicenter of time/space consciousness from which it flows outward from.

Synchronicity is much the same. The seeming connection between unconnected events/phenomena may be a conscious experience produced when ripples overlap and influence one another. The intersection of these ripples, experienced as symbolic abstractions, may just be an effect of remembering in reverse on more than one level at a time.

Regardless of whether or not this theory of the ripple effect is true, the number of non-local phenomena we experience as conscious beings is undeniable. Each on their own is easily dismissed as anomaly. Yet when we consider the recurrence of several forms of non-locality in the experience of human beings, we might be wise to view the phenomena as related. And if they are related, what is the singular cause? If the cause is just that we are faulty agents of consciousness who mix things too casually or project too easily, then the combined argument for anomaly becomes weaker in theory than in observation. While if we consider that reality is a bit stranger than we tend to imagine, but still depends on some logical forms, the idea of the ripple effect, remembering in reverse, becomes a plausible answer to a great number of phenomena regularly experienced by conscious entities throughout space and time.

Whether or not we believe in this phenomena will largely depend on our ability to break free from linear thinking, direct causation or any other dogma that rules our belief system from outside of ourselves. Which is to say, disbelief is itself just another ripple effect of ideological artifacts outside of our current space/time location.

While mainstream materialist science (scientism) attempts to build a working unified theory of reality, its agenda of producing profitable and pragmatic results often interferes with a cogent connectivity and consistency of data leaves it blind and ignorant to conclusions that actually support the evidence.

Literalism is a hell of a drug.

Objects, Animals and People Seen In Mars Photos & One Wacky Theory


The number of earth-like objects being found in photos from the Curiosity Rover continues to rise. Most recently a bear, a dog, a mouse and a bearded man were all supposedly spotted in photographs beamed back to Earth from Mars. While it is entirely possible that these anomalies are simple probable false images or that the interpretation is pareidolia in action, some believe these objects may actually literally exist there. Which is going to sound incredibly reasonable compared to the theory I am about to lay down.

For most of my life I would look into the night sky and marvel at the grandeur of it. The sheer immensity was humbling and afforded enough possibilities to keep my imagination well-stirred. Recently, however, I look out there and wonder if it even exists and is not just an illusion. Is the entire sky and the billions of points of light within it really there, or is it all just a projection of consciousness?

What of down here? Does the ground we walk on, or even we ourselves actually exist in literal form? Is matter dependent on consciousness or does it precede it? I have begun to doubt the literal existence of matter. Rather I see it as a product of consciousness which is reinforced by the beliefs we have about it. When enough people believe something it reaches a critical mass and becomes ‘real’, so long as it is consistent with the entire structure of beliefs it exists within. The process is cumulative with reality becoming more complex, interconnected and expansive over time. The greater number of validated beliefs cause reality to evolve and grow over time. And the more complex and connected they become in belief, so too does reality accommodate these beliefs by manifesting them.

So what of the sky? Was Earth once surrounded by primordial blackness? Did some single phenomena cause the first star to appear, only to be followed by others as that star caused us to consider greater possibilities for the hovering blankness above? Before the invention of telescopes, were there fewer stars in existence? Did creating a tool which would allow us to see more of the sky create an interdependent belief which allowed our consciousness to form more of them? And once we created those pinpricks of light, wasn’t it inevitable that we would try to observe them more closely so we could create more complex beliefs about them, and thus widen the scope of our reality?

So lets say, for arguments sake, that everything that exists is just a manifestation of consciousness. And that the night sky itself is nothing more than a projection of our own beliefs about the night sky. If this were so, and we created tools to go and investigate the manifestations of our belief, what would we see?

What have we seen on Mars so far? Mostly we have seen the things we expected or hoped to see. Very few real surprises have appeared. Rocks, dust and evidence of water. But what if our ‘exploration’ of Mars is really just a creation? What if we are adding complexity to a manifestation by investigating it with tools we believe show us something more real than ‘mere’ conscious projections? And what if by using our consciousness to sculpt this manifestation out of our beliefs, we are mixing in other signals from our consciousness? And what if those symbols are appearing to us in photos as bears, mice, dogs, men and the other number of things we have seen in these photos?

What if existence is not a thing? What if taking reality literally is foolish, yet necessary as a tool for creating it? What if there are no really real things, but only ideological forms of them manifested in the intersection of individual consciousnesses we call reality? And what if Mars is only in our head, along with symbols, like animals and humans and other Earthly objects? What if we are terraforming the red planet with our beliefs and while it is taking place random symbols from our consciousness are filling in the blanks until we create a more complex picture? What if the entire night sky is just a blank canvas which we paint on with our beliefs?

Does that sound crazy?

Okay, maybe it is…but what if it is also true? What then of alien species? If an alien species were created from our consciousness and beliefs, what would that mean for humanity? Consider a few things here. First, we would have to imagine a species more intelligent than ourselves, as any ‘aliens’ capable of reaching us first would have to be more intelligent, according to the narrative of our beliefs. In artificial intelligence theory, the point at which a computer can create a computer beyond our ability to understand the new technology is called a singularity. There are any number of theories about what would happens to humans after a singularity, after our own intelligence is surpasses by one superior to us. Many of these theories do not bode well for what might become of us, while others just leave us so transformed we would be unrecognizable to our current selves.

So what if we were to manifest a species more intelligent than ourselves, who could then manifest a species more intelligent than itself, and so on? Would this be a way of rapidly increasing the complexity, interconnectedness and size of our own consciousness; or a way toward extinction through obsolescence?

Or what if we are the product of an earlier manifestations consciousness? What if the only thing evolving is consciousness and we take its manifestations so literally that we believe the manifestations are evolving themselves?

So the next time you look at the stars, try not taking them literally. Or anything else for that matter. Even if they do exist as actual matter that preceded human consciousness, you are missing out on a lot of interesting ways to view your tiny little insignificant corner of existence by only experiencing stars, and reality in general, in this way. And that you are experiencing something at all is pretty much all that any of us know for sure.

Some Far Better Reasons To Boycott Star Wars


A recent social media campaign calling for a boycott of the latest edition to the Star Wars film series claims the movie promotes hatred of and violence against white people. While these incendiary charges are full of interpretations that are at best hyperbolistic, there are far better reasons to boycott the entire franchise.

Franchise would be the proper term here, as the Star Wars series has always been much more than some movies, but part of a large scale marketing campaign to sell an endless trove of collectible junk. While it was not the first cinematic offering to extend itself into a cross marketing campaign of goods based on its characters and themes, it was perhaps the first to be so successful at doing so. Even as a child I observed that liking the movies was not enough. You had to prove how much you liked it by having more Star Wars swag than the other kids in your neighborhood or school, and getting it first. These products became status symbols for an entire generation of young men who learned through this marketing campaign that your worthiness to others and yourself could be measured by what you owned. Star Wars became an accelerated course in rampant mindless consumerism aimed at children.

More symbolic buffoonery was also hidden within the Star Wars phenomena. Star Wars came to represent intelligence. Because society had observed that geeks and nerds flocked to science fiction, aligning yourself with that genre was a way of identifying as a geek or a nerd, which obviously made you smart. And since it had rolled up a hundred years of that genre into a slick package easily digestible by the general public, it was the proverbial honey you take with a bitter pill. Which is exactly what good science fiction, with its complex speculative themes and explorations into humanity, ethics and morality, is. Yet rather than swallow that pill, the public just sucked the honey off and patted themselves on the back for being one of those intelligent nerds/geeks who ‘got it’.

With its faux science fiction veneer, it also became a champion for ideologies about technology and science. By equating these status symbols with intelligence wrapped in science, it made a powerful cultural statement about scientistic ideologies and beliefs. Nevermind that it never actually promotes any actual science or the rational underpinnings of the empirical method. Merely aligning oneself with anything appearing even remotely sciencey soon became a cool thing to do, which has led us away from an understanding of what science is and does and why, and into the vast dogmatic worldview of scientism. Just as Star Wars helped to sell science fiction to mainstream audiences using an inferior replica of the actual thing, it also contributed to the cultural tendency to acquiesce to the knowledge of all things even labeled science, regardless of whether it is or not.

The symbolic suggestions contained in Star Wars don’t stop there. An ideology of dark/light, good/evil, etc. promoted the dangerous tendency of humans to think in false dichotomies. The binary logic which traps the thinking of so many people is evident all throughout Star Wars. To oversimplify any subject into a question with only two possible answers has been the folly of almost every wacky belief system humans have ever devised. From the Heaven or Hell of Abrahamic religion to racism to two party politics, the THIS or THAT and nothing else way of thinking has been one of our species greatest obstacles. Yet that entire fallacious dichotomizing is a central tenet of the Star Wars universe and the films help to validate these toxic ways of thinking by making them appear grandiose and heroic; and by implanting them in the head of the films target audiences- children.

In so many ways, even if the George Lucas or anyone else ever intended them to be, these films serve as little more propaganda for some of the least enlightened parts of the contemporary world. And even worse, they are designed for consumption by children, who then reinforce these ideas through rampant materialism at a lovely profit to those who shove this trash out there.

However, none of these reasons or all of them combined is as valid as this single reason for boycotting Star Wars films. They fucking suck. The entire series, from the very beginning, cannibalizes older science fiction themes and devices in a way that dumbs them down and strips them of meaning. It is full of terrible one-liners, childish gimmicks and coated in a sparkly cover of special effects that appeal to the sort of boyish minds that like to see things burn and explode. The characters are all shallow and two dimensional. The plot devices are paper thin and see through. And the entire package comes together not so much as an homage to truly great science fiction, but rather as an affront to the possibilities that genre has always offered in the way of making you think. Star Wars doesn’t ask you to think. It asks you to buy and be a loyal repeat customer.

The people who make Star Wars think you are dumb and want to capitalize on that. The only thing more sad than that is how many times film-goers and collectors prove them right. Prove them wrong, #boycottstarwars

The Problem of Predeterminism

From Wikipedia ‘Predeterminism’:

“Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance. Predeterminism is the philosophy that all events of history, past, present and future, have been already decided or are already known (by God, fate, or some other force), including human actions.”

The question of predeterminism is a very old one, prevalent throughout the history of philosophy, religion and science. In a general sense, the opposite of predeterminism is ‘free will’, which is the idea that individuals are capable of determining future events and making choices of their own agency and accord.

Through Catholicism the prevalent thinking in the western world was that man was given free will to exercise in all matters, whether or not they chose to exercise it. The Protestant movement through Calvin and other theologians marked the widespread rejection of free will and the advancement of predeterminist notions.

This thinking has been extended in the modern western world to even the secular worldviews in the forms of naturalism, physicalism, materialism and others. This is not the only example of Protestant beliefs creeping their way into secularism and science. For instance, the Big Bang is a repetition of the philosophy that the universe is mechanistic, linear, causal and has a finite beginning and end. For this reason, the Big Bang was rejected by scientists at the time of its inception for being too similar to Judeo-Christian theological notions. It was, in fact, a man of the clothe who originated the idea.

Scientistic materialism continues to rehash predeterministic notions even to this day. The fields of genetic biology and neurology are ripe with the idea that our every thought, perception, reaction and decision have been determined by forces independent of human consciousness itself. This thinking extends itself to the idea that human consciousness itself is nothing more than a circumstantial byproduct of material substances which were themselves the result of another coincidence, ad infinitum.

However, both the religious and scientific claims of predeterminism carry self refuting statements. For the religious, determinism endangers both the doctrines of faith and acts, for which all religions depend upon one or the other.

In science, determinism violates logical principles, the same logical principles that uphold the veracity of the scientific method. It is of little wonder that the adherents of determinism in either science or religion tend to be the most literal minded fanatics whose truths are often accompanied by hypocrisy. Predeterminsim is a toxic foundation for any ideology or worldview because of its inherent inconsistency, as we shall soon see.

The problem with predeterminism is that it is self-refuting. Whatever basis is used to make a claim of predeterminism would itself be rendered invalid by predeterminism. Predeterminism would become the cause of the claim itself. Let me be more specific.

In religion, faith and/or acts form the basis for salvation. Yet we must choose to act or have faith. This choice determines our eternal fate. However, if our lives are already written and known by a divine force prior to the creation of the universe, even our faith is predetermined and we are able to make no choices of our own agency or accord, even those of faith or deeds. This eliminates the entire purpose of religion, unless, we were to suppose that a God of infinite love and wisdom created the majority of people for no reason other than to experience eternal suffering or agony. I cannot take the suggestion of such an omnipotent sadistic force very seriously.

Scientifically, predeterminism is self-refuting in the following way. If our genetic and neurological patterns produce a consciousness determined by biology, than any claim to predeterminism would be said to originate from biology, and therefore it cannot be claimed that predeterminism has logical or empirical causation. If you say that our thoughts are caused by our physical bodies, then you cannot claim that the thought that predeterminism is correct is caused by anything except the same biology. Logic and empiricism are removed as factors by the necessities of predeterminism.

Simply put, if you believe that everything is predetermined, so is your belief. You can no longer claim that belief has a basis in rationale or faith. Predeterminism erodes faith and rationality equally alike. The fundamentalism of religion and materialism are products of the incongruency intrinsic to predeterminism. While both groups, the religious and the scientistic materialists, make radical claims that the other side is responsible for all that ails humanity; they may do much better to focus on their common problem, on that which they are both wrong. The problem of the world is not religion nor science, but the idea that our choices and agency are limited or do not exist, so that all the problems of the world become somebody else’s fault. We are crippled by the blindness and repetition allowed by a species who does not believe that individual responsibility or accountability are amongst the most meaningful values.

History Science Theatre Presents: Marie Curie aka: the Madame

madame curie

The Madame did not fuck around. She was so hard for science that she eventually scienced herself to death. But not before she got all up on two Nobel Prizes as the first woman to hit that shit. As a victim of chronic seriousness she was able to transform a lively-threatening condition into a hardcore work ethic and mega uptight bitch face. It is a strange fact that no photographs or personal accounts exist of MC Radiation (her street name) in which she is anything less than dour, stoic and apparently suffering from an acute case of silicate particulates in the uterus. But man, could she ever fucking science!

Being a woman, she was unable to get real people to take her seriously. From her quest to obtain a formal education to her time providing them she was often dismissed because she was a woman, a pollock, or even worse- a jew. Which she totally wasn’t. As a fundamentalist reformed agnostic she avoided religion and that just made things harder on her because, holy shit, FEMALE JEWLOCK ATHEIST! Yet in spite of, or perhaps because of the haters, she persevered like a motherfucker and helped to unlock the secrets of nuclear physics which gave her species the ability to destroy itself almost overnight.

Even though the Madame was crusty in outward appearances she must have liked to bone, because she had two children and after her husband died she became a home-wrecking cougar to a younger, married man. Her marriage was both personal and professional, even though the dude was french. It was originally science which brought them together, but it was huffing nitrous oxide and having double penetrations with a lab assistant that cemented their romance. If such a thing existed, and it shouldn’t, the two would have won a Nobel prize in love. However, tragedy struck early on and he died from injuries sustained after walking out into a foggy street and getting hit by a horse and buggy. Who the fuck does that? You are a god damned scientist, observe your surroundings and shit!

After he died she was even more committed to sciencing. Her work using radioactivity to help in medical applications won her some support from the haters. Since she was always so serious she hated having haters so she tried to do some public relations work by donating her time, expertise and equipment to injured soldiers during the first world war. But even the French government saw through the ruse and didn’t give her any respect for her efforts. It was always her contribution towards radioactive medicine that carried her reputation even though humans are starting to figure out that maybe nuking yourself back to health isn’t the best fucking option.

Eventually she nuked herself to death. Doesn’t seem very smart to me. You would think that if she was a scientists concerned with health she might have had the sense to test for side effects before going so far as carrying around radioactive materials in her pocket. In seventh grade science class I had to dissect a frog in order to understand biology, but even then I already knew enough not to put it in my pocket because it would start to stink and decompose and maybe make me sick. Where is my Nobel prize? I mean, seriously, you can’t even read her journals today because they are still too radioactive. Ever since she died she has become a sort of female role model which the conditioning factories we call schools use as an example of what even little girls can accomplish if they set their mind to it. Personally, I think Xena is a far better role model for the little ladies.

Fun MC Radiation Fact #19:
In her lifetime the Madame was an outspoken advocate for anal sex. Not only would it reduce pregnancies, she explained, but it led to far greater scientific insight. For men she advocated either gay sex, a woman using a strap-on, or both for heightened scientific reasoning. Her least known work is a treatise on the subject entitled Curie My Ass. In it she explains that it was during a good colon pounding in reverse cowgirl that she first envisioned the nature of radioactivity and its many potential uses in medicine, energy and endless apocalyptic scenarios.

History Science Theatre Presents: George Washington Carver

geroge washington carver

G Dubya C was born with a congenital birth defect that left him afflicted with slavery, but he managed to overcome this obstacle with a steady diet of peanuts, which later led him to science in order to share the miracle of this magical legume with the world. Although his strong preference for not being a slave and his enthusiasm for crunchy snacks are his most well-known attributes, his contribution to the gospel of science extended into other areas. Just not much.

Besides peanuts, George extolled the glory and benefits of soybeans, sweet potatoes, pecans and Jesus Christ. He claimed that rotating these crops with cotton would benefit the soil and leave the land able to sustain profitable yields for eons to come, although he was far less copacetic with rotating Jesus with other Messiahs for the same or any other purpose. Even though he credited science with his discoveries, he left very little evidence in any form of his scientific work. Modern scholars have come to theorize that perhaps his work consisted of, “Not so much science, but just fucking around until he found shit that worked.” This is considered a Cardinal Sin in the science, but his reputation as a scientific educator has left his sci-cred intact despite his methodological shortcomings.

Another way in which G Dubya C was scientifically heretical is that he dabbled in the visual arts. His early college education was actually as an artist but since this brought him so much self-loathing and shame as a Christian and Scientist, he made a vow to Jesus and the ghost of Isaac Newton to never sully himself with pure, unmethodological creativity again. As a teacher he also required his students to consider their character and forbade them from atheism, laziness and chronic masturbation while doing sciences with him.

To be honest, besides crop rotation and being nuts for nuts, there is not much else to be said. Later in his life he gained national celebrity status as patronizing white people heaped him with praise and attention in order to prove to one another that they were the more advanced individual. These condescending race contests often led to full-on fights, most notably the one between Charles Lindberg and Franklin Roosevelt, which led to the latter having to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. In 1999, Time Magazine listed George as the second most famous peanut celebrity of the century after that Mr. Planters guy with his adorable top hat and monocle.

Fun Facts about GWC:
Although he was reluctant to talk about it in public, G Dubya C was an avid fan of feudalism and often spoke with friends about the error of a democratic republic. In a rare candid moment in one of his journals he left the following entry. If you consider how stupid the average human is, statistically half of them are even stupider than that. Giving these ignorant houseapes a role in determining the necessity of political action is like giving a Chinese prostitute a job drying dishes with her vagina. Ain’t nobody got time for that.