Category Archives: Unanswered Questions.

THE BEADY EYE ASK THE QUESTION DO WE REALLY CARE.

25 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by in Humanity., Politics., Technology, The Future, Unanswered Questions.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

UNFORTUNATELY THE SAPIENS REGIME ON EARTH HAS SO FAR PRODUCED LITTLE THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OF.

Time and time again massive increases in human power has not improved the well-being of individual humans and has caused immense misery to other animals.

In the last few decades we have made some progress as far as human condition is concerned , with reductions in world wars, plagues, and famines.

But we remain unsure of our goals and remain as discontented as ever.

No body seems to know where we are going. We are more powerful than ever before, but have little idea what to do with the power.

Worse still we seem to be more irresponsible than ever, wreaking havoc on the world and nature while seeking little more than self-satisfaction which we never find.

I am sure like me that you are finding it difficult if not impossible to assimilate never mind keep up with all that is presently taking place in world.

Mass migration, climate change, return to the dark ages ISIS, not to mention wars, terrorists, cheat, (Volkswagen) Countries going broke, Designer drugs, Space exploration, the Web/Internet/Apps.

THE FACT IS THAT WE ARE THE TERROR OF THE ECOSYSTEM and it seems lost on us due to short-term profit and greed.

Most of our world organisations with the advance of technology are out of date, underfunded and unrepresentative of humanity and the planet and in need of radical overhauls, but it is of little concern to the populist at large.

However the good news is that in the back ground there is a revolution going on that is changing the way we live and is going to change evolution itself.

Once more we are being presented with opportunities that are opening up so quickly they are outpacing our collective capacity for making wise and far-sighted decisions.

Presently, only a tiny fraction of these opportunities have being realized.

We are releasing ourselves from the shackles of biology.

We are beginning to re shape our minds and our bodies.

If you think that the mapping the first genome require fifteen years and three billion dollars that to day a persons DNA can be mapped within a few weeks for a mere few hundred bucks which means nothing to most people, but soon we will be able to know what you will die from other than accident or bullet.

The road to designer medical care is well on the way for those that can afford it.

Our social media is blinding us to the true consequences of supplementary devices we now use to live our lives.

Or is it telling us that we are standing on the brink of becoming true cyborgs.

Like storing or brains in the cloud, having inorganic features that are inseparable from our bodies that are modify our abilities, our desires, personalities, and identities.

Do we care that bio-engineering could resurrect the Neanderthals. No

Do we care that we are braking the laws of natural selection with impunity by producing a rabbit that glows.  No

Do we care that we can produce mice that grow human ears, or change sex through hormonal treatment, or creating computer versus that are self learning, or bring back extinct creatures. Are these examples not the first steps of genetically engineer that are changing an individual abilities but also their social structure.  No

Tinkering with or genes won’t necessarily kill us.

But we might be fiddle with Homo Sapiens to such an extent that we will be no longer be Homo Sapiens.

Do we care that the Defense Advance research project Agency in the US is developing cyborgs out of insects? No

Do we care that computer algorithms are running the stock exchange or selecting target for drones, running our economies, teaching the next generation? No

What if we have quantum computer power?  Our successors will then function on a different level of consciousness.  Not  to worried we are human.

The Good news. If indeed we become cyborgs with some thing beyond consciousness that we cannot conceive, it seems doubtful that Christianity or Islam will be of much interest to us or our current social organisation of Communist or Capitalist, or which gender we are.

At this point you might think why worry we are only upgrading into a different type of human being.

Even though the implications of creating a mind inside a computer is far more dramatic than anything we have seen to date there is a great and urgent danger that our complacency which is hidden by science under the umbrella of The Gilgamesh Project (that justifies everything that science does by labeling it as curing diseases and saving human lives) is going to be nonrecoverable in the near future.

In my view its time we decide what we want to want by influencing the direction that scientists are taking.

If what is happening is allowed to continue and continue it will without imaginative social policies blight our society and there will be millions of people living wretchedly lives and reacting accordingly.

Globalization, technological changes, and governments policies have produced a class structure with a tiny plutocracy of billionaires, corporations and algorithms that are doing away with people.

We need a politics of time.

We need to scrap the United Nations and replace it with a new fully funded¨( see previous post) World People Protection Organisation that reflects the needs of the planet and all that live on it.

We must realize before its to late that the growing structural inequality is socially unsustainable. A basic world wage would be a good start. ( See Post We don’t live in a digital world the washing machine has changed lives more than the internet)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DESIRE

17 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by in Humanity., Social Media., Technology, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT DESIRE

Tags

, , , ,

How often have you said  “I crave this substance, long to see that person again, would die for another piece of something I just ate.

The first time that many people consume an alcoholic beverage, they have no particular desire to drink it. They just go along with the crowd. Then the alcohol hits and they discover that the feeling is very pleasant — in other words, rewarding.

I am sure like me that this is a subject you know little about and seldom question. Like many subjects this is a human attribute we take for granted.

Indeed my desire to explain clearly what I want to, I am sure will fail miserably.

Nothing Ventured nothing gained.

So let’s ask where does desire come from?

How could anything be a desire without one having an urge to obtain the object of desire?

The obvious answer is our senses, sight, smell, touch, taste, pain, combined with abstract stimulants like shape, color, and mood or for example Donald Trump’s taste leaves a lot to be desired.

Some of our thoughts are accepted, some are rejected, and others are ignored.

There are two distinctions of orientation or of intention of a subject toward any phenomenon: “to” or “from” it, attraction or repulsion, acceptance or rejection.

The words ‘desire’, ‘want’, ‘wish’, one’s desires provide one with reasons to act.

The three faces of desire are, in a nutshell, that desires are motivating, that satisfying desires is usually pleasurable, and that desires determine what will count as rewards and punishments.

There can be reward without desire.

When a desire is not satisfied, it is rational to change the world, not the desire.

Changing the desire would leave one with nothing, neither pleasure nor displeasure.

Desire is often for pleasure and satisfying desires is often extremely pleasurable, but the very possibility of a causal relationship between the two speaks to them being different from one another.

But then again for an individual attempting to realize his self-regarding desires, the satisfaction of the satisfaction of a desire is unmeaning.

By the time we desire something, we do not have to learn that getting it would be rewarding; we already believe that.

This does not mean that the desirability of desires is a good guide to anything else about them. There are certain kinds of conflict of desire and how do you distinguish between wishes and desires?

Desires are held to conflict just in case the satisfaction of one precludes the satisfaction of the other; second, a desire is said to be satisfied just in case the propositional content of the desire is true.

Yet little is actually known about well-being. The satisfaction of one’s present desires for present states of affairs can affect one’s well-being.

So if I desire fame today and become famous tomorrow, my well-being is positively affected only if tomorrow, when I am famous, I still desire to be famous.

An individual’s well-being is enhanced when her desires are satisfied.

“Well-being,” “welfare,” “utility,” and “quality of life,” all closely related concepts, and are at the center of morality, politics, law, and economics.

Subjective theories of well-being claim that how well our lives go for us is a matter of our attitudes towards what we get in life rather than the nature of the things themselves.

The concept of preference dominates economic theory today.

I could write till the cows come home on the misrepresentations of the bodies, desires and sexualities of people in the world which are embedded in the colonial histories, and in the social, economic and political complexities of the world, with all their racial, ethnic, class and religious diversity.

Exploiting the erotic is a foundational aspect of hegemonic knowledge production, war and colonization.

The distortion of the erotic is tied to the objectification of women, the reproduction of reductive Brown and Black and White masculinities, and to the sensationalization of our identities and lives, thus reinforcing consumerist and fundamentalist politics.

The erotic has been distorted and used to oppress women and distance them from their power.

The Internet stimulates continuing change in sociality and sexual markets.  Economic growth, globalisation and the Internet facilitate access to the world’s oldest profession.

Dating websites cater to people of all ages, all socio-economic groups, married and non-married. Some websites specialise in particular social and/or sexual groups, making it easier for people with arcane tastes and interests to meet up. Commercial sexual services have also take to the Internet, and advertise their services under the guise of ‘call girl’ or ‘escort’ services and the popular ‘Girl-Friend Experience’ (GFE).

As my interest here is to ask the question what is desire, where does it come from rather than the obvious male sexual desire which manifested at least twice as often as female desire I will leave this side of desire for others to comment.

It is sufficient to say that the commercial sex industry is impervious to prohibitions and cannot be eliminated. It should be completely decriminalised.

The sex industry is estimated to be worth over four billion pounds to the British economy.

Capitalism is the economy of desire with advertising its weapon.

Welfare economics defines individual welfare in terms of preference satisfaction or utility, and social welfare as a function of individual preferences.

The desire for status is a controversial topic. On the one hand, many theorists have argued that the desire for status is a fundamental human motive.

So what are desires like that we encounter in ourselves and others?

Will Goggle Glasses create desires?

Will artificial intelligence have desires.?

The only replacement for Desire is Excellence. That state is not, of course, within the experience of normal, sane mortals. Just look at the state of the world.

Can we explore space if we desire to be home.?

Here is a desire of mine. Don’t press the like button leave a comment.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S WHAT HAS CAPITALISM ACHIEVED

07 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Capitalism, Humanity., Unanswered Questions., WORLD POVERTY WHERE'S THE GLOBAL OUTRAGE

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

To understand the role of capitalism in modern economic times you must understand the word Growth.

Growth at any cost.  Which we are just coming to apprentice thanks to the Internet.

For a long time nothing much happened till Wheat conned humans into growing it.

It is not my intention here to address Money and Power. It is sufficient to say that money leads to power and corruption and that all three intermingle in the notoriously subject of Economics.

What I want you to do is to look at Capitalism that founded states and ruined them, opened up new horizons and enslaved millions, moved the wheels of Industry and drove hundreds of species of plants and animals into extinction, plundered the earth resources for profit, promoted science, all to the dethronement of a sustainable planet and ask yourself is it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

There can be no doubt without some system the human race would descend into barbarism based on nothing but self-interest.

Our cultural output throbs with this notion of self-interest. Just look at the present Refugee problem facing the European Union.

So would the collapse of Capitalism lead to misery?

Capitalism in all its credulity and inequality reflects mans barbarous nature. Indeed the horrors of ISIS are trumpeted so vehemently by the western press precisely because they fill this narrative.

However a dog eat dog world with which capitalism and the state justify themselves is in part a fallacy.

In fact nature teems with co-operation – both between animals, between species and within the ecosystem as a whole.

We are the same, but it is no coincidence that where we do co-operate these areas are dominated by capital and constructed in a way that systematically reward the uglier sides of our common nature.

We know that the world in unfair where the few have too much and the most have too little.

The feeling that Capitalism, inequality, and injustice are inevitable and the idea that to struggle for a better world is naive is coming to an end.

If we could only entrench the cooperative compassionate and empathetic sides of our nature as dominant values in society we would redesign our Capitalist world – to a world worth while living in.

The current state of our planet is affording all of us this opportunity.

How can we tackle the world problems ?

A good place to start would be to get Capitalism to pay for it.

By placing a World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over ($20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions, on all Drilling Wells.  This would create a perpetual pot out of Profit for Profit sake that could fund the inevitable cost of climate change.

In doing so we would redistribute the world’s wealth from the whole of the world. ( see previous Posts)

Sooner than later we are going to exhaust the raw materials and energy of the planet Earth. What will happen then?

Which is why, whenever the opportunity arises, we must be prepared to seize it.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS : Why those the universe exists rather than nothing.

06 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS : Why those the universe exists rather than nothing.

I am sure like me you have at some time looked up an wondered where does space stop.

My unscientific language does not seem to lend itself well to this topic nor my understanding of the Universe or God.

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves is and will be a mystery long after I have departed this world.

Some how for me the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed.

It seems impossible even if proven chromatically that all the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. Into to a tiny fireball that then exploded and gave rise to our early universe.

Lets say that again.

“All matter in the universe was once in a single point — the Big Bang singularity.”

But that’s not quite true because in Einstein’s formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached.

So what was there before the bang?

This is cosmology’s most fundamental question:

How did the universe begin?

The universe as we know it almost certainly started some 14 billion years ago. But was that the absolute beginning, or was there something before it?  This question seems like the kind of question that can never be truly answered because every time someone proposes a solution, someone else can keep asking the annoying question: What happened before that- God?

“If God existed in time, once time existed and time had a first moment, then God would have a first moment of existence.”

There would be a moment before which He did not exist, because there was no ‘before’ that moment . . . . Yet even if He . . . had a first moment of existence, one could still call God’s existence unlimited were it understood that He would have existed even if time did not.

I suppose it might be easier to get you head around  the Psalmist’s description of God: ” From everlasting to everlasting”

No.

I must admit it difficult to see how can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence but Religion’s central beliefs is that mankind needs a savior.

However, that belief becomes hard to sustain convincingly if we posit that a god created the universe and then let things make themselves via purely physical processes, because then sin and death aren’t the fault of man, but merely natural byproducts of the god-makes-things-make-themselves process. Sin and death, on that scheme, are no longer man’s fault, but God’s choice, for he must have known that these things would emerge via the stated process.

Still confused.  Don’t worry so am I.

When we look up we see a universe filled with grand cosmic structures — galaxies, clusters of galaxies, clusters of clusters called superclusters, and clusters of superclusters called galaxy filaments — some of the latter stretching a billion or more light-years across.

It therefore does not make sense to me that the universe has a non-existent state (or nothing) and so must be eternal in the sense of being persistent rather than necessarily temporally eternal (presumably the universe does not require the quality of time to exist).

So, strict nothing cannot logically or physically exist.

It’s simply hilarious that the Big Bang is asserted as having started with a form of physics that is completely unknown, and to validate it we have to use “dark energy” that is equally unobservable and unmeasurable.

These days we see big ideas like this do change, and it’ll be fun to see if this one does!

Most of us understand the Big Bang as the idea that our entire universe came from a single point, what astrophysicists call a “singularity.”

But what if we did not need a singularity to have a Big Bang?  Or could our universe’s Big Bang be an implosion of a previous universe?

What if our universe has no beginning or end? It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before collapsing into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang.

What if the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. This would eliminate the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. ( to be more precise)

The Big Bang model of the universe suggests that our entire universe came from a single point, what scientists call a

However the  big bang has been a fact of most of our lives since we were born. Presented as some sort of explosion that caused expansion that is to this day still expanding and will continue to do so for entirety.

Where does that leave us.

According to present day scientists when we look up we are looking into the past not the future.

However consider the following.

  1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.

2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.

3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, since the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

4. The universe began to exist.

From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.

From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.

From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

7. Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, since the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.

And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked is what everybody means by God.

Now, in atomic processes, the notions of space and time are no more than statistical notions ; they fade out when applied to individual phenomena involving but a small number of quanta.

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta.

If the future development of quantum theory happens to turn in that direction, we could conceive the beginning of the universe in the form of a unique atom, the atomic weight of which is the total mass of the universe. The whole story of the world need not have been written down in the first quantum like a song on the disc of a phonograph. The whole matter of the world must have been present at the beginning.

So did the big bang happened everywhere.

Some are claiming that the cosmos as a whole—the so-called “multiverse”—is eternal, but that it contains infinitely many individual universes (a consequence of modern inflation theory). This eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened.

Einstein described the universe as static, rather than expanding, but he later abandoned the concept as his “greatest blunder” after Edwin Hubble’s 1929 discovery that all galaxies outside our Local Group are moving away from each other.

Rapid inflation in every direction also explained why the universe we now observe is so homogeneous, and why the temperature of the background radiation left over from that primordial blast is uniform, in every patch of the sky, to one part in 100,000. The process of inflation had to be eternal, meaning that once it started, it never fully stopped.

If the universe were always inflating, and always expanding, would that imply that the universe itself was eternal and had no beginning?

Nothing can be created from nothing.” energy can neither be created nor destroyed, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself.

A universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed — far, far smaller than, say, a proton.

Come from nothing in the sense of their being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics.

But where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time?

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein’s general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past.

Quantum Mechanics also says that what ever can happen, does happen. That means that we should be seeing Universes popping put of nowhere spontaneously all the time.

Neither QM theories explains what is dark matter.  An invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes. It is made of what?

A part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic “bounce,” where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding.

In the end none of us a supply a creditable explanation.

When we get more powerful telescopes that can see “further back in time” (or farther away in physical space), we’ll start to see a wide array of galaxies, both old and young that would be common in any direction we would choose to look . . . because it’s the same universe everywhere.

Sorry that’s the best I can come up with. There are a few links below to help you make your mind up.

There is no Universe of existence other than now and now never comes into being.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨