Wireless organisms?

Can there be wireless organisms connected with wireless nerves? Can we imagine an organism that some day evolves somewhere, with its parts being movable/portable? Something that lives on as a single organism, transfers data between its detachable sensory, motor or processing parts, yet function as a whole single organism in a sense that its parts live together, or die together?

Simply put, nerves transfer information within the same organism, while senses do so in between organisms. Nerves are “wired” since electric signals need a immovable/unportable medium. But could it potentially exist an organism that uses wireless signals (light, sound, fragrance) to communicate between it’s detachable and portable parts? Something that uses electromagnetic waves, vibrations, chemical compounds or what else nature can provide?

Just imagine you could wirelessly send your hands to pick food for you and meanwhle sense and contol it, given that your hand doesn’t have a brain of its own. Then you would be something like a superorganism that is made of different portable alive parts that share a single central nervos system. Is such a creature imaginable somewhere in this big universe?

If yes, why our earth didn’t evolve any such wireless feature inside an organism? This is a bit counter-intuitive to me because such a mutation, implemented via any imaginable medium that nature would come up with (electromagnetics / chemicals / light / vibration) seems to me a kick-ass winner in any game of adaptation.

Here are few quick alternatives I can think of:

1. the issue of bandwith regulation:
Was it a difficult technical challange for nature to solve frequency interference? Regulating interference can be as limiting as much as motor acts are limited in the space. And then we know of one single dimension of data that is typicall carried by a wave (amplitude, frequency, etc.), while spatial dimensions are three! So organs better claim space than dedicate a frequency to themselves?

2. The problem of coverage:
Could it be caused by other technical issues like such as network coverage in distance?… When your hand gets to far from you for example!

3. The problem of becoming food!
May be the detached pieces without a complex scalable-by-size central nervous system can not move. It is argued that organisms need brains to move and that’s why brains are for. So would those little parts be eaten immediately and cause death to the full organism?

Educational Youtube Links

This is a list of the best educational channels I found on Youtube.

Categories are fuzzy and some channels are not as excellent as the others.

Pick one that you like and enjoy the weekend!

– Humanities/Philosophy:
1. The School of Life
2. Wireless Philosophy
3. Academy of ideas
4. RSAnimate
5. Big Think

– Math:
1. 3Blue1Brown
2. Numberhile

====================
– Physics:
1. The Royal Institute of Great Britain
2. Veritasium
3. PBS SpaceTime
4. Minute Physics

– Nature:
1. BBC Earth
2. Atlas Obscure: https://www.youtube.com/user/atlasobscura

====================
– Chemistry:
1. The Spangler Effect: http://www.youtube.com/TheSpanglerEffect
2. Chemical Bouillon: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx6IrJIvDl1LKw_yIhzHT0Q

– Biology:
1. The Brain Scoop

– General:
1. Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
2. TED-Ed
3. Vsause: https://www.youtube.com/user/Vsauce
4. AsapSCIENCE
5. Sci Show
6. Head Squeeze (Recently joined BBC Earth Lab)
7. It’s OK To Be Smart
8. SmarterEveryDay
9. PBS Idea Channel

Dream: Farming life in your galactic neighberhood!

This is not quite a dream, but inspired by one:

Today we are going to show the fastest ways to farm life around your nearby star systems. Say you wanna try to farm some life form in the dead parts of your galactic neighberhood. How would you do that?

Posting the actual life is extremely slow and inefficient. Seeds of life may be practical to transfer elswhere in your own planetery system, but they’re super slow to send to other stars. Life is just information, so you can just send its data.

Say you wanna plant a tardigrade with a bunch of bacteria to a dead planet 40 light years away, aiming at harvesting Internet or some Dyson sphere shit in few billion years.

Using the fastest and most reliable services such as Space FedEx this will take a couple of million years to send the seeds, that long time only to initialize the process.

Well instead, you can scan the organism, transfer its data with the speed of light and 3D print that life form right where your printer locates.

Of course, the problem at the first place is how to post that universal organic printer to another star; A machine that turns dust into a given uploaded life form.

For that you have two options:

1. Invent that printer and post it to a remote planet, then use it.

2. Wait for it to evolve on its own. Then communicate with it, hijack and use it to print your uploaded life forms.

Chances are that one of these two happen before the other one, even if you don’t do anything.

Whatever you do, don’t be a blind printer for other life forms. It’s galactic slavery.

Value-Fact Distinction?

There is this thing called “value-fact distinction”; it points out to the difference between “what is” and “what ought to be” (in Persian: «باید و نباید» vs. «هست و نیست»).

* * *

1. As a child I was not aware of this distinction. I think it is quite natural (a default setting) to experience the reality based on emotions and values and judge the world based on how it benefits us, as opposed to objective investigation out of mere curiousity.

That is, morality is – wrongfully and as a default mindset – assumed to be as objective as rationality.

* * *

2. As I grew up I started to spot relativity in our ethics and morals. I was convinced that factual statements are objective and can be evaulated as true or false, but ethical statements are subjective and right vs wrong is a matter of taste or perspective.

True/False and Right/Wrong duality may “feel” alike, and we apply both to our decision-makings in life. But we should not mix them while investigating the world: If we set out to inspect the objective reality, we should stick to the facts staying away from the subjectivity of ethics. Mistaking right or wrong for true or false is a trap.

Or facts are objective; values are not.

* * *

3. The weird thing is that the distinction between facts and values is fading again for me. They are coming together like when I was a child, but this time in a different way.

I ask what if facts and values are both a matter of perspective, in a fundamental way. That both rationality and morality are subjective?

Kids may know some things better, prior to their culturally biased upbringing.

Dream: Dead on Earth? Or burried alive under Mars!

I have decided to quickly draft my trippy dreams. Here comes the first one of them:

It was a couple of centuries later. Mars projects had succeeded to start to inhabit the planet and more and more people were moving to spend the rest of their lives there. Things were according to the plan up until a gigantic storm in the hostile atmosphere of Mars destroyed most of the infrastructure and cut several colonies off from each other and from the resources. The geologic planet swallowed those who were going to transform it and colonizers died a sad death without being able to recieve help from Earth.

The project failed and all the budgets were cut and reallocated to overcome environmental disasters on Earth and to advance other technologies including simulating humans and their lives. The aim of that project was to assure that in the event of the climate nightmare that the earth was awaiting, some data from our life and our civilization could survive. The project made a good progress and people started to run simulated copies of the world, and in many different variations. In fact the future data archelogists even simulated their previous generations (including us) based on the data points that was collected from us and found in the rescued data centers. They had looked inside our lives, what we had written to each other, pictures and so on to interpolate the unknown events in between. [Here the resemblance to Black Mirror’s episode “Be right back” is a coincidence, as this dream was seen before me watching the series]

Anyhow after many years someone comes along to revive the idle knowledge and the abandoned technologies of the old Mars projects, but this time with a different purpose: To burry the simlation data centers under the surface of the red planet. So if things on Earth go terribly wrong the simulation can keep going. It must be deep and secured under the Mars’s surface to be kept safe from meteors and geological changes there.

And they succeeded.

Now if such a future scenario for us is imaginable, we may ask: Which one are we? The physical bodies that think we are? Or the Digital ones burried under the surface of Mars, still alive as code while long-dead physically on Earth?

P.S. Also with an accidental resemblence to Black Mirror’s “Playtest” (as well as “White Christmas”) where everything takes place in a fraction of a second, there was also a reference to shorter time constants in the simulation compared to the much longer times things would take in the real world. In fact the most striking revelation about the dream was regarding an “echo-effect”, where people in the simulation also faced their own ecological boundaries and had to make simulations inside that simulation, of course even faster. And that cascade could go on forever in a way that total time series would converge, explaining a “great leap”; perhaps similar to the main idea behind McKenna’s time wave zero! Whatever. Just a dream!

Multidimensional-valued Logic

A practical question/idea for logicians out there (expressed poetically of course, since it is me):

I was thinking what if true and false are just feelings and not states of truth. Say feelings like perception of colors. [Come on, it’s post-truth era.]

So we made up this language and then this two-valued logic and painted a monochrome picture of the truth.

Until this fuzzy guy came along and gave truth different shades and so painted this grey-scale image.

And then that non-monotonic guy came and animated that still image.

fuzzy

Now, is there any way we can paint this old movie in colors?! Multidimensional-valued truth, I am talking about.

I mean most of syntactical logic is just mechanical word play. Like this post. So why not making another truthful logic for that, too? You get cited, I promise!

Base Conciousness and the Mind Locus

So there’s assumed to be this regular, normal and non-altered state of consciousness; a “base” state. you can call it “home”. And then there are these other places that we can go visit sometimes, where reality gets distorted:

Dream, seizure, love, fever, artistic creation, histric laughter, tunel vision, psychedelic experience, meditation, orgasm, flow.

None of these states are considered “home”. Home is that “normal” setting, that holy centre of coordinates in what you may call the “mind locus”, the phase space of our human mind states.

But is there really an absolute coordinates for home? Where we perceive the reality as it is, or less distorted? And then getting distant from it the reality starts to look wavy and misrepresent itself? And then consciousness gets “altered”?

Where does that assumption come from?

Is there really a non-altered state of consciousness? Sure, there may be a physiological basis for that so-called “waking beta wave state” where most of us spend most of our times. But who says this is exactly the coordinates where the cosmic telescope to discover reality locates?

We don’t have to hack what we are hard-wired to perceive, but is that “norm” really physiological? Could it be just cultural? Or some of its dimensions at least?

And say there’s a “home”, is it really where we are?

Who says we see reality better when we are sitting sober behind a microscope? Who says we are sober?? That stoned man under the bridge is sober for his own sake, experiencing his own reality. And that well-dressed business man appears high to him. Every conciousness is “altered”. None of their minds are parked at home. There’s no home!

There’s no absolute frame of reference, just a common place. A state where people happen to colonize that phase-space more.

Now right a geometry, a theory of relativity for that space!

Two-year-rule

You know the two-year-rule for clothes — get rid of apparel that you haven’t worn in two years?

There should be a similar app or program for Facebook friends. After-all people are more influential in our lives than clothes. You know that nice feeling when you open the closet and all items that you page through are proper and wearable! Then why nobody has made an app so next time when you check your social networking closet, it would be a more relevant and appealable showcase?

I tell you why. Because it doesn’t need an app.

Actually there’s no app or program to rid from useless clothes either. Still people manage it.

You haven’t had a strong friendship policy to start with? No like, message, care, friendly vibe or interesting content exposure for a long time? Not a considerable past spent together either?

The “two-year-rule” is there for you! Just find your own time consant.

Yuval Noah Harari and Terence McKenna

I would like to promote this TED dialogue on Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide, by Yuval Noah Harari, despite still suspecting that the speaker has possibly cherry-picked most of his original ideas from the rich and diverse idea pool of our lord and savior, Terence McKenna!

I claimed this once before and was questioned by a friend, that why I even care who said it first? [Hell, I don’t!]. That what matters most for the message is that it spreads itself afterall, under any brand. And I do agree that we need good salesmen and “insiders” to tune down crazy but crucially good ideas and to make them digestible for certain crowds who control the planet. Important crowds as business-oriented as our politicians, or as constipated and rigid as the mainstream body of the scientific enterprise, in this case for the easily-impressed TED community. So it is still good for those memes to be transmitted under any brand, whether the messenger is carrying an original mutation or not. That’s not the point here.

The point is that a picture of something is rarely as good as the actual deal itself. And if you, for example, would have the chance to meet the predecessors of Dalai Lama you wouldn’t practice Yoga or Zen or whatever mindfulness with a rather successful Yoga teacher in Oslo sentrum! Would you?

You wouldn’t, independent from the revenue that the Yoga school generates or the number of their social media subscribers. They may be clever and passionate enough to understand some of those messages and turn them in to a self-promoting successful carrier, and in good faith even. But I think it leaks out if something is the real deal, or just a useful modification.

So I repeat, if you had been exposed to a good deal of the diverse meterial laid out humbly in the 80s and 90s by a bunch of crazy marginalized visionary thinkers including Terence McKenna (who has huge blunders himself, no doubt), then the book Sapiens and similar contents would not have much more value to add to you, let alone impressing you.

The lost treasure I am refering to was largely limited to a tiny audience, a ring of psychedelic substance users and hidden in controversy and censorship, up until lately that it has become digitally accessible. Many of those videos are put up by stoned fans and sound like propaganda as accompanied by rave music and cheesy fractal images which may be a turn off, however, you may as well find yourself searching through them for the actual substance.

Our society is in a way double screwed. Rational goal-oriented folks are largely brain-washed while open-minded intuitive people are irrationally stoned, in a metaphorical sense. Too little overlap between practicallity and vision.

Anyhow, if I believe in the genuinity of the prizes that this guy has won (including something called the Polonsky Prize for “Creativity and Originality”), at best the jury was largely unaware that these have been said decades ago.

Cleverly modified, or simply redundant, I would like to promote this dialogue. We need many more of these guys in troubled times like this. So, thumbs up!

Sporadic on the simulated reality

hqdefault

Simulated reality

Elon Musk amongst others brings some meta-statistical argument to show that we are more likely to be in a simulation than not; that we are most definitely not flesh, but words made flesh.

I don’t know how we can take someone’s word seriously, whose self is just an avatar in a simulation. That someone want to colonize Mars merely does not give more validity to their words, especially when they’re themselves made of words!

So what he is popularizing is given credit to the philosophers Nick Bostrom (2003) and Hans Moravec (1998) earlier. And I have found modern instances as old as Alan Watts (1972) expressing the same argument (here as the first fantasy out of three).

Transcending yourself, your simulators and theirs!

Whoever said it first, what matters is who did it first!

Saying that our bodies are not hardware and is instead of the sort of information/software is probably an unfalsifiable claim. It is like placing an object next to its meta level of existence and yet comparing them as two similar things. It is paradoxical like Russel’s antinomy that deals with a type of whether a set can be a member of itself or not. And in my opinion is as valid as saint Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument to prove God, brought a thousand years ago.

But well, if we are in a simulation and we can one day prove it, then we have understood things about those who programmed us. So why not continuing to extrapolate the transcendental cascade to know things about those who programmed them? And may be even hinting our simulators that they may be in a simulation too, and in what kind of simulation even.

Maybe that’s why they simulated us…

How to find out? With a simulation may be. Like program something that could tell us what’s going on beyond us and here’s the catch: beyond our creators and also their simulator!

A cascade of interventionist Gods

Now a deeper philosophical question is not whether we are in a simulation. As it can be interpreted differently based upon the definition of the God/simulator and is an unfalsifiable claim, a matter of faith. The more interesting question is, assuming that we are in a form of a simulation, is our creator an interventionist e onor not! i.e. Whether we are in a supervised simulation that changes sometimes based on how we act (are there miracles?), or alternatively we are just given a bunch of rigid rules and then left alone to compute.

Which itself boils down to whether our simulators are supervised by their intervening God or not.

If our creators are interventionist, how about their Gods? An interventionist God may be beyond us and so appear to us as having free will but for those who made that creature, itself could only be a type of abandoned code left to go down its own path. That cascade logically never ends.

Simulation depth

Opening this discussion, there can be follow-up questions:

What kind of simulation are we in? What are its boundaries and limits compared to our regular manmade type of simulations? Are we in a familiar type of simulation; say a huge multithreaded discrete finite algorithm? Or could it be fundamentally more complex than our currently familiar notion of algorithmic computation, a simulating program?

If we are role playing in a discrete and finite type of computation, then a full history of space-time can be given in a humangous binary file or technically a large integer on the tape of a Turing machine. And then we are some chunks of information on it; enumerable combination of finite symbols rendered locally or globally frame by frame, discretely in time (basic notions known in complexity of computation).

And in that scenario, will that universal machine even differs if a tree falls in a forest but no one is around to hear it? Will there be a sound calculated when there’s no ear? Or is it more likely (and efficient) for that simulation to go only as far as the observer goes?