Sunday, 30 September 2018

Falsification

In 1st year Biology classes at Uni we were taught about Falsification. The example was creating an experiment to test for the existence of Vultures in Hyde Park London. What hypothesis should we chose "there are" or "there are not" vultures in Hyde Park. I was confused and got it wrong, and I never understood this even after doing Karl Popper.

But did I get it wrong?

The traditional approach is to set the hypothesis "there are no vultures in Hyde Park". Then we do a study and if we find a vulture we have definitely falsified the hypothesis. You definitely can't go around saying there are no vultures, when one was found.

The problem issues from the meaning of not finding a vulture. This can mean 2 things: (1) there actually are none, or (2) you didn't do a bigger enough search. Like the Loch Ness monster, they may exist, but have just been evading detection. How given you didn't find them can you determine which hypothesis is true. So not finding things is not proof they don't exist.

But my confusion stemmed from the idea of a negative hypothesis. Supposing I chose the hypothesis that "there are vultures in Hyde Park" and my lecturer chose the hypothesis "there are no vultures in Hyde Park". We go out and search and return from our studies with no vultures. Neither of us is forced to change our hypothsis. He can go on saying there are no vultures, I can go on saying there are vultures we just didn't find them just like Nessy. And so it goes on.

Eventually the accumulating evidence may force me to say it is very unlikely that there are vultures given that no study has ever found one. And equally my lecturer can go on to say we are almost certain there are non as no study has ever turned on up. But we are just mirror images.

The big day comes when we find a vulture. My lecturer is falsified and must reject his hypothesis as per scientific theory, but I can truthify my hypothesis and can hold it as fact. So where in this is the necessity to falsify? We are just mirror images of each other.

I have only ever concluded that falsification theory forces you to hold the theory that fits the existing state. No vultures have ever been seen in Hyde Park so we start with the hypothesis that conforms to this: there are no vultures. Then the occurrence of one falsifies the current hypothesis.

But since we are talking about vultures, in an ontology of vultures, as far as I'm concerned 28 years after that lecture it doesn't actually matter which hypothesis you chose: the experimental process is identical regardless. And whether you end up being falsified or truthified is just a matter of which side of the fence you stood at the start.

Until today when I have a line of computer .NET library code that isn't conforming to documentation. I am just writing a unittest and want to test a series of options to see if I can get one to works. I will debug test it so it selects the line it fails at. Now I could write a series of tests that see whether my variations work, but it will stop at each line and I won't find the one that works. Better to write tests that agree with the expected unwanted result which is it will fail. Then if any line does pass the code will break and I will see the line that i want. This is falsification in action. I want something that is true, so I test by looking for false results. When it breaks I have what I wanted.

Of course my contrary student self might write a computer test environment that ignores failure and only breaks when it succeeds. In either testing environment you'll get the result you want. Still after all these years not entirely sure, but the Unit Test environment here is definitely inspired by Karl Popper and my lecturer!

Using Falsification for the first time in 28 years is such a momentous moment for me I'll post the test:

Altho I'm still confused. Perhaps Karl Popper is just a red-herring. This is not actually falsification. Yes I am assuming the statement are false, and breaking when a test fails that test.

But translating into Vultures its not clear. What is the hypothesis? I am saying there "are vultures" and the test would break when that is True, and the lecturer is saying "there are no vultures" and would break when that is false. But the test IsFalse() breaks when the statement it is testing is true. So actually "there are vultures" is the statement here. IsFalse("there are vultures") will pass until you find one. So actually despite my celebrations, it seems that actually in this situation I'm Truthifying even while using IsFalse().

Lesson here: when you get confused stick with it - no amount of famous Philosophers or lecturers can help you.


How misunderstood are Good and Bad

I had the misfortune of watching styxhexenhammer666's vlog on being an ex-satanist and his attempted interpretation of Satanism as being a non-spiritual practical ideology of liberty.

Indeed it is. And the traditional view of God is also that he is a tyrant who seeks absolute obedience from his subjects and only the brave have the guts to rebel and seek freedom, as indeed did Lucifer the shining angel of light. So the religious view is in accordance with the secular view completely. Whether you want to believe in God/Devil or not does nothing to change the ideology: it is about personal freedom. And if you think that God/Devil are just metaphors then you can continue to think in terms of them without bringing in the whole irrelevant discussion on whether they "exist" or not. I will use God/Devil as metaphors without getting involved in any irrelevant questions of ontology... Lets stick to the point: liberty and evil.

So what is wrong with that? And here is the confusion. Remember the "Devil" has no power other than deception. People like to use mystical images of the devil, and associate him with various supernatural powers, and believe he can get you what you want, and he is associated with "Evil" and all manner of fantastical stuff. And this is in fact all true. But the whole point of spiritual power is that it doesn't come from the "deity" you worship, it comes from You. "gods" have no power themselves, it all comes from the Central Power of the Universe which is the same as You. If you worship a certain type of "god" you are simply strengthening your own resolve and power. In the secular world we see it all the time in "positive" thinking movements and being in the "zone", being focused and resolved to do things. When the Self is focused and resolved to do things its power is hugely magnified. If you really believe things then there are no limits. In Buddhism this is fully recognised and understood, which is one reason I respect Buddhism so much, it gives an extraordinarily full account of all these processes. Chanting, which even Jesus dismissed as the "pagans babbling" is, if done with sincere faith and belief, a way of generating mental focus and resolve. Meditation even more so. So whether you chant Guan Yin and seek to manifest her fearless love for all mankind within yourself to overcome obstacles and fears, or you chant the name of the Devil to generate strength to pursue your personal goals, or whether you pray to Jesus and ask the Holy Spirit to enter you so you can carry out God's destiny for you in fact they are all doing the exact same thing which is empowering You.

So all spiritual practice is about self-empowerment regardless what branch you follow. So how is Satanism different from the others? What is this Liberty that appealed to styxhexenhammer666? And how does Good/Bad fit into this.

SO the key difference between the types of Self Empowerment are whether they empower you to follow your own desires or whether they empower you to respond to other people's desires too. This appears to be the single source of confusion. Should we pay 100% attention to what we want only, or should we find time for other people.

Put like that lots of people will think. If I give 10% of my time to other people then I only have 90% for myself and who is going to give me that? I can only be sure of myself so I'll take 100% for myself and other people can do 100% themselves. It all works out. You can't go anywhere from here, 100% is taken by everyone and that's it.

But in reality this is not how things are. I go to a party and there are 5 friends there, and we all make an effort to find time to be together and we have a great time. This is impossible if we all stayed at home. When people get together the result is more than if they are separate. Indeed the Satanist knows this, being in a group of Satanists generates more power than if they did it alone. There is an extra bit. This in fact is why Satanists form groups. But how in a world where the self is 100% can there be more? Where does the extra "good time" when you get together come from? How when 5 people put there rents together to move into a big house, do they all get a share of a big house? When alone they would each have a small flat? There are obvious things going on in the world where the sum of parts is more than the parts. If you take a sacrificial human and break them apart into organs you have less than when you started, they for example cannot hold a conversation anymore - this is the most noticeable change possible seeing how the parts of the body in a dead person are not the same as the functioning whole.

So examining this way in which people actually fit together in a bigger entity, and how our lives are actually the result of this interconnection to other people is the way to better things than can be achieved by the I AM 100% view. This is the lowest possible view, the common denominator, where you descend when everything else fails. But the Devil being the ultimate Hoaxer makes this seem like a safe place to hide, where we think we have power. It is an illusion. This god is actually the only god who makes things worse off in the long run. You may initially feel you have self power and you embark on a I AM 100% road, but as the world around you starts to do this you realise how much you gained from parties and the interaction with other people.

Finally "desires" are real, regardless who they belong to. Examining this we see that there is actually no reason why "my" desires are more important than others. True if we don't attend to our own desires we will die, but we won't accidentally ignore our desires (tho a lot of us actually do - see below!) cos when we feel hungry that hunger often gets notified before other people. But in reality there is no difference between 2 hungry people. How do you chose who to feed? Well you work together to solve your mutual hunger. The key to solving desires is mutuality, and thoughts that think "I'll just do it myself" while successful are the least powerful thought. The Devil's goal is actually to crush us, it is always worth remembering this. He is 100% himself so why would he give even 1% for us?

Now there is Nietzsche, and there are negative emotions which some would say are actually the positive emotions and they would say we are brainwashed by Christianity and Slave Consciousness into denying ourselves our desires. The only problem with Nietzsche from a factual point of view is that the idea of denying yourself did not come from the Jews in Slavery. His idea here is that imprisoned by the Egyptians the Jews came to reject the freedom of their captor Pharaohs and instead justify and internalise their own lack of freedom. From this came the religion of subservience to an all powerful captor (God) and the virtue of being obedient slaves from which came Protestant Work Ethic and ultimately Capitalism where we live in a world completely subservient to paying off debt held with the rich and powerful.

Now don't think I am not 100% sympathetic to this view, but there is a problem. In India there is the exact same idea. And while India experienced the Aryan invasion which enslaved the Southern Indians it is the Aryan religion which speaks of self-mortification! (and which probably became Judaism anyway). Tapas is the energy gained from self-mortification which leads to all kinds of supernatural powers and mental abilities. The whole idea of spirituality in opposition the physical materialism has just as rich a history here as in the West. Altho it is important to make a point here. In the post Platonic West oppositions are seen as absolute: in the fight there can be only 1 winner. Before Plato and elsewhere in the world while one fight may end with a winner and loser, "Fighting" itself is endless and so it is not the winning/losing that matters but seeing the eternal struggle between opposites bound inseparably in the Battle - as Kierkegaard put it "try and separate the dancer from the dance" may as well have been separate the "spirit from the body" or "the winner from the loser" or the "capitalist from their possessions." So the Resistance of desires vs the Embracing of desires is an eternal battle with no winner of loser but the very nature of being a desiring being is wondering whether to obey our desires or reject them. So the matter of desire is not as Nietzsche put it in freedom to pursue ones desires, but in the battle to manage ones desires at all. I forget the film but someone says to a King "but you can have anything you desire" and the King says forlornly, "but who gets to choose what he desires?" We are all slaves to desire unless we can master them. Sanskrit literature points this out, "It takes a great man to command an army, and an even greater one to master themselves." The hardest person to be in charge of is our self, and this is the Tapas that the Hindus speak of. If I have decided to run a marathon, but in the morning I decide to sit in and watch TV it is hard to see whether we are doing what we want... however really we know full well we have let ourselves down and the watching TV was not what our true wish - we just did it to avoid stepping up to do the run. And that is it in fact, the goal of this blog entry: Our "True Wish" is the hardest thing to obey. We are always tempted away from our true wish, and the weak man is easily dissuaded from their true path, easy to distract, easy to weaken the resolve of, easy to manipulate, fickle and unfaithful to themselves. This is the whole point of Religion to give us icons and a focus for our True Wish so that we may find support in not being distracted.

But with all that said, who even knows their True Wish. It takes a special form of honesty to admit that we have failed our self, that we have not been true to our self, that we have not given our best. I think for Satanists what they gain from congregation with other Satanists is mutual hiding of this recognition that they have failed themselves. This type of freedom, the freedom to let oneself down--and I don't mean let other people down, and their expectations of you, which is just personal weakness also-- I mean inner-eye to inner-eye let oneself down and ones own True Wish.

There is no easy way to finish this blog, because in the end it is so personal. You cannot tell people their True Wishes. As Kierkegaard puts it, the Divine Madness is not the same as the Aesthete even while being a personal experience. It does not rely upon social justification and ethics, and it does not rely upon private motivation but is a hybrid of personal experience which never-the-less has universal significance. When the True God speaks to us (in whatever form you wish to see Him) he does so privately but what he says effects the Universe. To weak minds this might give a sense of megalomania, but it's complete mundane in fact. Seeing the True God in the simple drinking of a cup of tea is what makes us Our True Self. Doing so without distraction, in the full knowledge that this is what we have chosen to do, and it is our wish, not coerced by others, done simple and perfectly, without hidden motives, without desire to impress or hurt others or be showy or achieve some effect other than what it is: this is True Wish and True Action.

I wonder whether a suicide person ever gets taken over by a type of Divine Madness, where suddenly the road of their destiny opens up and they see it is as a fitting final page of their life. But I doubt this very much in fact. I think acts of destruction like this are always secretly motivated by wishing to hurt other people, and they are never a True Wish from our own Hearts. How ever things may seem today, we know that tomorrow is a completely different day, and if we are ready to step up onto our old selves and let them go admit not pursuing our True Wish, tomorrow is then a completely different Self also - indeed everything can be different tomorrow. But the problem with huge acts of destruction is that tomorrow is very likely to carry the impact of that act and be very hard to get away from so really we are simply making it even harder to move on. Dying is never the end, it is just the Start. When we die (or others die), sadly we do not leave ourselves behind, we only destroy the body, but the Wishes and the Destiny still spread out before us, and we just add problems to something we are only putting facing until the future. Like with God/Devil at the start lets not get into a ontological discussion of whether souls really exist or not and whether there is a real afterlife etc, it is irrelevant to understanding how things are: point is whether they exist or not has made no difference to whether i can live of not so it doesn't matter for everyday life of which I am talking. When I am confronted with people who say they want to hurt or kill me, I always accept it, but ask them a simple question "I can't stop you, but can you tell me how this will help you?" Acts of violence are never True Wish, negative wishes and emotions, abuses and hurt are never our Deepest Wish - they seek only to enact revenge, or make a huge display so others notice us, respect us or in some way get other people to do something for us. It is better not to expect from others, in this at least the Satanist is right: be 100% yourself, never expect others to help, support or make you feel good: this is not in our power no matter who we pray to. Think about it: if everyone is 100% themselves then we can't change them or expect anything different from them than what we get. This is correct. But where the Satanist is wrong is that this doesn't stop us from being better than that our self. Help others, support them and make them feel good is very much in our power! And if we think it through there is no reason not do this. And, while The Devil will say all manner of negative things like, why bother, they're not worth it, I deserve more than them, I like to hurt them more than make them feel good, they never did anything for me, I am hurting so why should they feel good - despite this onslaught of negative stuff our True Wish is to feel and be Good, and we know this is a universal wish shared by all, and so the True Wish is that everyone feels and is Good. If we pursue that purely selfishly and diligently we will gain the greatest power that exists in the Universe and which the Devil is trying his hardest to blind us to because he does not want us to Shine more than the angel of light.

Wednesday, 26 September 2018

Category Mistake in brain science

So I think it would be nice to do some experiments on my own neurons... and then I realise it would be easy I just need to touch something to stimulate a neuron and feel the response... and that the rub in Ryle's terms we have a category mistake.

When we "touch something" there are 2 ways of talking and thinking about the event.

(1) There is the usual I have touched something and now I can feel it.

(2) But then there is the scientific view: some neurons have just been stimulated and transmitted a signal to my brain. It is interesting that Buddhism uses this type of thinking to drive a wedge into sensation and ask us to see it as a constructed process that is not inherently "real."

It is worth noting that type (1) thinking, the unreflective, habitual mode where things are just things and we get on with life without introspection - we pull that cup of tea near until we feel it touches our lips and take a sip - is considered an illusion. It takes things to just be and takes sensation to be things themselves. When we see a car coming for us on the road, we step out of the way to avoid being hit by that car. Yet in type 2 thinking that is not a car, it is the sensation caused by a car in our eyes... it is a process.

At least seeing these 2 way so thinking side by side is a great achievement... cos it is a third way of thinking that is neither and can examine both.

=== Update 30/09/2018
While pushing one idea here I have got the Buddhist bit completely!!! wrong. Reality in Buddhism and Hegel et al. is just what is in appearance, and the "what is behind the appearance" is the illusion, which occurs in thoughts and imagination. So "thinking" that neurons are behind my sensations is the illusion: it is the occurrence and appearance of sensations/phenomena that is the thing we can actually observe and so it is real. So the cup of tea touching our lips when we drink is as real as you can get: the appearance of that sensation IS REALITY. If we subsequently think that this was a cup touching our lips, or a neuron firing this is a story/narrative which is never real and the reality here is the fact we have the occurrence of the thought.

So returning to the original post, the division is between 2 ways of thinking only. In reality there is only 1 way anyway.

Wednesday, 12 September 2018

Instructive issues with a trading simulation

It is basically poker. All traders buy bids in the market and get an equal share of the winnings if they are right.

I want to game to be infinite so I can look at the time series, but very quickly someone goes bankrupt as the unlucky finance the lucky. This is the first observation of economies with a closed amount of wealth (like a gold currency): since the amount of gold never changes all that happens is that people lose wealth to other people.

To create new traders to replace bankrupt ones a few decisions must be made:
(1) What to do with their debt.
(2) How to finance the creation of a child.

(1) I've chosen to apply a universal tax so that national debt is recovered as a percentage of your wealth.
(2) Again this could be via national taxation, but the question arises which child to create?

In this sim traders have DNA strings which decide their bidding behaviour. So the question is which DNA string to replicate for the children.

If we adopt universal taxation then we could create children from random DNA to be impartial. Alternatively we could create children from the DNA of the most successful traders to improve the trading skill of the population.

The most realistic is not to tax but to ask traders if they wish to create a child. If they spend too much on a child they risk redundancy themselves, so their is a risk involved. So the question then arises what is the reward for a trader to have a child?

In terms of the population this has the great benefit that it will evolve a better population. But from the point of view of the individual trader what gain is there in having a child?

One benefit in the real world is that you have a loyal helper. But how do I encode that in this sim without making it overly complex.

The goal is just to create time series for study that reflect populations of competing bidders. But the question of how to replace the bankrupt seems to be quite a huge one.

Done it: proof that Jewish thinking is limited. Spent most of the day avoiding triggering ChatGPT but it got there.

So previously I was accused of Anti-Semitism but done carefully ChatGPT will go there. The point in simple terms is that being a Jew binds y...